Skip to comments.Was Joe Biden right? [about dividing Iraq]
Posted on 06/15/2014 6:31:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The advance of Islamic militants across Iraq has brought fresh criticism for the Obama administration but may also deliver a grim measure of vindication to one very prominent White House official: Vice President Joe Biden.
In recent months, former officials and pundits questioned and even ridiculed Bidens foreign policy acumen.
Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates wrote in his memoir that Biden was wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue of the past four decades. And former Secretary of State Hillary Clintons new book Hard Choices notes that Biden remained skeptical about launching the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011 and that others in the administration were at odds with Biden. I thought we should go for it, Clinton states, a contrast she has also drawn attention to on the road since leaving office.
This week paints Bidens judgment in a far different light.
Recent events in Iraq call attention to his prediction nearly a decade ago that the war-torn nation was heading towards a break-up along sectarian lines and to a prescription he offered to try to manage that reality by granting Sunnis, Shia and Kurds greater autonomy over various parts of the country.
In other words: while Biden may have taken a beating repeatedly in recent years for some foreign policy calls hes made, his judgment on Iraqs capacity to stay united now looks almost prescient.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Blind pig and truffles comes to mind!
No doubt that an advisor gave Joe the idea.Nothing comes out of that swamp known as Biden’s mind.
Should have divided Iraq up into sections a dozen years ago. Iraq boundaries were arbitrary, as the area is tribal in nature, and was never a stable country.
Hey, a broken clock is right twice a day.
The question being decided as we watch is who gets Baghdad and where will the southern line between Sunni and Shia territories be drawn?
Joe Biden right? Snort...
This guy is a one-man refutation of the principle of a stopped clock being right twice-a-day. A stopped Biden clock would maybe be half-right once a day, at best.
And that would be after a session in the Krell ‘brain boost’ headgear...
Biden did not and does not know what he is talking about. A stupid comment about dividing up Iraq years ago does not explain the many Obama administration errors that have led to the current disaster in the middle east.
It seems likely that Biden kept a back channel open to his colleagues in the senate. No one in the administration can be blamed for his “insights.”
By what method would the various sects be horded into their assigned areas? And how would said division be maintained?
Partitioning Iraq would seem a sensible idea.
In 20/20 hindsight this seems like a good idea...
I would propose no matter how the country is divided...there will still be civil war, three factions instead of two...
Islamist have blood lust breed into them...
There are not really happy unless they are killing each other...
I say....may they be overcome with happiness...
As if he came up with that idea. People have been saying that for decades.
The biggest problem with letting the different groups have more autonomy is that it would destabilize the region even more. All of those groups would spend more time trying to kill each other. If the world wants oil from the Middle East, then it will have to tolerate the necessary evil of strongman dictators keeping the tribal populations within their arbitrary borders in check. Of course, destabilization opens the door for Iran, Russia, and Chinato fill the power vaccuum.
". . . Ankara has entered into energy deals with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), something which has infuriated the central Iraqi government in Baghdad but which has helped the Kurds further build a foundation for their independence [yes true that] Ankara has been so alarmed by the growing Kurdish autonomy [in Syria and tolerated by Syria, I believe] that it reportedly has provided support for [ISIS] in their fight against the Kurdish militia that controls the region [of Syria],which is affiliated with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)." [my emphasis]
". . . the takeover by ISIS in recent days of Mosul and other cities . . . Ankara will likely not only have to deepen its relationship with the KRG . . . but also alter its approach to the Kurds in Syria [I ask: but demand that the Kurds in Syria reject the PKK?]"
"Explains Lehigh University professor and Turkey expert Henri Barkey in an analysis piece on Al-Monitor website: The crisis may force the Turks to rethink some of their policies in Syria. To date, Ankaras friendship with the Kurds stopped in Iraq; Erdogan and his government have taken an uncompromising position against Syrian Kurds led by the Democratic Union Party of Kurdistan (PYD), an offshoot of the Turkish Kurdish insurgent group the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). The PYD has emerged as the strongest Kurdish group in Syria and has put together an impressive fighting force to defend its territory from both ISIS and the regime. The idea of another autonomous Kurdish region on its borders after the KRG has been anathema to Ankara. Paradoxically, the PYDs armed elements are some of the only ones that have scored blows against the jihadists. In the face of the ISIS sweep, the PYD and the KRG, which have also had antagonistic relations, appear to be cooperating on defensive measures against ISIS. Turkey may have to reconsider its boycott of the Syrian Kurds to enlarge the anti-ISIS coalition." [my emphasis]
Please don’t fall for this cap. Which part of dividing Iraq between Iran and Al Queda is a good idea?
