Overview of Peters’s “Blood Borders” (2006)

Ralph Peters, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, argued that the modern Middle East’s borders – largely drawn by colonial powers – are inherently unjust and breed conflict. He opens by asserting that “international borders are never completely just,” and that the degree of injustice in their drawing can mean the difference “between freedom and oppression, … tolerance and atrocity, … or even peace and war”dailykos.com. In Peters’s view, the Middle East (like Africa) has some of the world’s most arbitrary, distorted borders, imposed by “self-interested Europeans”dailykos.com. He contends that these unnatural borders split and lump peoples in ways that fuel violence and extremism. Without rethinking borders along ethno-religious lines, Peters warns, the region cannot become more peacefuldailykos.com.

Peters’ thesis is that a “better” Middle East would require redrawing boundaries to correct historical wrongs. The maps he presents would “redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant ‘cheated’ population groups,” especially the Kurds, Baluch, and Arab Shiasdailykos.com. He acknowledges this proposal still leaves many minorities (Christians, Baha’is, Ismailis, etc.) and past atrocities (e.g. the Armenian genocide) unaddresseddailykos.com. Nonetheless, he insists that major boundary changes are necessary: “without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East”dailykos.com. He frames this as a practical solution – the only way to reduce the region’s chronic instability.

Peters anticipates objections to drastic change by noting that borders have changed repeatedly throughout history. He bluntly tells skeptics that “boundaries have never stopped changing… Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: ethnic cleansing works.”dailykos.com. In other words, he argues that drawing new borders along ethnic or sectarian lines is both historical precedent and, he cynically notes, an effective (if brutal) means to create more homogeneous states. He admits that “correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible…for now,” but predicts that given time – and the inevitable bloodshed – “new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once.”dailykos.com. As he concludes, if the Greater Middle East’s borders cannot be realigned to reflect “natural ties of blood and faith,” then the United States must accept that some of the resulting bloodshed will also be Americandailykos.com.

Key Proposals and Territorial Changes

Peters’s article lays out a detailed territorial reorganization of the Middle East. The new map would create or expand states largely along ethnic and sectarian lines. Major changes include (from Peters’s own outline of “sweeping changes”cbrne-terrorism-newsletter.comcbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com):

• Israel: Reverted to its pre-1967 borders (meaning withdrawal from Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights)cbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com.

• Free Kurdistan: A new, independent Kurdish state. It would unite Kurdish-majority areas from Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. (Peters notes Kurds are “the largest ethnic group…without its own state”, and after 2003 the U.S. missed a chance to create this; he claims any fair referendum there would yield ~100% support for independencealzaytouna.netalzaytouna.net.)

• Iraq divided into three:

  • Sunni Iraq: A northern state of the three majority-Sunni Iraqi provinces (and some mixed areas), perhaps later uniting with western Syria.

  • Arab Shia State: A southern state encompassing Iraq’s Shia regions, possibly extending into adjacent Iranian lands (to give this state oil fields and a Persian Gulf coastline).

  • Free Kurdistan: The Kurdish north (overlapping with Iraq’s Kurdish areas) would join the new Kurdistan above.
    (Peters envisions a “just adjustment” leaving Iraq’s three Sunni provinces contiguous; the Shia south becomes a separate Arab Shia state on the Gulfalzaytouna.net.)

• Greater Lebanon: Lebanon expanded eastward into coastal Syria – reclaiming Phoenician coasts. Peters calls this “a reborn Phoenecia”cbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com. He argues Syria would lose its Mediterranean strip to support this Greater Lebanonalzaytouna.netcbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com.

• Greater Jordan: Jordan would gain land from northwestern Saudi Arabiacbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com, roughly extending Jordan’s borders south or east at Saudi expense.

• Islamic Sacred State (Islamic Vatican): A new state carved from the Hejaz region of Saudi Arabia around Mecca and Medina. It would be governed by a multi-sectarian council (an “Islamic model of the Vatican”)alzaytouna.net. This state would oversee the holy cities; Peters argues that under Saudi rule these shrines are in the hands of a “repressive, extremist” regime. He envisions a multilateral Islamic holy state where decisions on the faith are made by an international Islamic councilalzaytouna.net.

• Saudi Arabia: Greatly truncated. It would lose:

  • Its eastern oil fields (to the Arab Shia State)alzaytouna.net,

  • Its south-west (to an expanded Yemen)alzaytouna.net,

  • Parts of Najd or other areas (to Jordan or the Islamic Sacred State)alzaytouna.net.
    Ultimately only the central region around Riyadh would remain under the Al Saud alzaytouna.net. (Peters emphasizes that Saudi Arabia is a “contrived” state and notes that increasing Saudi wealth/power has been “the worst thing to happen to the Muslim world since the Prophet’s death”alzaytouna.net.)

• Yemen: Receives land from southern Saudi Arabia (the southwestern “Empty Quarter” and/or Asir province). Thus Yemen expands northwardcbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com.

• United Arab Emirates: Loses territory (possibly Fujairah/Sharjah) to the Arab Shia Statecbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com. Dubai, however, remains a separate “playground for the rich”cbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com.

• Kuwait and Oman: Retain their current borderscbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com.

• Azerbaijan: Gains territory from northwestern Irancbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com (reflecting ethnic Azeri lands).

• Iran: Radical resizing. It would cede lands to:

  • Free Kurdistan (western Iran),

  • The Arab Shia State (southwestern Khuzestan province),

  • Azerbaijan (northwest),

  • Free Baluchistan (southeast).
    In exchange, Iran would pick up Persian-speaking regions of Afghanistan (e.g. around Herat)alzaytouna.net. The aim is to make Iran a more homogeneous “Persian” statecbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com.

