This essay examines the general question of whether states torn by communal violence should be preserved or partitioned.
Many scholars argue that partition creates more problems than it solves.
Other experts, however, claim that partition is often the only option available to end the fighting after brutal communal civil wars. By drawing lessons from Iraq and Lebanon today, this essay weighs the general case for and against partition by exploring when communal conflicts can and cannot be resolved. As Lebanon's experience demonstrates, the twin challenges of ensuring communal security and promoting cooperation can be surmounted even after a civil war. Iraq's experience suggests, however, that states with aggressive neighbors, exclusive political systems, a history of one-sided communal slaughter, and nationalistic minorities are doomed to continued bloodshed and tyranny. States like Iraq that appear condemned to constant conflict should be partitioned.