Originally published in the Rutland Herald and the Barre Times-Argus
When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq in 2003, a course of action was started that has left the United States virtually without influence today in that important “country”.
The probable intention of the Bush administration, heavily influenced as it was by the neoconservatives who populated it, was to create an Arab democracy which could be emulated by other Arab nations. That would create and encourage a democracy-dominated environment that would make the region safer for Israel.
What the Bush Administration either was too ill-informed to know, or refused to acknowledge was that Iraq was the absolute least likely candidate in the Middle East for the installation of democracy. Sad to say, Iraq contains in superabundance, all those elements that make democracy problematic: Nationalism, Sectarianism and Tribalism.
Iraq, a “country” of 31 million people, is composed of around 75% Arab, 20% Kurd and 5% Assyrian, Turkoman and others. It is important to note that Iraq’s better than half million Kurds are a part of an overall Kurdish regional population of 30 million, giving them a non-Arab support base outside Iraq. They are “not alone”. Their geographic location next to large Kurdish populations in Turkey, Syria and Iran is important as it gives them regional national allies and a sense of belonging not shared by other national minorities in the region.
Iraq remains a strongly tribal state. When law and order break down, as it has in Iraq today, and populations increasingly fear for their safety and well-being, people tend to return to their most basic social units, the groups from which they stem and with which they feel safe.
Of the roughly 150 tribes in Iraq, two dozen dominate. Most of the tribes and their subordinate clans and families are grouped into tribal federations. Even though tribalism generally has been discouraged since the Baath Party came to power in 1968, it was often encouraged during the war with Iran in the belief that it helped hold the Iraqi people together against a common enemy.
The greatest problem that today’s Iraq has to face is Sectarianism. Muslims comprise about 97% of Iraq’s population. Those Muslims are roughly 65% Shia and 35% Sunni. The remaining 3% of the population contains a smattering of “Christians and others”. Repressive foreign and native rule over the past 14 centuries has been the only thing that has prevented the Shia and Sunnis from killing each other. Absent that coercion, as we see today, the killing is almost incessant.
The Baath Party, a Sunni organization, ruled Iraq from its coup in 1968 until the 2003 American invasion. It is interesting to note that during that entire period, many Sunnis really believed that they represented a majority of the Iraqi people. Such Iraqi Sunnis have been amazed to hear and often unwilling to believe that the real majority is the Shia population, clinging to the premise that they are the rightful rulers of Iraq.
Iraq is rich in oil. There are oilfields in Shia southeastern Iraq and in Kurdish northeastern Iraq, leaving the Sunnis with mostly desert. Oil ownership is one of the major issues involved in today’s negotiations between the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds. When you think of Iraq, its ongoing sectarian violence and its prospects for the future, remember that the Sunnis who once had all the power and all the resources, now have a large patch of sand. Unsurprisingly, they are said to be running death squads against the Shia with sharply increasing regularity.
Iraq is now trying to negotiate its way into stability. Unfortunately, the Shia under Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki are playing real hardball. It is clear that after decades of political, economic and physical mistreatment by the Sunnis, they have little interest in compromise or fairness. Add to that the meddling of Shia Iran in Iraqi affairs at the expense of Sunnis and Kurds and prospects become more bleak.
And while the realities of Sectarian conflicts persist, Iraq bubbles along with periodic acts of sectarian and nationalist violence and terrorism while apparently trying to create conditions that will permit Iraq to remain on the scene as a cohesive “country”.
Unfortunately, this goal seems unlikely at best. The Kurdish-Arab differences are bad enough, but when added to the Sunni-Shia rivalry and their propensity toward violence, the only logical, peaceful end in sight is the division of Iraq into its component parts.
We could very well see Kurdish, Shia and Sunni “countries” evolve out of today’s Iraq. However, with the possible exception of the Kurds, there is nothing in Iraqi history or culture that could lead a rational observer to hope for democracy there. Moderate Islam is about the best we can hope for, a new dictatorship, the worst.
Leave a Reply