• Free Baluchistan: A new state for the Baloch people, carved from Baloch-populated areas of southeastern Iran and southwestern Pakistancbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com.

• Afghanistan: Loses western provinces (Herat, etc) to Iran, but gains Pashtun-majority areas from northwest Pakistancbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com. The logic is to reunite tribes across the Durand Line: “what Afghanistan loses to the Persian state in the west, it gains in the east, where tribal unions north-west of Pakistan rejoin their Afghan brethren”【31†L200-208】.

• Pakistan: Another “artificial” state, it is greatly reduced. Pakistan would lose:

  • All Balochistan to Free Baluchistancbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com,

  • Northwestern Pashtun areas to Afghanistanalzaytouna.net.
    The remnants of Pakistan would lie “almost entirely east of the Indus,” with only a strip near Karachi extending westcbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com.

• Turkey: Would lose its Kurdish-majority southeastern provinces to Free Kurdistan (making Turkey essentially “Kurdistan-less”). (This is implied by the Kurds drawing territory from Turkeycbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com and by Peters’s commentary – he calls Turkey’s treatment of Kurds “decades of military violence”alzaytouna.net.)

• Syria: Loses its coast to Greater Lebanon and its Kurdish north to Free Kurdistan, possibly also ceding some territory to Sunni Iraq.

In Peters’s vision, each new state is roughly aligned with an ethnic or sectarian majority. For example, “Sunni Iraq” would cover Sunni Arab areas, while the “Arab Shia State” covers Iraq’s Shia south plus contiguous Shia areas. He explicitly envisions Free Kurdistan stretching “from Diyarbakir to Tabriz”alzaytouna.net, incorporating Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. (He argues Kurds would overwhelmingly vote for this at any referendumalzaytouna.netalzaytouna.net.)

These proposals are not arbitrary: Peters underscores his reasoning that states should correspond to the populations’ identity. He repeatedly labels many current states “contrived” – including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan – because their borders do not match ethnic boundaries. For instance, he calls Saudi Arabia “a contrived state” and Pakistan “another contrived state,” noting each will be “stripped” of portions of its land in his planalzaytouna.netalzaytouna.net. He also suggests that Jordan can keep its core area and even expand (southward into Saudi lands)alzaytouna.netcbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com, implying that Jordan’s borders are more natural by comparison.

Underlying Rationale

Peters’s argument rests on the syllogism that (1) stable, peaceful states require a measure of ethnic or confessional homogeneity, and (2) many Middle Eastern countries today violate that principle. He contends that colonial-era lines have fused hostile groups (e.g. Shia and Sunni Iraqis, Arab and Persian communities in Khuzestan, Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine) or split united groups (notably the Kurds). In his view, these fractures underlie cycles of insurgency and terrorism. By logically removing those artificial fractures – i.e. letting each group govern itself – one can reduce conflict.

He supports this with specific claims (facts), for example:

• Kurds have no state despite numbering more than the population of many countriesalzaytouna.net, and have long been “persecuted by every government controlling their mountains”alzaytouna.net. Thus giving the Kurds a homeland would correct a “huge injustice”alzaytouna.net.

• The Sunni-Shia split in Iraq is so profound that, he says, we should have divided Iraq into three “the moment Baghdad fell” in 2003alzaytouna.net. (He blames U.S. “cowardice” for not doing so, and notes that Kurds did reluctantly support the new Iraqi government only out of gratitudealzaytouna.net.)

• He labels Saudi expansion of Wahhabi influence a threat; for example, he claims Saudi control over Mecca/Medina has allowed the spread of extremist ideology. He argues a “real Islamic justice” would give parts of Saudi oil regions to local Shia and reduce the Al-Saud’s rule to Riyadh environsalzaytouna.net.

• He notes that Iran’s current borders are a patchwork, so trimming Iran to core Persian areas (adding Herat) would make it more naturalalzaytouna.netcbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com.

• He implies that international actors deliberately maintain these unjust borders for advantage, asking rhetorically: if not Americans, who will pay the cost of conflict? (In his conclusion, he warns “part of the blood spilled in this region will be on our [US] account” if borders stay as isalzaytouna.net.)

Peters does not extensively justify each line on the map, but the overall logic is clear: align borders with “natural” divisions of blood (ethnicity) and creed (religion). This, he believes, would reduce friction. For example, by giving Kurds their state, all the countries they occupy become more ethnically uniform; similarly, by excising Shia-majority areas from mostly Sunni Saudi, the remaining Saudis are more uniformly Sunni (and likewise for a new Arab Shia state). He argues that over time, the current “artificial” divisions from Ankara to Karachi create an environment ripe for extremismalzaytouna.net; correcting these would undercut that.

Peters candidly acknowledges that his plan would leave out many groups and require violence. His article notes that Christianity, the Baha’i, and other minorities receive no new homeland in these mapsdailykos.com. He even embraces the unpalatable view that creating ethnically “clean” states may involve bloodshed. As he concludes, the current map’s distortions are causing endless crises – and if we refuse to redraw borders, Americans should consider some of the ensuing blood on our own handsdailykos.com.

Sources: Peters’s own language and proposals are drawn from his Armed Forces Journal articledailykos.comdailykos.com. The above summary is based on Peters’s published text and maps (via the Armed Forces Journal, June 2006) as quoted and analyzed in secondary sourcescbrne-terrorism-newsletter.comcbrne-terrorism-newsletter.comdailykos.comdailykos.comdailykos.com.

Reference:

http://armedforcesjournal.com/blood-borders/