Why the Failed State of Iraq Should Be Dissolved
As of this writing, another murderous attack against American soldiers has taken place in Iraq, leaving a total of 4,459 American soldiers killed since the beginning of ”Operation Iraqi Freedom.” This does not include the thousands of Iraqis that have murdered each other over the years since Saddam Hussein was deposed in 2003. Whether it is Sunni, Shia, or Christian; Arab, Kurd, or Assyrian, it appears that Iraqis of different ethnicities and religions cannot co-exist in one state. From its Frankenstein-like creation, Iraq has been nothing but an artificial entity that has caused untold misery to its inhabitants, neighbors, and the world at large.
This begs the question if the only real solution to the Iraqi problem would be its dissolution into three separate states: One Sunni, one Shia, and one Kurdish. The reason that this may be the only logical conclusion lies in the history of the founding of Iraq. From its creation some ninety years ago, Iraq has been nothing but a failed state, still-born at birth and held together only through brutal coups and dictatorships. Indeed, its past history may be a prelude to its future if it continues as one entity.
In 1920, upon the decaying corpse that was the Ottoman Empire, the victorious allies of World War I — England and France — captured the former Ottoman territories of the Middle East. One of these territories consisted of the area known in ancient times as Mesopotamia, which was historically the homelands of the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia. From the 7th century A.D. and after, Arab Muslims conquered the region and Arabized and Islamized the indigenous inhabitants. A small Aramaic-speaking Christian Assyrian Orthodox and Chaldean Catholic community continued to exist, along with Jews (who had been there from the time of the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century B.C.), as well as the non-Arab (yet Islamized) Kurds. In 1517, the Ottomans swept down into the Middle East and established their rule that would last for over four hundred years.
When British military forces arrived in 1920, Mesopotamia consisted of three provinces (vilayets) originally created by the Ottoman Turks. These were the provinces of Basra in the east (mainly Shi’ite), Baghdad in the center and south (mainly Sunni), and Mosul in the north (mainly Kurdish Muslim and Assyrian Christian). The British, under Secretary of State Winston Churchill and Colonel T.E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”), decided to cobble together this motley crew of peoples and religions into one country.
In April 1920, the League of Nations granted Britain the “Mandate of Mesopotamia” and Britain created the Kingdom of Iraq, granting it independence in 1932. The name itself is of disputed origin, some claiming that it comes from the ancient city of Uruk, or a Perso-Arabic word meaning “lowland.”
A Hashemite constitutional monarchy was established, and lasted until 1958. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, from the years of 1925 (when the first Parliament met) until the end of the Hashemite monarchy in 1958, ten general elections were held and at least 50 different cabinets came and went. This was the era of “Iraqi democracy.”
You’re looking for solutions for a region in which there are no solutions. Not peaceful solutions, at any rate.
A division of Iraq into 3 seperate countries is undesirable, for an obvious reason. The Kurdish state would be unacceptable to Turkey (especially with the current Islamist government there) and that country would probably either pressure Kurdistan or just flat invade it, to absorb it and make sure the Kurds in Turkey don’t get any ideas of independance. The Shiite splinter would probably be under the influence of the Iranians from the start, and might be absorbed into the mullahs’ orbit, either politically through an out-and-out annexation, or maybe through some subterfuge. The Sunni state would be too weak to stand on its own, though Saudi Arabia and Jordan at the least would probably quake at the thought of it being taken over. As a result it probably would be a client of the Saudis, and by extension us. That would mean we’d have to have troops there, anyway, and we’d only be on one-third the territory we’re on now. The other 2/3 would probably sell their oil elsewhere (certainly the Iranian-Shiite splinter) and we’d suffer the consequences.
