Eland Restates the Case for "Gerrymandering" Iraq

Eland Restates the Case for “Gerrymandering” Iraq

In his latest op-ed, published last Tuesday in the Washington Times, Ivan Eland restates the case for partitioning Iraq into autonomous zones governed separately by the Shi’a, the Sunnis, and the Kurds.

Announcing a U.S. withdraw of troops would likely pressure Iraq’s hostile factions to seek a confederate arrangement (and would save more American lives than a modest reduction in troop levels, which would put U.S. forces at greater risk). “Such a ‘confederation’ would lessen fears that any one ethnic or religious group will gain control of the national government and oppress the others, as Saddam Hussein did,” Eland writes.

After presenting the merits of partitioning Iraq, Eland rebuts three criticisms often leveled at this proposal. First, “gerrymandering” could easily accommodate multi-ethnic cities such as Baghdad, Eland argues, just as it has created politically viable (if geographically unsightly) congressional districts throughout the United States. Second, Turkey would learn to live with a Kurdish zone in Iraq (indeed, it has done so for years) because doing so is more conducive to admission to European Union. Third, Iranian influence over a Shi’ite zone in Iraq would be limited because the Shi’ites would not rule over the entire country. “If Iraq is divided,” Eland writes, “Iranian influence would be limited to and even within the Shi’ite south.”

“Iraq’s Last Best Hope?” by Ivan Eland (The Washington Times, 8/28/07) Spanish Translation

The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, by Ivan Eland

“The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government,” by Ivan Eland

“Troop Withdrawal: Looking Beyond Iraq” – Panel discussion featuring Ivan Eland, Leon T. Hadar, and David R. Henderson (Washington, D.C., 9/21/07)