I have previously commented on plans for Iraq that are based on what will "work" in Washington as opposed to what will work in Iraq, which brings me to an idea for Iraq that has been suggested by a number of politicians in Washington: partition. They say Iraq is an artificial country (which certainly was true, whether it is still true or not). The Kurds and the Sunnis and Shiites do not like each other or trust each other. They live in their own areas of the country. Why not let each group govern itself, whether through autonomy or a very decentralized federal system or something similar? Suggestions such as this almost bring me to despair. Maybe separation sounds like a good idea, but have these people looked at the results of partition, which is really what they are talking about, in the past? Sixty years ago Indian independence brought about a partition of the Indian subcontinent into two countries, a Hindu India and a Muslim Pakistan. Even though it may have sounded like a good idea to let each group have its own country, there was no clear dividing line between the two groups. While Muslims were concentrated in what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh, many lived in what would become India, and there were millions of non-Muslims living in the areas that would become Pakistan. As the day of independence (and partition) approached, there was a massive movement of people from one part of the Indian subcontinent to another. Not surprisingly (except perhaps to the leaders who came up with the idea), the ensuing violence left 500,000 dead and created over ten million refugees. In the 1990s, a de facto partition of what used to be Yugoslavia resulted in the biggest movement of people in Europe since the end of World War II and thousands of deaths. It ultimately took outside intervention to stop the bloodshed. It is as if our politicians are not paying attention. They come up with their plans in a vacuum, without any idea of what might happen. The plans sound good in theory, perhaps even to some focus group, so they go with them. Their friends in Washington like their ideas, so they think they will work. Wrong. History does not repeat itself exactly, but knowing history gives one an idea of what might happen in the future, of questions that should be asked, of things that should be taken into consideration. If partition turned out as it did in India, what lessons can we learn from that for Iraq? How do we avoid in Iraq the ethnic cleansing that occurred in Yugoslavia? There have been many complaints that the Bush Administration did not think about or plan for what might happen in Iraq after the invasion. That would appear to be true. But just because Bush did not think his plan through, does not mean it is okay for his critics to make the same mistake. History is important. It tells us what has worked in the past and what has not. It gives us questions to ask and things to consider. History cannot provide tell us what will happen, but by providing examples and experience, it can, if we pay attention to it, reduce the number of mistakes we make, make the consequences of the mistakes we do make less bad, and help us fix what is not working more quickly.
Comments