Because that’s what’s happening.
Yep — and Tacit was right too.
Some of us having been saying that for a decade...there needs to be two territories or more in Iraq, for any hope of a somewhat peaceful solution.....but now that the US is out of Iraq that ship has sailed.
The time to do it was while we occupied the country...there was discussion but the leaders did not want to displace the Iraqis from their homes to a new place..well, h3$$ aren’t they displaced now?
This conflict between Sunni-Shiite will really be a roller coaster ride with Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran being involved in various ways...including Kurds etc. Turkey Embassy employees already hostages as of yesterday by ISIS...about 80 individuals surrendered peacefully to militant ISIL/ISIS terrorists.
Here is latest info I could find that helped see Iraq soldiers are now engaging the ISIS:
NO ONE is calling for dividing Iraq and Iran and Al Quada...that’s insane that you got that out of the conversation.
Sunni Iraqi s and Shiite Iraqi s are always killing and fighting each other as they represent to factions of Islam. The territorial divide should be areas that Sunni s live and Shiite’s live....along with Kurds and other factions having some place to practice their form of Islam without the “Hatfield and Mccoy” violence on a daily basis.
Yes some of these individuals are part of Al Quada or ISIS/ISOL etc...the extremesit Jhadists, but that’s not what the dividing territories is about. Those terrorists should be destroyed not given a territory!
No. “Sectarianism” is just a convenient, comforting excuse for the fact that Obama has done nothing to stop AQ and its offshoots from gaining one victory after another. Having three or more even weaker smaller states certainly wouldn’t help; in any case, all of these places would have minorities of the other sect, so even if “sectarianism” were the problem, that wouldn’t help. And they would have had their allies in the larger states governed by their particular sect (Iran, anybody?), who would certainly not have been content with the measly little patch of territory their adherents had.
The only thing that would have helped would have been the establishment of a strong civil state governed by the rule of law, which was what we were attempting to do and nearly had done by 2009 - when Obama threw it all away by dumping Iraq. The civil government wasn’t strong enough, the economy wasn’t strong enough, and their military wasn’t strong enough.
A strong, stable, modern Iraq would have served as a barrier to AQ and Iran alike, which was the point of the whole exercise.
A strong, stable modern Iran would have prevented this all to start with.
Thanks, Jimmy Carter.
I thought it an interesting idea at the time...but how is it our place to divide a country? Our job was to rid of Saddam and help ease to a functional democracy. If they chose to do it, so be it, but people worried about our arrogance of power would have a point if we went around doing this.
Plus, this terrorist movement would have just as easily swept across three countries as they have one.
I don’t know about Biteme, but, the British sucked at drawing maps.
I can guarantee you if he was right, it wasn’t his idea...
No. The jihadists who are waging war in Iraq today are NOT Iraqis. They are Syrians, Iranians, American Jihadists, and other international terrorists.
seem to me the British are at fault as they are the one who drew the arbitrary lines in the whole mid east.
“I can guarantee you if he was right, it wasnt his idea...”
Thanks, I’m just starting my first cup of coffee, on PDT, and I hadn’t formed any good thoughts re Biden.
You just summed it very well.
Yep. Gertrude Bell and her front man, Lawrence of Arabia, drew up the somewhat arbitrary borders in the Middle East. Winston Churchill also played a key role, IIRC.
OH Geez please understand that some Iraqi s are in this fight, it’s SUNNI Muslim vs Shiite Muslim...not a nation issue, it’s a religious sect issue. And any Iraqi army members who were Sunni would not fight ISIS (Sunni)
The jhadists are the MILITANT TERRORISTS like ISIS, who are destroying IRAQ but also attacking other nations citizens like Turks (80 hostages yesterday form Turkey Consulate) or any Shiite Muslims for that matter.
Iran offered to help Iraqi Army as they are mostly Shiite’s (Shia) & ISAS would come after them next.
Biden said, in 2010, “(A unified) Iraq is one of the greatest achievements of this administration.”
But due to blowing this “achievement” with a premature pullout, they give him a mulligan, and revert back to what he said ten years ago.
Which is it? Can’t have it both ways.
The article doesn't mention the Al Qaeda/ISIS problem. It's a Politico whitewash of the primary problem and how it should be addressed.
