Partition Me: More Of That Crazy Secession Talk By Those Imperialistic Liberals

Joe’s post on the alternatives to secession got me to thinking…

Given that the liberals are devout anti-secessionists, even though they apparently despise “red” America, would they ever consider a separation like that under the circumstances of religious, political and cultural differences?

They are telling us that they would not…becasue, well, conservatives are – how was it put? We “are mentally deficient and [they] do not want them representing us. We would like more education in our state to eradicate their disease.”

Well, in 2007, the liberal Brookings Institution thought was good enough for Iraq:

The time may be approaching when the only hope for a more stable Iraq is a soft partition of the country. Soft partition would involve the Iraqis, with the assistance of the international community, dividing their country into three main regions.

Each would assume primary responsibility for its own security and governance, as Iraqi Kurdistan already does. Creating such a structure could prove difficult and risky. However, when measured against the alternatives—continuing to police an ethno-sectarian war, or withdrawing and allowing the conflict to escalate— the risks of soft partition appear more acceptable. Indeed, soft partition in many ways simply responds to current realities on the ground, particularly since the February 2006 bombing of the Samarra mosque, a major Shi’i shrine, dramatically escalated intersectarian violence. If the U.S. troop surge, and the related effort to broker political accommodation through the existing coalition government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki fail, soft partition may be the only means of avoiding an intensification of the civil war and growing threat of a regional conflagration. While most would regret the loss of a multi-ethnic, diverse Iraq, the country has become so violent and so divided along ethno-sectarian lines that such a goal may no longer be achievable.

Soft partition would represent a substantial departure from the current approach of the Bush Administration and that proposed by the Iraq Study Group, both of which envision a unitary Iraq ruled largely from Baghdad. It would require new negotiations, the formation of a revised legal framework for the country, the creation of new institutions at the regional level, and the organized but voluntary movement of populations.

And in 2006, no less than the intellectual, foreign policy giant and erstwhile Vice-President of the United States, Smilin’ Joe Biden thought so:

The senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee proposed Monday that Iraq be divided into three separate regions — Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni — with a central government in Baghdad.

In an op-ed essay in Monday’s edition of The New York Times, Sen. Joseph Biden. D-Del., wrote that the idea “is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group … room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests.”

The new Iraqi constitution allows for establishment of self-governing regions. But that was one of the reasons the Sunnis opposed the constitution and why they demanded and won an agreement to review it this year.

Biden and co-writer Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, acknowledged the opposition, and said the Sunnis “have to be given money to make their oil-poor region viable. The Constitution must be amended to guarantee Sunni areas 20 percent (approximately their proportion of the population) of all revenues.”

Biden and Gelb also wrote that President Bush “must direct the military to design a plan for withdrawing and redeploying our troops from Iraq by 2008 (while providing for a small but effective residual force to combat terrorists and keep the neighbors honest).”

Who else thought it was a good idea?

The Washington Post, the New York Times and the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR so loved the solution the federalism idea presented that they said:

Nonetheless, supporters remain committed to the language. Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd and a proponent of federalism, has praised the resolution. Falah Mustafa Bakir, director of the Foreign Relations Department for the KRG, explains the Kurdish position in [an] interview with

Biden and Gelb, too, have stood by their turn of phrase. In an October 2007 Washington Post op-ed, they argued federalism would benefit all Iraqis without partitioning the country. In an interview with CFR’s Bernard Gwertzman,Gelb goes further, suggesting a federal form of government may be the only way to correct the Bush administration’s failed top-down experiment in Iraq. The White House “thought that they could build a strong central government first by elections and then by them putting pressure on the different parties,” Gelb says. “It has not worked for four years and it still doesn’t work.”

Oh, my.

So the liberals thought federalism would be good for Iraq but not good for America.

How imperialistic of them.

14 thoughts on “Partition Me: More Of That Crazy Secession Talk By Those Imperialistic Liberals

  1. They probably don’t have half of the country parasitically sucking the lifeblood out of the other. We in the productive part of the USA are nothing but host organisms.

    • “half of the country parasitically sucking the lifeblood out of the other”

      You mean those red states that are getting back more in federal dollars than they pay in, while blue states are paying out more than they get back, I assume, Libertylady?

  2. Um- the “liberals” are not “Devout anti-secessionists”.

    Lets see- the liberal bastions of California and Hawaii have had serious secession movements in the past 3 decades.

    And of course- on the state level (states breaking apart into 2), we have seen even more secession movements. You do realize Northern California- yes- that bastion of liberals has for decades try to secede? (and yes- one of the nearly 30 major movements was in response to the presidency of George W Bush).

    That Much of the western states have tried, at one point or another, to secede? Some splitting east and west (usually among the mountain divides that tend to seperate the red/blue portion of the states). OR movements to secede- or even secede/alter state lines based on natural resources?

    And of course- you ignore the flaming liberal response to this new “movement”. Let them go. They take more then they give. They add nothing to the GDP. They offer nothing to america. So good buy- and good luck (“y’all will need it”)

    • #drugsforbrains:

      How do you actually live? What do you do for a living? Do you do anything? Are you in the public sector or a private sector?

      Do you have employer provided health care insurance?

      Do you live in a commune and put all of your money into a community pot for the executive committee to hand out to the rest of the commune? Or do you run a private household and family funded by your income, one that is managed responsibly with debt matched to your cash flow? Do you have a savings account or do you give your excess money to friends, family and neighbours?

      Or do you live with your parents?

      I really want to know because I suspect that you don’t actually live the way your comments and politics indicate.

      In almost all cases, the self-professes commies are every bit as materialistic as non-commies and tend to be far more conservative in their private lives than they are with their public pronouncements.

      Inquiring minds want to know.

      • You just gave him nine reasons to either lie, or give silly rhetorical responses, and most likely a combination of both.

        That is … even if he bothers to come back and answer.

      • I’m a little confused. Am I wrong that the point of your original post was that liberals actually do, in some cases, support secession, but hypocritically claim they don’t? If so then Drugsandotherthings saying that some liberals do support secession is what most people would call partially agreeing with you. Why jump on him with accusatory questions?

        Let’s say he is a liberal (something his post neither confirmed nor denied, though admittedly you might know him from previous exchanges), then a liberal being here and showing interest in the cause of secession/partition and indeed providing examples where liberals did support the idea is not a bad thing. It is a good step toward reversing the hypocrisy you decry.

        If secession eventually becomes the only acceptable future, conservatives and liberals will both have to learn to simply shake the dust from their boots and move on in civility. It can turn out as either Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia. For me, I prefer the former.

        • His point was that the left is OK with secession when clearly they are not, at least not judging buy the rhetoric. The objection is not uncivil, it is a aggressive response to a fallacious tu quoque argument which claims to say that they agree when they are actively disagreeing – essentially saying one thing and doing another.

          I’m actually against secession and would support it only as a last resort. I far prefer a federalist approach where the states were strengthened and the central government weakened and focused on the specific enumerated powers given to it in the Constitution.

        • Drugs also prefer to be classified as a communist libertarian which explains his confusion because by definition, these two ideologies are at odds with themselves – essentially he wants to be a libertarian as long as we all collectively pay for him to be.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s