WI: Shiastan + Sunnistan + Kurdistan?

Operation Iraqi Freedom happens and Iraq is subsequently split into the 3 by the Coalition forces.

Shiastan, Sunnistan and Kurdistan, with the Oil Producing regions being governed internationally like Kosovo.

Each govern their own regions as a democracy. Baghdad goes to Shiastan.

What happens next?

Shiastan.png
 
Given the Sunnis have a monopoly on conventional military competence, have hundreds of thousands of indoctrinated competent veteran fighters at war and domestic 'pacification' operations which included ethnic cleansing and genocidal acts, have a strategically brilliant Jordanian ally (Zarqawi) at waging a war of the flea against a super power as he did against the Soviets and you just told the Sunnis no oil money for them you now own a big stand pile you have just managed to provide virtually all Sunnis a far greater incentive to support the post Saddam fight.

If the U.S. isn't willing to take a lot more casualties then OTL the jihadists and Sunni members of Saddam's various military and terror organs take all of Iraq in a war of annihilation and given the level of Shia and Kurdish military competence at the time they would win and large parts of Iraq would be depopulated.

The only question is after where they take their war next Iran or Syria.

The central problem in Iraq is you have a minority that Saddam radicalized into rather extreme religious ethno-nationalism, but even beforehand was used to ruling Iraq for generations and knew how to do it using terror on an epic scale and kept the understanding of how to run a state and an army for their own community.

The Shia and Kurds of 2003 were far less competent then they are today about running such things or managing military affairs, they still aren't as competent as say IS right now in how to run an army, but are catching up over time.
 
Last edited:
There's also the obvious problem that a lot of people are going to be in the "wrong" partition (especially with Baghdad) and the other problem that most Iraqis don't seem to want partition now, never mind in 2003 when there haven't been 12 years of extra tension and brutal killings (even if said Iraqis may want their denomination to be in charge). There'd still be sectarian murders and militias, plus extra hate towards the occupation forces.

That's not counting the third problem, the Iraqis don't have their oil now but foreigners do. They'll be enraged. So will a lot of foreigners. If people chanted "blood for oil" in our timeline...
 
While a partition is likely at some point in the future, this would not have helped. Both Iraqis and the international community would have condemned a unilateral partition imposed by the US. It would have created even more problems than the US had IOTL. It does little to solve the problems of internal governance and sufficient security forces.

At best, it eliminates the intramural infighting for dominance within Iraq, but communities are not easily divided by demographics even if the bulk of the population are within a dividing line. Instead of three groups fighting each other within one state, you now have three states fighting each other for control of vital points in the region. This is going to be bloody.

Some things just need to take their natural course, even though almost everyone knows what is going to happen.
 
While a partition is likely at some point in the future, this would not have helped. Both Iraqis and the international community would have condemned a unilateral partition imposed by the US. It would have created even more problems than the US had IOTL. It does little to solve the problems of internal governance and sufficient security forces.

At best, it eliminates the intramural infighting for dominance within Iraq, but communities are not easily divided by demographics even if the bulk of the population are within a dividing line. Instead of three groups fighting each other within one state, you now have three states fighting each other for control of vital points in the region. This is going to be bloody.

Some things just need to take their natural course, even though almost everyone knows what is going to happen.

Other than desert, what would they fight over if the oil fields are administered internationally?
 
Other than desert, what would they fight over if the oil fields are administered internationally?

The Sunnis had 100% the oil money and 100% the political control over the rest of Iraq under Saddam are they going to get that here?

If not that means war.
 
The Sunnis had 100% the oil money and 100% the political control over the rest of Iraq under Saddam are they going to get that here?

If not that means war.

How could they manage that if there were just beaten in Operation Iraqi Freedom? The OP has a POD after the war is over. And with cities such as Fallujah being self administered (aka no foreign troops) what war could they possibly launch?
 
How could they manage that if there were just beaten in Operation Iraqi Freedom? The OP has a POD after the war is over. And with cities such as Fallujah being self administered (aka no foreign troops) what war could they possibly launch?

They disbanded their divisions for the most part so the troops are still there and they will retake their cities and reconstitute for another war. This wasn't the Gulf War where we had a chance to wipe out the Republican Guard in the field.

Going to Baghdad and taking down Saddam's statue means nothing if you don't have the hundreds of thousands of trained killers Saddam had who will fight to the death to maintain Sunni rule of Iraq in massive prisons for many many years or dead.

Just look at how AQI could move like a river even with us fighting them and take over cities and then turn them into military camps and they were an alliance between Zarqawi and his men and members of Saddam's former regime like IS.
 
