[DoughtyOne]

Breaking up Iraq would create as many problems as it solved IMO.

Turkey would go ape over a Kurd state.

[jwalsh07]

Ralph needs to rethink the geography of Iraq.

[RobbyS]

You can't say that Peters doesn't think big. Anyway sounds like a workable plan. Bush could say, sadly, well we TRIED to keep Iraq together. We failed and must go to plan B. Federalism has always been on the table anyway and given the number of Kurds in the region, they provide a big enough force to draw upon.

[M Kehoe]

Greater Kurdistan must be a long-range goal.

My Turkish friends might not like that, but hey, ya'all really f*&ked up last March.

5.56mm

[RightWhale]

It was kind of surprising that Iraq wasn't immediately broken into these three parts. The Admin announced that they would not break up the country, and that was for reasons unknown but probably related to conditions imposed by other countries including those that didn't participate in the war.

[Pharmboy]

While it undoubtedly would create some new problems, I think--in the long run--it makes the most sense.

[mrsmith]

This would be the best way of stabbing the Kurds in the back.

Turkey, Syria, Iran and the Sunni arabs can finish them off once and for all.

But why we'd want to do that is as much of a puzzle to me as why we'd want to reward Syria with the Sunni arab areas of Iraq.

[Grzegorz 246]

It's interesting, but I think that Iraqi people should decide in voting if they wont to live in one country or in three.

[Quix]

HAVE LONG FELT THIS WAY.

It would be tricky.

Complications aplenty. But, I think, in the end, fewer.

Would need to be some way to work out equitable resource sharing and perhaps access to the sea.

But I think one of the craziest things Europeans did there and in Africa was to ignore tribal realities.

[Filibuster_60]

Bad idea. All that oil in Kurdish territory is useless if it has to be exported across hostile territory. The Kurds are literally surrounded and nothing will ever change that.

[rightofrush]

Why not invite the three regions to become the 51th, 52nd, & 53rd states? They could be named Exxon, Shell, and Richfield.

[Cicero]

I don't think this solution, or any other, will work as long as Syria and Iran are free to send in agents and stir up trouble. Which means, IMHO, that Bush has to hold things together until November and then topple the Mullahs and the Baathists in Syria. The latter will almost certainly take a full-fledged invasion. Iran may be ripe for internal revolution, but it won't happen unless we intervene again.

And that probably isn't possible until after the election.

[Ranger]

I think this is a good plan. I would add that we put a big military base around the Kirkuk airfield, we set up a permanent presence there to assure them that the US supports those who support us. Assure the territorial integrity of Turkey at the same time we make it clear we support a free Kurkish area in the former Iraq. I think the Shiites will come around and if they can support direct elections and the democracy that follows then let them. Let the Sunni's do their Sunniland thing, but since there aren't a great number of oil fields there, then its just tough cookies.

[goldstategop]

It makes more sense than trying to hold something the British set up to protect their oil interests by force. It would comport with our ideal of self-determination and leave Iraq's future to be determined by its disparate peoples. We can reward our friends and punish our enemies. The Sunni insurgency will wither quickly on the vine if the Sunni Arabs see they can't get the whole country back under their thumb. As far I can see, the only drawback in Ralph Peters' plan is that it would make the Turks, the Eurotrash, the Russians, and the Arabs even angrier at us. But they hate us anyway and its time to be thinking about relocating our troops to Kurdistan and leaving the Sunni Arabs to rot in their little rump patch of Araby - which is about all they really deserve.

[Koblenz]

Jonah Goldberg had a better idea. Leave Iraq as a single country, but make the central government fairly weak. Then have many -- not just three, but probably 30 or so -- provinces or states or whatever, that would do most of the governing. Schools, sewers, police, etc. The thing is, some of these would elect fundies, but some wouldn't. People could migrate to the state they wanted to live under, and the whole country would wind up more stable than if there was a strong central government.

[gimmebackmyconstitution]

The idea that Mr. Peters has put forth makes sense to me. It is hard to believe that the article was written 9 months ago. We desperately need to change tactics in Iraq, and control the borders w/ Syria &Iran. If we don't W will lose on Nov 2. By compartmentalizing Iraq into 3 areas of operation, we can better control each sector and respond to the needs & desires of people from that area. These religious fanatics are really screwing up the works,IMO and we must sort them according to their individual needs. I would be very interested in what Ralph Peters has to say about Iraq Right now.

[xzins]

Three states in one federation is going to be more difficult than it might be worth. A strong central government tying them together will be an extremely difficult compromise to reach.

What do you think about a confederacy with a weak central government and the 3 states involved in areas of agreed-upon cooperation?

[OrioleFan]

Then when we leave, natural selection will run it's course.

[Theophilus]

Divide And Conquer!