Why does the West GAF if Iraq breaks into 3 (or more) independent countries?

Turkey

NATO

It's in our interest to make sure the bunch with the least wackos end up with the oil.

Likely an attempt to not further destabilize the region. Things have changed recently but here is the thinking 10 or so years ago.

1) Sharing oil revenues. The southeast (Shia) region has the majority of oil production. The west (sunni) and north (kurds) has very little. So if you were to break it up, what would the north and east have? Now the Kurds are starting to find oil (and also have taken over Kirkuk) so those dynamics have changed a little.

2) where do you draw the borders? Speaking of Kirkuk, it used to be the capital of the Kurds so historically its a place of great importance. Also it has a lot of oil. Kurds had pushed way south at the fall of Saddam, gave some back to Baghdad, but still maintained more land than what Baghdad wants them to have. After ISIL pushed down, the kurds took advantage of the security gap and retook most of the land they held at the fall of Saddam. Will they give that up? I think they will fight a war with Bagdad/Iran over Kirkuk or someone will have done a masterful peaceful negotiation that would rival anything we would hope to accomplish out of Israel

3) Bordering country interest and their support. So Syria, Turkey, and Iran (maybe Saudi) didn't want to see Iraq broken up. Syria and Turkey are fighting insurgents that are operating in their border regions. The thought was an autonomous country would fight for more land. Turkey is realizing that a stable partner on their border can better control the insurgency so they are warming to the idea. The western region likely doesn't have the history to stabilize itself like Kurdistan can so I don't think Syria wants to see things change. Iran has a puppet in Baghdad so the last thing they want to see is them to give up land they control. Especially hurting their puppet in Syria. Kurds also fight with Iran on occasion.

So our best hope was thought to somehow keep Iraq together to keep its neighbors generally supportive and avoid internal fighting if we tried to divvy up the resources. Problem is Baghdad has spurned the minority parties and turned a blind eye toward genocide of the sunnis. They've also not allowed Kurdistan the ability to prosper as a stabile region. Not passing a true revenue sharing oil law has hurt them for years.

Turkey is pretty much fine with Kurdistan these days FYI. Erdogan has been buttering up the Kurds to shore up his political base at home and they've also been allies of convenience in Syria.

Last Christmas I was given a book, History's Worse Decisions and the People Who Made Them.


#25- Winston Churchill Strike Again- The Map of Iraq


Two quotes from the passage:

"The chances for democracy arising from this series of decisions was and maybe is, remote while the boarders of Iraq remain so artificial and internally challenged." Stephen Weir

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against the uncivilized tribes." Winston Churchill


Churchill wanted to do what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds but on a much larger scale.

After the British used it in Afghanistan around the same time, there was too much opposition. Then the Pope denounced their use.

"It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everbody used it in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or the Church." Churchill

quote:

---

Churchill was a goddamn racist fascist imperialist and I'm always mystified why he's adored so much.

---

Because Joe Biden would be proven right.

The 3 state solution was always the most practical.