BTW, any account of Iraq’s founding which leaves out the name Gertrude Bell is incomplete. I know she’s basically unknown to the modern world, but she was the British government advisor and analyst more responsible than anyone else for cobbling together the various vilayets of Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra, and making a unified country out of them. She became an advisor to the Hashemite King of Iraq, and killed herself in the early ’20s. There’s a famous photograph of the members of the Cairo Conference (where they decided how they were going to divide up the carcase of the Ottoman Empire) on the day Churchill decided to take everyone on a sightseeing tour of the pyramids. Most of the principals of the Conference are arrayed side-by-side on camels, some of them in uniforms, some in civilian clothes (including Lawrence in a suit, of all things) and to one side Miss Bell sits in a dress and a fur stole.
Regardless, I think that though the formation of the country might have been regrettable, and its existence is sometimes a pain to us, the alternative is fraught with difficulties to the extent I think it completely unworkable.
The photo which you mention(though cropped)is on the cover of Michael Oren’s amazing book, Power, Faith and Fantasy”.
The separatism is the secon most hated word after the capitalism.European conservatives bemoaning the lost empires,socialist progressives singing of the future happy unity of the mankind-they hate separatism.In reality there is nothing but mere force that unite different Middle East peoples of different religions.
The fright of posible civil war blood-bath keeps the today`s blood-bath of the terror.
Dissolve Pakistan first.
“If the history of Iraq has taught us anything, it is that Iraq has never functioned as a democracy, only as a tyranny. There are times that one must stare reality in the mirror and come to painful conclusions. The chance of Iraq becoming a paradigm of democracy after ninety years of monarchy, dictatorships, wars, and oceans of spilled blood is nothing more than a mirage in the desert.”
Well, thanks a lot! Shouldn’t someone have pushed this point-of-view back in 2003 when we first invaded the stupid country! So it now takes us 8 long years to figure out that the Iraqis can’t play nice together. If you really think that these three groups of people, especially the Shia who have been slaughtered by the Sunnis under the Hussein regime, are just going to sit back and carve up the country into three managible little pieces, you ARE dreaming.
Iraq is a failed state, no doubt. But it will not go quietly into that good night and simply dissolve itself, especially with the Kurds in the north. I really, really, doubt that either Turkey or Iran would allow an independent Kurdish state, given all the problems they have had with those people. Nope, you may still reach a three-state solution, but it’s only going to be after a massive civil war has been fought and many more people die. And if we really do leave this year, don’t be surprised if we have to go back soon to protect the Kurds once again, as we did under the Clinton administration. Our experience in Iraq only proves that invading any nation in the Middle East is like quicksand. It’s easy to get into it, but almost impossible to get out of it.
It was leaked some time ago that the then Israeli PM, Ariel Sharon, warned Bush privately that democracy wouldn’t work there, and that if he still insists to go there he should be prepared for the possibility that Iraq will dissolve into its different components.
Libertyship46 – Most of the time, you and I are on the same page, but regarding the Iraq invasion in 2003, I will beg to differ. At the time, because Saddam was being so elusive about his assets, and because our intelligence about Iraq was so poor (thank you, Frank Church), I do not think we had much of a choice in the matter. The problem of course was, what to do afterwards. I for one think we should not have dissolved the Iraqi army and we should have found a secular strong man to replace Saddam. Of course 20-20 hindsight is terrific; I did not think our actions would lead to a “democracy” that is a safe-house for Sharia law.
Doesn’t history teach that all overextended empires fail? Our own free nation was bought with the blood of those who dearly believed in the cause. And, so must it must be in Iraq & ALL Arab states.
We should airdrop a good translation of “The Glorious Cause” by Jeff Shaara all over the middle East… and then focus on complete AMERICAN ENERGY SELF RELIANCE.
Speaking of freedom…check out the 535Project at http://www.libertysoup.org
The Kurds apparently have about 200,000 men at arms ready to face them. Our own troops have frequently said that the Kurds are, on average, as good as or even better than ours.
The Arabs also massacred, persecuted and expelled the Jews from Iraq, most of which were resettled in Israel.
