A Novice Look at Iraq - Thanks!

[WhiskeyBoarder]

Gentlemen,

I always post here with a bit of hesitancy as I feel less qualified then others to express my opinion. This hesitancy is born of utmost respect. I have lurked on these boards for over two years now and choose my words sparingly. However, I wrote this little tidbit up tonight in my boredom and, despites its extended length, could think of no other place to gather worthy opinion then here.

I respectfully encourage any interested parties to read the following. It concerns a wealth of thought on the current situation in Iraq. Also, please note, that I wrote it with the intention of publishing it as a private blog amongst friends (whom I tired of explaining my Middle East opinions), so if it doesn’t seem directed toward the types on this forum, please know that it wasn’t.

Thanks Gentlemen.




The following is an abridged version of what I feel is going on currently in Iraq, what has led to the current situation – focusing particularly on issues that continue to influence certain in-country parties- and what to do to most effectively walk away from the situation with something resembling a more globally-beneficial Iraq then what we started with prior to the year 2002.

All of this is being written in one sitting and is my own original work. As such, it is not being professionally written, other then to be as grammatically proper as possible, and will include no citations because all ideas, opinions, and views are being developed originally. Also, I have no worldly influence for writing this. I have no scholastic or monetary gains in mind. Rather, I am- more or less- just bored and interested in the topic.

The only authority that I have to write on this topic with any sort of knowledge-base is four years military experience, of which most was spent on the ground, in Iraq, with light infantry battalions. Other then that, I am just a lowly undergraduate student, studying Middle East politics and history while attempting to obtain a B.A. in International Studies with a Minor in Religion. Could I be totally off-base in my assessment? It’s probable, but I beg only that you hear me out. Maybe something I say could be beneficial in some form, if for no other reason then to start interesting dialogue.

And, as a disclaimer, I am a Republican and a huge supporter of our current President, despite his flaws (like, for example, not being truly CONSERVATIVE). I also support all participation in Iraq and have been supportive since day one. I participated. I shed blood, tears, plenty of sweat, lost friends and killed bad people. While I will attempt to be unbiased, I feel obligated to let my prejudice be known. Now….

First of all, I hate to shortchange thousands of years of history by condensing all of it into a few paragraphs, but I am constrained by limitations that are guided by how long my interest will stand for this writing. Prior to the beginning of this latest Iraq war, I have had concerns with the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular. The biggest dilemma that faces the region is not religiously motivated but rather geo-politically (“geo-politics” to be a major theme throughout this writing). Certain ethnic divisiveness has contributed, throughout history, into the development of the Middle East. One divide stands out particularly; the Arab and the Persian, which given Iraq’s location should immediately stand out as a precursor to the current predicament. (Continued...)

[WhiskeyBoarder]

(...Continued from Above)

However, let’s just say, hypothetically, that the Middle East was developing in a bloody but natural manner throughout history. I feel that this “natural” development came to a crashing end following the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Suddenly, around that point in history, you have an entire region to be split between different Western imperialistic influences. The French had their mandate, the British theirs, and, of course, the United States had its own influence. The way my history looks back is thusly: countries in the Middle East were formed and shaped based on these foreign ownerships and not on what was most obviously correct for the region. And the creation of these countries, with boundaries that many times joined people of totally separate ethnic and religious ties, has been the single most devastating system of events to occur in the region. The creation of these countries in such a haphazard manner, to me, has been the most extreme cause of strife. And now we have an ample opportunity to correct at least one of these country’s problems.

So, let’s go from there. We have countries that exist that, if not for Western influence, really should not. But, remember, we are focusing on Iraq. Here is a country that suffers from all the maladies mentioned above. Not only do its borders contain large populations of three religiously divided groups, but it also sits directly on the Persian and Arabian divide. On one side, you have Persian Iran. On the other, you have Arab Saudi Arabia. What could good be expected of such an unfortunately geographically-placed nation?

Now with these two influences leaning heavily on each side of the country of Iraq, you have a further agitator. His name was Sadaam Hussein. But let’s remember; Sadaam was a Baathist. Scholarly types seem to forget what the Baathist party stood for (and what it still currently stands for in other nations) and that is NOT religious superiority. That is far from the truth. The Baathist platform, in a nutshell, contains a goal of spreading Pan-Arabism regardless of faith. So, suggesting that Saddam had intentions of staying true to his party’s most worthy intention, you can see how this would be particularly disheartening for its neighbor to the east, Iran.

Trying to unite an Arab nation would explain exactly why Sadaam had goals of crushing his Kurdish residents in the northern regions of his country. Adding intensity to all the disputes going on in Iraq was the Islamic Revolution that occurred in Iran in the late ‘70s. Now Iran became a pro-Shia Muslim country. Hussein, on the other hand, was a devout Sunni. Iran definitively becomes Iraq’s enemy number one, because they not only represent Persia but an opposing faction of Islam.

What does all this mean? Iraq was a kettle with the fires of hell burning underneath of it, just ready to boil over. American intervention in 2003 may have agitated the kettle, but it was already spilling. What American intervention did do, however, was give any hope to the situation. If the spark that would have ignited the country had come via any of the country’s three ethnically different groups, we would have a much worse situation now. Even scarier would have been an Iran-initiated conflict that would not only have pitted Shia versus Sunni but Persian versus Arab. With Western influence, at least now there is hope of some stability that these other options simply did not suggest.

So what is going on now? This is where go-politics comes in. The current situation in Iraq does not hinge on religion. I repeat: Iraqis, as a general overview, are not fighting over religious differences. This is not to say that the guys on the streets might not be motivated by religion, but that is because they are “low men on the totem pole.” Religion is propaganda being used by leaders with much more deeply rooted agendas.

