Actually I just read an interesting article on this dividing the country idea. I would go one step further and just divide it into 3 countries, but this is a start.
Brownback and Biden unlikely allies on Iraq
The two senators favor a 3-state partition plan.
WASHINGTON | Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas says there’s only one sure way to bring peace to Iraq: divide the country into three states and separate the warring factions.
With Congress and the White House at loggerheads over a proposed timetable to end the war, the Kansas Republican is part of an unlikely Senate duo promoting the plan to partition Iraq. Brownback and Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, both 2008 presidential hopefuls, say the plan would provide breathing room for Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders.
“I do not agree with setting a timetable for pulling out of Iraq,” Brownback, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview. “The day we pass that is the day al-Qaida declares victory. … This three-state, one-country solution is your only viable political solution.”
At the first nationally televised debate for Republican presidential candidates last Thursday, Brownback touted the plan when the moderator asked him whether he would differ in any way from the policy of President Bush. Brownback said that Iraq was “our key political issue of the day” and that, unlike Bush, he would push diplomacy harder.
Some political analysts say Brownback’s position could be a risky move. By bucking the president, they say, he might lose favor with the very conservatives his campaign is aimed at.
The Brownback-Biden plan has been dismissed by the Bush administration, which aims to unite Iraq under one strong federal government. But the proposal is winning increased attention on Capitol Hill, coming as it does from two senators at opposite ends of the political spectrum, both with serious foreign-policy credentials
Biden, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the plan would allow the three states to make decisions involving “their local police, their education, their religion and marriage — the very things they’re fighting over.”
He said the Iraqi federal government would still be responsible for common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.
Opponents say that political solutions cannot be imposed on the Iraqis.This part doesn't make sense to me
“It’s awfully hard for us and, frankly, may be slightly arrogant of us to try to decide what politically will work for that country,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
But the discussion, she said, has one big benefit: “Americans begin to realize that there has been this incredible focus on the military while the rest of it has frankly just been an incredible mess.”
Congress had to return to the drawing board last week after President Bush vetoed a war-spending bill that would have forced him to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by Oct. 1.
Brownback said the stalemate would give Democrats and Republicans a chance to come together to end the four-year-old war. And the U.S. cannot sustain the war with one-party support, he said.
“There’s a chance for both sides to show statesmanship on this,” Brownback said.
Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia who has advised the Kurds, is among the most enthusiastic backers of the plan. Galbraith, who has written a book on the subject, argues that most Iraqis do not want civil war but that they have rejected the idea of a unified Iraq.
And he said Iraq’s new constitution would allow the country’s three main groups to establish their own regions, each with its own government, its own army and control over oil resources.
When asked about the partitioning plan recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted that the Iraqis were not advocating such a political structure.
“I don’t think it is practical, particularly along ethno-sectarian lines, to divide Iraq up and give authority based on your sectarian identification, to say there’s a Shia part of the country, a Sunni part of the country, a Kurdish part of the country,” Rice told RealClearPolitics.com. “Baghdad is a completely mixed city. What becomes of Baghdad? … If you try to do this, I think you’re going to have an explosion.”
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said Brownback and the other Republican presidential candidates would have difficulty separating themselves from Bush on Iraq.
“What these Republican candidates are going to find out, to their dismay, is that the eventual nominee will carry the burden of the Bush administration and the Iraq war regardless of his position — it makes no difference,” he said.
Moreover, Sabato said, Republican candidates run the risk of angering the Republican base: “Bush himself and his Iraq policy still gets about a third of the American public support, and that third is almost entirely Republican — and activist Republican. They’re the people who vote. So they’re stuck. They have to stick with Bush but leave enough daylight so that if somehow they get the nomination they’ll have a prayer of winning in November.”
Brownback and Biden have talked up the plan in speeches, interviews and on television talk shows.
Biden said the three-state plan has the backing of two former secretaries of state: Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright. The administration’s “surge” in Iraq, he said, is designed “to buy time for that government,” but he called it a flawed policy that wouldn’t work.
Brownback called the situation in Iraq “a moving target” and suggested that the U.S. should have a role in leading the talks among Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite leaders.
And although Americans are not satisfied with the progress in the war, he said, the American public doesn’t want to lose the war, either. That’s why diplomatic efforts must now match military efforts, he said.
“We’ll win if we don’t lose the will to win,” he said.