Whither Iraq?

The Independent has an article saying that the dissolution of Iraq is now inevitable. What I wonder is, despite the fact that this seems to indicate the full, final failure of Bush's ill-conceived war, is this, in the long-run a bad thing?

Partitions of countries tend to be nasty things, ask anyone who experienced India/Pakistan, but in the case of Iraq, it may be inevitable. So what? It is apparent that relgious and ethnic identities trump the national identity in the post-Saddam Iraq. Is the breakup problematic? Absolutely. But why bother to keep this nation together when its parts do not wish to stay together?

Returning to India and Pakistan, they both have nukes and therefore there is an existential threat - but while that threat is serious, it is not acute, there is ongoing stability - albeit with tension - in that relationship. Even the Mumbai bombings have not seriously raised the threat of a regional war on the subcontinent.

Now what if some external powers forced India and Pakistan to stay together? I'm sure there would have been far more internal strife and the risk would have been far greater to average people in everyday life if the subcontinent was forced to be a single state. In some cases, maybe partition is not such a bad thing. Iraq may be one of those cases. The borders of the country were drawn by one empire (British) to manage the territories of another (Ottoman) empire with minimal attention paid to local realities.

Iraq breaking apart will be a nasty, nasty affair, I have no doubt. But perhaps, in the long run, it may be the best thing that can be hoped for in the region.

Tags: Iraq, Middle East, India, Pakistan, Partition