They disbanded their divisions for the most part so the troops are still there and they will retake their cities and reconstitute for another war. This wasn't the Gulf War where we had a chance to wipe out the Republican Guard in the field.

Going to Baghdad and taking down Saddam's statue means nothing if you don't have the hundreds of thousands of trained killers Saddam had who will fight to the death to maintain Sunni rule of Iraq in massive prisons for many many years or dead.

Just look at how AQI could move like a river even with us fighting them and take over cities and then turn them into military camps and they were an alliance between Zarqawi and his men and members of Saddam's former regime like IS.

Right these are fair points, and might be a mitigating threat to the OP's proposition of a Kosovo-type international governance of the Oil Fields but I doubt they could launch anything above sporadic asymmetrical bombing attacks in "Shiastan", and of course that's stoking the wrath of Shia militias.
 
Ugh, this makes everything worse. The Shia get everything here, both Baghdad and the oil. The Sunni get a bunch of sand and are then told to go fuck themselves. This is not going to lead to peace and happiness in the region. Meanwhile, Turkey and Iran are going to VERY not amused by the existence of an independent Kurdish state.
 
Ugh, this makes everything worse. The Shia get everything here, both Baghdad and the oil. The Sunni get a bunch of sand and are then told to go fuck themselves. This is not going to lead to peace and happiness in the region. Meanwhile, Turkey and Iran are going to VERY not amused by the existence of an independent Kurdish state.

They wouldn't get either Baghdad or the oil or the south, if people think the Shia militias are militarily incompetent now they should go back to 03.

The Shia would be overcome by AQI on steroids and the Kurds wouldn't fair better in the long run because they are landlocked and Turkey and Iran would help AQI finish them before they turn their guns on each other.
 
They wouldn't get either Baghdad or the oil or the south, if people think the Shia militias are militarily incompetent now they should go back to 03.

The Shia would be overcome by AQI on steroids and the Kurds wouldn't fair better in the long run because they are landlocked and Turkey and Iran would help AQI finish them before they turn their guns on each other.

Come on dude. The Shia are 60+% of the population. No way an ethnic minority, who aren't in possession of over arching state power could overcome the sheer size of that demographic difference. And the Shia militias don't have to be an effective fighting force but rather serve as an effective counter balance to potential Sunni/AQ asymmetrical attacks.

The threat of a Shia Majority on Sunni Minority ethno-massacre is a deterant no matter how you slice it
 
Come on dude. The Shia are 60+% of the population. No way an ethnic minority, who aren't in possession of over arching state power could overcome the sheer size of that demographic difference. And the Shia militias don't have to be an effective fighting force but rather serve as an effective counter balance to potential Sunni/AQ asymmetrical attacks.

The threat of a Shia Majority on Sunni Minority ethno-massacre is a deterant no matter how you slice it

Read up on 1991.

That is exactly what happened in 1991. The Sunnis won because they have a massive lock on military compitence and killed off the compitent Shia who could oppose them some beforehand, but much more after.

The Shia today 12 years later are far more competent then they were in 2003, today Baghdad wouldn't fall to IS even if the U.S. did nothing, but 2003 things were very different and the Shia militia back then were push overs with no military compitence to speak of.

Saddam with only 20% of Iraq backing him put down the Shia in 1991 and in doing so killed hundreds of thousands of those with any real level of military compitence and there wasn't a great deal even then.

The few can destroy the many in war even a war of genocide if the many don't know what they are doing and the few do.
 
Read up on 1991.

That is exactly what happened in 1991. The Sunnis won because they have a massive lock on military compitence and killed off the compitent Shia who could oppose them some beforehand, but much more after.

The Shia today 12 years later are far more competent then they were in 2003, today Baghdad wouldn't fall to IS even if the U.S. did nothing, but 2003 things were very different and the Shia militia back then were push overs with no military compitence to speak of.

Saddam with only 20% of Iraq backing him put down the Shia in 1991 and in doing so killed hundreds of thousands of those with any real level of military compitence and there wasn't a great deal even then.

The few can destroy the many in war even a war of genocide if the many don't know what they are doing and the few do.

03 Operation was executed upon the lessons learned by 91 and in doing so the majority of the Sunni military and law enforcement establishment was rounded up and tried, demilitarizing the majority of armed forces.

Sure, some escaped into Sunni militia brigades but no way could that overcome even the most disorganized Shia militia groups that make their home in the south.
Any Baathist regime remnant attempting to retake Baghdad or any of the southern oil fields would be like attempting a land war in China. There is simply no way it would work based on the sheer size of the Shia demographic in Baghdad and southern Iraq.
 
Top