But why not four states, one for the Christians? Or whatever’s left of the Christian communities there. You write: “the legitimate rights of the Assyrians and other Christians must be recognized and protected by the international community”. That won’t work. The international community won’t intervene to protect the Christians in case they are attacked. Even if they commit to defend them it’ll be just empty words. Nobody with any power cares about them enough to upset the Muslims. I don’t believe many Christians can remain on this land unless they can defend themselves at least to some degree. Support for self-determination of the Kurds can be conditioned on some defense pact with the Christians (different religions and difficult history, but both are non-Arabs who were oppressed by Arabization), in addition to arming the Christians to their teeth. A Christian state might allow the Christian refugees from Iraq to go back to the Middle East, and might be able to absorb some of the Christian refugees from other Middle Eastern countries. I think a small Assyrian state is possible. I read Kurdish forums and this idea occasionally comes up in discussions between Kurds and Assyrians. I mean, part of the land claimed by the Kurds is also claimed by the Assyrians, but I think maybe a reasonable compromize might be worked out.
True that, like David W. Nicholas wrote, a Kurdish state will be considered a threat by Turkey, and also by Iran and Syria. The Iraqi Arabs might not like it either. A Kurdish state also isn’t likely to limit itself to Iraq forever. They would want to liberate other parts of Kurdistan. But what, then, is the solution?
This type of problem isn’t limited to Iraq. The Middle East has diverse populations living in mostly artificial states under Arab-Muslim dominance. There are 20+ Arab states and not one Kurdish or Amazigh state. And the only Christian majority state turned into a Muslim majority state dominated by Iran and Syria through Hizballah. Many of these states are held together by force and are likely to implode into sectarian conflicts if the strong, that is tyrannical, central government collapses and isn’t replaced with the next strong tyrannical central government. That’s what happens when states are created by outside powers drawing borders on a map with almost complete disregard for ethnic and religious “natural borders”.
So what is the solution? Permanent tyranny? Some sort of loose federation where different populations can have a measure of autonomy? Dismantling existing states and redrawing the borders? I’d like to see polls on this question from the people living in Iraq. What they think is the best solution?
The issue of the Middle Eastern Christians, not just in Iraq, should be dealt with seriously and urgently. The complete eradication from the Middle East of these ancient ethnoreligious communities, these ancient cultures, is a terrible tragedy and a crime against humanity. But I know nobody in power cares about them. They have no oil, power or money, they don’t blow up things and people, and are generally defenseless, so they can exert no pressure.
For a Muslim country Iraq is relatively peaceful. It’s disappointing to see Pajamas Media publish someone promoting Biden’s idiotic partitioning proposal. Partition would result in permanent civil war.
Iraq is better off now than 10 years ago? Come on man, get a grip. Tell that to the 600,000 Iraqi Christians who have been forced out of their native land. Should America continue to spill its blood for a fake state? When was the last time (or the first time) that you saw a picture of an Iraqi waving an American flag and saying “Thank you, America”? There is no good alternative. There is already a perpetual civil war, and America hasn’t withdrawn yet. Believe it or not, when there were three separate provinces under the Turks, there was friction, but not the bloodshed like we have now.
This has nothing to do with Biden. This has to do with facts. I’m tired of Americans coming back in body bags. Aren’t you? What is your solution? Stay there forever?
The overall sense recieved after reading that excellent abbreviated history of that impossibly complex area, along with these excellent comments, is that this dissolution of Iraq is going to happen in time anyway; there’s nothing lasting that we outsiders can “negotiate”.
The “United” Nations, NATO, endless Conferences, Delegations, Study Groups…all are a waste of time.
It’s tragic that the colonial creators of these artificial borders, Britain and France, were and are financially and militarily helpless to effect any lasting reversals of their actions. It’s too late now.
Yes, we deposed a dictator seriously thought by all the major intelligence agencies at that time to be avidly persuing nuclear and biological warfare schemes. Hadn’t Saddam already used biological warfare against, I believe, the Kurds? But now after these years since 2003 we Americans find ourselves frustratingly between rocks and hard places, and, effectively “holding the bag”.
