Does Obama Favor Biden's Plan To Break Up Iraq?

So Joseph Biden, unlike Obama, is supposed to be a foreign policy guru. But his previous position on the most pressing issue of the day -- the war in Iraq -- is disturbing, if not downright muddleheaded.

Biden has led the ivory-tower brigade in favor of breaking up Iraq into three parts along sectarian lines -- a strategy borrowed from postwar Bosnia. Here's my question: Does this mean that Obama, by anointing Biden his second-in-command, also secretly favors the "soft" partition of Iraq?

Partition (or as Biden prefers to call it, decentralization) in Iraq, like Bosnia, would require land swaps, the separation of ethnic groups, and a political agreement that disperses powers to the regions, while keeping a unitary state.

I have spent the past few weeks in Bosnia. Yes, the peace there has proven durable. Even the arched Old Bridge at Mostar, destroyed by Croats in the early 1990s, has been replaced by nearly carbon copy of the original and now swarms with tourists.

But Iraq is not Bosnia (which had no oil revenues to share; plus it had far more troops per capita to enforce the settlement). Applying the Bosnian model to Iraq makes no sense, especially given the recent political and military progress there. Iraqis are becoming more unified, not less. The central government, however fitfully, is strengthening, not becoming more federalized. Which may explain why Biden remains so unpopular in Baghdad. Even Kurds, as Reuters reports, are opposed to the "Biden plan."

Of course, perhaps Biden has modified his plan, which was hatched back in 2006, given the changing circumstances on the ground. Nope. According to Mother Jones, he still clings to his vision to decentralize Iraq in a Dayton-like fashion.

That is unfortunate. Obama's major foreign policy trump card -- his sound judgment to oppose the war in Iraq--has just been watered down by his vice presidential nod. I never favored a decentralized Iraq, even at the worst of the sectarian bloodshed in 2006. I don't understand why someone with such supposedly impeccable foreign policy credentials as Biden does not modify his earlier position on Iraq (as he has for his vote in support of the war). We can't afford for him to be wrong twice.

Comments

[XME]

No presidential candidate can find a VP pick who has the same views with them on every issue. Just because he chose Biden doesn't and just because Biden supports this idea, doesn't mean that Obama has adopted Biden's view on it. It's a silly assumption and a not based on facts or logic.

[cdub1991]

Obama has always said he has no problem with having people of differing views in his administration, so it could be argued that this is just another case of that.

As for Biden's position, itself, I can see where a rational person could come to such a policy. Iraq has always been more of a region, rather than a natural country. The modern state was basically carved from the belly of the Ottoman empire after WWI. Before that, it was just an area that other empires marched through on there way somewhere else. There's no natural cohesion between the three ethnic groups, so separating them might make common sense. With the placement of the oil resources however, it's probably not practically doable.

[bdogg]

I just clicked onthis article to see how many commenters would pick up on the obvious flaw in it's logic. Iraq has already partiioned itself! Biden was absolutly correct on this and two years ago to boot. The only thing holding these disperate groups of people together since the country was created were the boots of various dictators and the control of the west. The partition solution is also one that has been favored by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
This "muddle headed" policy is the one that is going to be played out, one way or another.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Biden has the right strategy. There is no "Iraq" that the locals would put above the interests of their own tribalism. Iraq was an artificial creation. Negotiating a peaceful breakup is wise, and breakup is inevitable.

On this an every other policy area, neoconservatism has failed yet again.

[JimR]

Isn't Iraq already effectively broken up? The Shias refuse to allow Sunnis into the National Army, or to participate in any meaningful way in government. The Kurds want nothing to do with either of them. The surge effectively plugged a hole in the dam of violence, but how long can we expect that to hold?

[LibDrummer]

IF you look at Iraq today, Bidens plan does not look so crazy. Our latest goal (in a constantly changing list of goals in Iraq) has been to get the violence down to let the government get started. The more these groups HAVE beed segregated in Iraq, the more the violence has dropped. The most significant gains we have had in, relation to the violence have come from padering to one group or another. The area that they are expected to work together (the gorvrnment) has had littel if any success.

Also Iraq is not over just yet. The Iraqi people and government want us out on the same timetable Obama has called for and Bush wants someone else to blame. We do need to get out now as Obama said but no one is claiming that means peace and happyness in Iraq. Things could easlily get very bad there and a division may be the only answer at that point.

[MourningDude]

I can say with certainty that the only plan BHO does NOT endorse at this time is his own plan from 2007.

He likes the GWB/JMac plan of open ended occupation. He pickedJoeBiden as VP based primarily on his foreign policy credentials, so he obviously likes what he hears from him about partitioning Iraq.

The only plan he utterly refutes now is his plan to have all US forces out of Iraq on a timetable that has long since passed. The one he used to prove to voters in the Dem primary that he was the true anti-war candidate, and that HRC was a warmonger like all the rest.

Sad isn't it?

[LibDrummer]

Sad indeed. People with your reasoning abilities are driving on our highways and voting in our elections.

[reasonlives]

Mourning Dude exhibits pretty sound reasoning here, do you have a specific complaint with it or are you just upset he is pointing out the uncomfortable fact that Obama has lost whatever "antiwar" credentials he may have had? You just insulted the person without making any argument.