Yes, Carter was dead wrong on the Shah. Bush 1 and 2 were wrong on Iraq and killing Saddam. Obama is definitely wrong for supporting the elimination of Mubarek, Assad and Qaddafy. If the true goal were for a more stable and prosperous Middle East, then all these Smarty Pants can chalk up an Epic Fail. If we were after the true perpetrators of 9/11, then we would have bombed Mecca. Saudi Arabia, the hotbed of the MB radicals, has funded the chaos from the get-go with the US & UK govt. blessing and active assistance. MB Shills in our Govt. have armed and trained the very enemy who kill and maim our soldiers in battle. The intentional push for WW3 by my own Govt. is escalating rapidly. They are more my enemy than any external enemy could ever be. BTW, I don’t give a rat’s patoot whether Iraq splits into homogeneous sectors or not - that is their business not mine. Meanwhile, get that Keystone pipeline going and Drill, baby, Drill everywhere else.
*Joe Biden solution summation in article “and to a prescription he offered to try to manage that reality by granting Sunnis, Shia and Kurds greater autonomy over various parts of the country.”
SO...NO the comment was about Joe Biden solution and it’s not a political solution, it’s a sectarian solution of placing control in various areas for different ISLAM sects....as I stated.
And the comment I addressed did not appear to understand that.
“Partitioning Iraq would seem a sensible idea”
Only in theory, I suspect only the Kurds would abide by the boarders. The Sunnis and Shiites will always be going for throat of the other. “Boarder? we don’t need no stinking boarder”
I thought he may have been right for once until I read this article:
The Back-Room Deal That Explains The Chaos In Iraq
The Obama Admin was behind this disaster.
Speaking of the “...growing lore of the group...” this was the victory parade in Mosul:
ISIL/ISIS show off there new arsenal in Mosul 13 June 2014.
Arabs ... Kurds ... Turks ... Persians
Sunni ... Shia ... Christans ... JOOOs
There’s enough divisions there for endless lifetimes of strife...
Incredible video. I thought the one Isis wannabe in a blue shirt was going to get smashed by a truck while cheering for his serial killers.
So Carter had even met the man and family. Wouldn’t you know it. He was soon to betray each of them.
What a man...
The good Christian even refused the Shah an entrance visa to obtain treatment for cancer.
Looks like the Shah even then had Carter’s number.
One of the great chuckles was the idea that Iraq was such a threat we had to invade it to make US safe.
If one was to take the WOT logically and believe in such threats, one would have sealed the border from any such threats. The fact that we didn't militarize the border, nor were we concerned with any threat of people coming here to kill US leaves the WOT with the rest of the BS put out by our dear leaders.
Throw in the fact, that we actually have threats here with trans border criminals that rape, kill, rob, and hurt more Americans and legal residents than Al-Qaeda has ever dreamed of.
If Joe Biden is considered to be right about something, it means only one thing. We need to reconsider our former opinion.
The reason it was a bad idea at the time was because it would have created coalitions that would threaten to divide Turkey and Syria.
No, Joe was not right.
Iraq is being divided right now......as the ISIL in the North attacks the Malaki Iraq in the south.
How would division end up any different ? East Iraq attacking the West Iraq ?
This was because of oil revenue. Most of the oil is in the Shia south and the Kurdish north and the Sunnis don't have much.
If the country were partitioned, the oil revenue would also be partitioned, leading to endless war over the oil money.
The US insisted on and the Iraq Constitution contains the oil revenue sharing language.
But problems arose quickly. In 2007 Hunt Oil Company announced that they would deal direct with the Kurds. Other companies also announced but they were all small companies and the oil still had to be shipped south to the Persian Gulf allowing the Iraq central govt to collect the revenue and distribute that revenue according to the Constitution.
To deal with this problem, the Iraqi Central govt developed a policy that said any oil company that dealt directly with the Kurds could not participate in any other oil project within Iraq.
But then the problem got worse.
In 2012, Exxon announced that they would deal direct with the Kurds. Conoco and Total soon followed with their announcement. Exxon had bid on and been awarded 50% of the huge Quarna field with a Chinese company holding the other half. So Iraq told Exxon that if they were going to deal direct with the Kurds, they would have to divest their holdings in the Quarna field. Exxon began divesting, although they still hold about 10%.
But then the problem got worse.
The pipeline connecting Kurdish Iraq, thru Turkey, to the Mediterranean was completed. This allows the Kurdish oil onto the world market without the shared revenue being deducted. The Kurds could keep all of the revenue.
If this happens, eventually the Shia will also stop sharing the revenue from the oil produced in the south.
The Sunni, deprived of the shared revenue, will use military force to get their share.
Who says that Politico is correct? They are just as daft as Biden.