Another circle of a sort has been closed….in a sense we’re back where things started after the collapse of the Ottomans, albeit without Saddam. We Americans can start leaving Iraq at 04:30 hours tomorrow morning, or, with the permission of the shaky government in place, remain for as long as the American Congress permits that area to suck up our bales upon bales of cash…..which is badly needed here at home.
No matter what anyone does, that sulphurous cauldron we call the “Middle East” will remain unsolvable in our “Western” sense of things, and will revert to where it’s been for all of those barbaric, savage centuries.
Partitioning Iraq will cause population displacements and mass murder similar to the partition of the Raj and of the Greco–Turkish War of 1919–192. Who will act and who will watch?
The problem with your scenario is that muslims refuse to recognize anybody else’s right to exist.
The first political studies course I took, the first day we learned about the difference between a “state” and a “nation.” Iraq is a state because it has defined borders and is internationally recognized. Iraq is not a nation because its people are not united and do not believe themselves to be “Iraqi”. They are Sunni Muslim or Shia Muslim; they are Kurds or Arabs; and of course other major distinctions are prevalent including language. Iraq should be partitioned simply because this current state, if left to its own devices during the “Great Game” would never have naturally become a “unified” state. The same goes for Afghanistan and “Palestine” as well.
Which of the following is NOT a failed State? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, Lebanon ? All with substantial religious/ethnic minority populations who are under (ie not) represented ? We gonna break them all apart? At least Iraq has plenty of oil to assuage its constituent parts.
Only a starry eyed idealist would think they can split this mishmash into 3 parts without significant further bloodshed and dislocation. Whatever it is they have now is a lot better than what they had a decade ago.
Well, well. What a novel idea. Let’s have a third party like say, the League of Nations, or the UN, step in and impose national boundaries on a Mid-Eastern country. Because it worked so well in other experiments.
I suggest that this kind of thinking could well lead brilliant analysts at the UN to suggest breaking up the United States by about 2050. If we continue in the direction we are headed, and who sees any alternative, we clearly will not be a single nation, with a common language and shared values. I can foresee the nation of Nuevo Mexico stretching from southwest Texas to California encompassing New Mexico and perhaps Colorado. Then there will be Old America composed of the South and fly-over country. The state of Neo-Europe will encompass the North-east and the liberal Great Lakes states. That leaves Washington and Oregon geographically isolated. They hate Californians so will resist incorporation into Nuevo Mexico–unless of course the very large California immigrant population in those two states overpower the natives. They could in the end become another version of Kurdistan, and give the UN something to tut tut about. Frankly, I don’t care what they do.
What say you, political scientists and would-be tinkerers on the international scene?
Your brilliance is showing Oldflyer. Since our government refuses to enforce our borders & national sovereignty how long before some august world council steps in to sort us out?
Check out the 535Project at http://www.libertysoup.org for the power to INSIST on permanent government overhaul.
Terry from Eilat has a point.
There is nothing peaceful going to hatch from this rotten egg we know as Islam. Look at all the trillions over the many,many years the U.S. has flushed down the Afghan,Pakistani,Iraqi sewers and all for naught.
The idiots in Washington are experts in waste and incompetence with their FAILED agenda’s.
And you’re asking these pretzel’s and nut’s to do something sensible ?
Where is your faith dude ?
Personally, I can clearly see that the whole Arab Spring democracy line the media has been serving up is just DIS-INFORMATION for the Arab stew caldron that is soon to melt in an out of this world inferno.
There is not much of a future for allah’s wunderkinds.
FYI: Bachmann Addresses Security Provisions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mos0blynBiI&feature=digest
1. The Arabs will NOT accept an independent Kurdistan.
2. The Turks will NOT accept an independent Kurdistan.
3. The Iranians will NOT accept an independent Kurdistan.
4. The Sunni (in the middle) will NOT accept being cut off from the oil revenue in the other 2 regions.
5. The Kurds (in the north) will be surrounded by enemies, and cut off from U.S. support.
Yeah, this will work real well.
The same could be said of most of the former European colony’s.
Why these artificial boundries were/are sacrosanct is an
unanswerable question.