[MrTessier]

I agree that, under the current circumstances, it would appear as if this proposal would not result in success. I don't think it should be pulled off the table though, all options should be scrutinized. If the Iraqi's are still at a political deadlock, then something may need to be done to come up with some type of agreement. One of the things I'm encouraged by is how the Obama camp appears to be open to all suggestions, weighs the pro's and con's of each of them, and comes to a strategy that will deliver the greatest benefit for all. I really doubt that they would follow the course of decentralization now, I'm not even sure that there are any arguments for it.

With all the positives that Biden brings to the ticket, this is the biggest negative I've heard, and it is not something that causes me any concern at all.

[juglugs]

Well, do we know what Iraq actually wants? It's fine to say that "they" should be doing the nation making, not us; but what do the Iraqis on the ground actually want?

As a Briton, I know how badly "nation making" can turn out - our biggest catastrophy was creating Israel...

[MourningDude]

Of course we know what the Iraqis want. The Kurds want to control the oil. And the Shia want to control the oil. And the Sunni want to control the oil.

The only way to allow these groups to live together in relative peace is to have all groups share the oil, under control of a strong central government.

Any other strategy is doomed to failure.

Of course, failure in Iraq wouldn't be a bad thing according to most libs. It's kind of like how high gas prices are GOOD because it punishes people that overconsume. Failure in Iraq would be GOOD according to them, because it would permanently stain warmongering as a failed strategy. A means to an end.

[partisanpolitico]

"stain warmongering"?? Wait, what?? You're using an awfully broad brush there. Separate tribal lands are not a new concept.

[LibDrummer]

You made sense up unitl the talking points nonsense:

"Of course, failure in Iraq wouldn't be a bad thing according to most libs. It's kind of like how high gas prices are GOOD because it punishes people that overconsume. Failure in Iraq would be GOOD according to them, because it would permanently stain warmongering as a failed strategy. A means to an end."

As a hard core lib with lots of lib freinds, I have never met anyone that thought AMerican failure was a good thing, wanted higher taxes, hated america, didn't support the troops, wnat higher gas prices etc... Never met a single person, not one person, yet the right tells us we are all like that and you buy into that?

The notion that we need a failed war in Iraq to "stain warmongering as a failed stratagy"? Really maybe we should publicily execute the Bush adminstration just to give public haningings a bad name too? I am pretty sure War mongering is already seen as a failed stratagy by all but the most far right nutcases.

[JimR]

Yeah, that's nice, except that they seem to have absolutely no interest in sharing anything.

And it's hard for a plan to be a failure when THERE IS NO PLAN.

[Crowhaul]

I also was somewhat disturbed by Biden's interest in carving 3 distinct countries out of the former Iraq. It smacked of old school nation building nonsense....

At some point soon, we must accept that they - not us - will be the ones to engage in their own nation building, and that the end product may be very different from that which Bush and his neocon cohorts had envisioned.

[elbowguts]

You realize of course that the nation of Iraq is an entirely synthetic creation, right?

By asking them to engage in "their own nation building" you are asking the people of Iraq to support a definition of their nation that was imposed upon them by the British after WWI.

If you're talking "old school" I suggest you reexamine the origin of Iraq, the country.

Biden's proposal is more tolerant of the reality of Iraq than is expecting three disparate ethnic/religious groups to suddenly embrace a national identity that never existed.

[Crowhaul]

Of course it was nation building that first created the thing we know - and they know - as Iraq; having said that, the point still stands: It will be they - and not our 'one-foot-away-from-The-Hague' neocons -who will determine their collective destiny.

[JimR]

That's great, but it seems headed toward de facto separation now. The Shia government won't let the Sunnis share in decision making or even join the national army. The Kurds want nothing to do with either of them. All Biden did was acknowledge which way things are headed.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Hopefully we will never have to deal with the wrongheaded opinions of Vice President Biden.

Obama is our selection and the decision maker (The Decider) Biden is only his assistant.

Obama/Biden

[LibDrummer]

I for one am looking forward to 8 years with President Biden, after 8 years with president Obama he will be a wonderful president!

America/Oboma/Biden

[reasonlives]

Biden is too old to be President after Obama, he would be in his mid-seventies when Obams is done, that it too old, to run, even if he does have hair plugs.
He would be more on the Cheney model and take his leave after serving as VP.

[GreyFlcn]

It should be noted.

There wasn't a single Democratic Senator which voted against this bill.

Obama however is the only Democratic Senator which didn't vote at all on the bill.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00348
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/setting-the-record-straig_b_66790.html

[scooperss]

feingold voted nay.

[Bobrobert]

Tribal hatred not seen as a good thing.

Iraq tribal hatreds go back a LONG time.

Keep it simple - left alone the strongest tribe will wipe out the others with todays weapons.

If the US pulls troops out today - there would be attempts to solve the Iraq tribal differences by killing and killing and killing.

Keep it simple - separate the tribes - or allow them to settle there own differences.

[abigail1]

partitioning has already happened in Iraq thanks to ethnic cleansing. That's why the "surge" seems to have worked.

[LeftVetPatriot]

Bingo!

[twofish]

If Iraq wants to split itself up, that's their business. The ethnic cleansing has been going on since we blew in and blew up the government that held them all together, and is pretty much done. I hope whatever they come to does not require more rivers of blood, but I do not want American troops and treasure used any longer to hold things together so Bush's Daddy's friends can get their oil contracts -- or, more realistically, until the last bit of oil has been pumped out of the ground.