The Difference Between Races and Religions and How They Factor into Foreign Policy

The idea of partitioning Iraq has existed for some time now, but in recent months, perhaps fueled by a Democrat-controlled Congress, the idea has entered the mainstream more and more. Though the notion of a partitioning is soundly, and reasonably, rejected in the modern light, I would be a liar to say that I did not hold pro-partitioning views at the beginning of the war. Iraq is still a young nation, and generations are not bound to a strong, nationalist movement as with other countries outside the Middle East. Loyalties exist more to tribes and sects than they do to nations and political factions, the former of which have existed for hundreds of generations.

The primary talk is of a partitioning between the three major "ethnic groups", in the words of Sustainable Enterprises. Unfortunately, however, as often as this is claimed, it's just downright fallacious. Perhaps the simplest problem stems from the fact that an ethnicity is the unchangeable genetic make up into which you are born. Once you are a Kurd, for example, there is simply no turning away from being a Kurd. On the inverse, however, Shi'a and Sunni Islam are both religions, they're sects of Islam specifically, based on their own beliefs and history.

There is an argument, however, that Shi'a and Sunni Islam are so embedded, so ingrained into culture, that the odds of a widespread conversion are too slim to treat the differences as anything but ethnic. A massive conversion of religion would be the fundamental error in any partitioning based on sectarian differences - because religion is made by choice, any person is able to opt out of their current and into another. Therefore, what is currently a Shi'ite territory has the potential to, in the future, become a Sunni territory via proselytizing and other forms of conversion. Or even simple sectarian cleansings.

History has taught us that these religions are such a part of their way of life, that they'd never change, would they? Well actually, history has taught us the opposite. There was a long time in the Middle Ages that Shi'a Islam dominated Muslim way of life, specifically under the Fatim id Dynasty. It was during this time that science and medicine were most advanced under Muslims, though whether this was because of the more worldly Shi'ites' rule or because of the recent acquisition of Greek documents is something still debated by scholars.

Nevertheless, the Shi'ites excelled and flourished, focusing on raising academies and universities, giving lip service, as it were, to religion and theology as was necessary for a Caliphate, but always with an ear for science. The then minority Sunni Muslims were incensed at this notion - and waged something of a war for minds. Instead, they insisted that Islamic schools and Quranic teachings replace the words of Galen and Hippocrates, before madrossas were the majority schools of thought in the Orient. With the focus almost solely on the Quran, Sunni Islam quickly began to take over - resulting in the modern majority we see today.

Therefore the idea of mass conversions is, therefore, not unheard of, and poses a very real threat to the idea of partitioning. Added further, what of the northern Kurds, who can be both? Since an ethnicity and a religion are not mutually exclusive, how would one consider the legal rights of a Sunni Kurd compared to a Shi'ite Kurd? Or a Christian Kurd?

All of these problems are raised when religions are treated as ethnicities - something that isn't changeable.

But history has shown sectarian conversion is nothing new to the Middle East.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatimid
http://www.sustainableenterprises.com/Dubya/outtaIraq.htm