And those agendas revolve around geo-politics. In a perfect world, the Kurds to the north would have their own autonomous region. As would the Sunnis to the west, separated from Persia by a Shia nation in the south. Perfect, right?

Not so much and here is why. The geography of these hypothetical nations precludes them from developing. Sure, the Sunnis want independence but not in the deserted western regions of Iraq. There are hardly resources there to be economically dependent on and, worse, no connection to water to transport anything they do have to offer. So their recourse seems to be to smash the Shia to the south. In my hypothesis, the Kurds and the Sunnis could co-exist, given the Sunni nation has access to the Gulf in the south. The only method for the Sunnis to get this access seems to be via destroying the southern Shia nation.

And this, in my assessment, is why we currently have a mess. Precluding the relatively peaceful northern Kurdish region in the north, a pan-Arab nation of Sunnis and Shias for all of these reasons simply will not work. There is entirely too much influence from Shia Iran to allow the Sunni nation to survive and geo-politics limit the Sunnis from desiring such to work anyway. Uniting the two simply isn’t an answer because one faction will never settle on a straight up “50/50” government, which democracy would never create anyway. So where’s the answer?

My solution is not well thought-out, a bit abstract, and more of just a development of early thought. But why not attempt a two nation system? The Kurds can have their northern region since they seem content with just that. That would constitute the first nation. A federation can occur for the remaining Sunni and Shia regions; a federation of two states. The western Sunni region would extend from its current figurative area with a small arm cutting down the eastern side (opposite Iran) of the Shia nation, giving just enough room to create some sort of access to the Basrah port area. In exchange, the Shias can have further access to the north. Oil revenue, which would be generated most predominately by the Shia south, would be distributed throughout the two-state federation. And, you know what? As hard as it is to swallow, allow the country to adopt whatever sort of government they choose. Democracy simply will not work when population numbers dictate that one faction will out-seat another. So allow them to choose a different form of government. Let the American mission in Iraq to become the spread of peace and unity in the region and less the spread of democracy. Hard for us military-types to swallow, but maybe something that needs to be realized.

Of course, any idea like this is a pipedream as it would take renewed support from the globe’s militaries to stand in support of the new federation until they can support themselves. There are entirely too many outside threats to expect this fledgling new federation to exist without early outside support.

And, if all this fails, my only other foreseeable option is much more difficult to accept. Let Iran absorb the Shia south, satisfy them and bring about Middle East stability through appeasement. But this opens a whole new can of worms.

I genuinely feel that if my two state federation idea were more thoughtfully developed by those with much more education and experience then my own, it could be a viable plan. It would take time, but any plan would. Furthermore, it would promote stability. And stability in the Middle East should be our (American) utmost desire even greater then the spread of democracy.

Just my two cents. Thanks!

Steve B.

[Pete]

How will an independant Kurdish state impact the Kurds in Turkey and Iran?

How will Turkey and Iran react to an independant Kurdish state on their border?

Africa suffers from the same problem. Tribes are split by borders drawn by Europeans.

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Pete

How will an independant Kurdish state impact the Kurds in Turkey and Iran?

How will Turkey and Iran react to an independant Kurdish state on their border?

Africa suffers from the same problem. Tribes are split by borders drawn by Europeans.

IMHO...

In Turkey. PKK would seriously ramp-up operations to "unite" the state. Response by Turkish Military would most likely include COIN operations and larger scale cross-border operations to take out support bases and create a buffer zone...eg. Israel.

In Iran the reaction might be similar, I am not as familiar with the history of the Kurds in that area.

[WhiskeyBoarder]

Gentlemen,

As always, I greatly appreciate your comments.

While I am sure there are a great many holes in my theory, you guys exposed the largest: my limited knowledge of the Kurdish situation. Again, I am little more then an undergrad attempting to broaden my horizons outside of my collegiate education. In my suggested solution, I sort of bypassed the Kurdish region as an after thought. Y’all have been very clear that this option is not viable. You have been even clearer that I have to get my reading up. I will be off to do some “outside-the-classroom” studying on the Kurds at the earliest convenience.

Speaking of outside reading, I want to bring up another point (and if this has been discussed here, excuse me because I typing off the top of my head right now) in regards to my original post. I was flipping through the new epilogue in the latest publishing of “Imperial Hubris” and the author repeatedly points out that Muslim violence towards Westerners isn’t born of hate for Democratic freedom, but from Western actions (support of Israel, troops on Arab grounds, etc, etc). I mentioned in my original post that I didn’t feel that democracy could work successfully in a unified Iraq because of the Shia / Sunni division. I think the points in “Imperial Hubris” and what I am saying contradict and I would greatly appreciate any opinion concerning democratic prospects in Iraq.

Furthermore, I want to point out that I am currently reading “Chosen Soldier” and author Couch made a statement (and the exact quote escapes me) but really captured how important spreading democracy is to you Special Forces warriors. With that being said, I hope none of my opinions concerning the democratic solution in Iraq short-sight anything that y’all Gentlemen have worked so hard to protect and promote. Again, I am simply attempting to develop ideas “outside of the box” and, again, broaden my education.

Sorry to take this thread back in a direction more suitable to my education level, but I simply can’t comment on the Kurdish situation without further education. If you want to continue on that topic, please do. I would greatly appreciate the knowledge. And, bare with the length of my posts, it’s just my nature.

Thank you.

[jjames83]

What you've written sounds very close to Sammuel P. Huntington's clash of the civilizations.

If you haven't read it, I would suggest you do.