Dreaming.
That was the first thought I had after reading the above article. The man’s dreaming. There are “shoulds” and “mights” and “possiblies” all over the article.
What makes him think that a jealous middle Iraq won’t war against the oil rich southern or northern Iraq? What makes him think Iran will somehow find reason in the morass of insanity that is their religious and political thought process and not invade? “Oh Jeez, it’s okay now that the Shias have their own land now”… yeah, right.
Now he is right in the fact that the Arabs and Persians, Shiites and Sunnis are hellbent in killing each other and have been for a very, very long time. He is also right that the Brits screwed the pooch when they redrew the country, or maybe they were seeking internal unrest in order to weaken the whole. Who knows. The end result was no surprise to anyone who had even a passing knowledge of the Middle East history.
At some point we have to grasp the fact that certain peoples, certain societies, certain nations will never reach 1st world status because they don’t have the core population to do so. We can’t “get out” because, as 9-11 proved, they’ll just follow us to our shores and murder us here.
We need to realize there is no solving their madness. Why do scorpions sting? Because it is their nature. To stop that, we’d have to outlast two generations of people and train the children differently. Or we have to show them such power that they fear doing anything bad. Neither choice is a good one.
Agreed, Doubly Agreed: “he is right in the fact that the Arabs and Persians, Shiites and Sunnis are hellbent in killing each other and have been for a very, very long time.” It does not make me happy to say so, but Nothing is constant in the Mideast except evil and stupidity. There is NO solution that will make Iraq look like Switzerland. None.
You might be surprised at how many Iraqis understand how much they need a unified Iraq in order to continue to stay independent of Iran. They understand regional politics and regional fears far better then we do. Is it a good idea to assume the role of the British and other colonial powers at drawing maps, followed closely by violence as the direct result of said boundary-drawing? The hubris of this article (and the idea of partitioning Iraq) is breathtaking.
As a long time resident of fly over country I sometimes dream of the United States breaking into 4 or 5 loosely confederated regions. Now, back to Iraq (and Afghanistan & Pakistan). I see no real solution to the problems in this region. I do not believe there can ever be a long term solution that is favorable to our security interests that will last beyond our withdrawal; be it next month or in ten years from now. I favor orderly withdrawal asap.
America has to get over its idealistic obsession that every human being on earth is salivating over the idea of Democracy as we define it. We’ve committed far too much American blood and money dedicated to this quest and, like a house of cards, both Afghanistan and Iraq will eventually revert to their Islamic roots as American and allied troops withdraw; yet another ignominious military adventure, the result of never defining, and ultimately a determined effort to obscure, the nature of the enemy.
The West should have one major objective in the Levant and that is to prevent any nation controlled by an Islamic theocracy to acquire a nuclear weapon or nuclear capability of any kind whatsoever. Monitor with a global “microscope” and take out every site suspected of developing a nuclear capability, with a vengeance, until all attempts to spread the poison of Islam cease to exist; if that should ever occur considering it has been ongoing since the 7th century, AD.
As an integral companion to that strategy, remove all the barriers to American energy production, of every conceivable but viable type. Turn the life blood of Islamic wealth that finances their quest for world domination into a veritable embalming fluid.
Eventually the brave young men and women we send off on these military misadventures will realize that their lives are not worth sacrificing to build nations uninterested or offended by the unwelcome intrusion into their internal affairs or in attempts to maintain the world’s supply of fuels that we have in abundance domestically but refuse to develop to appease the anti-war, anti-Capitalist, anti-industrial Environmentalists. America needs to stop this practice before our military becomes completely demoralized once again. Vietnam, remember?
The idea of breaking Iraq into three separate states has been floating around since before the US went in to depose Saddam Hussein, most notably by Joe Biden. So, you may get your wish once the do nothing Obama makes a lousy situation completely untenable. Then we will see wars between the Kurds and the Turks over the Kurdish oil fields, and between the Shiites and the Sunnis over Mesopotamia. Plus, Iran will eventually invade all three fledgling nations and install an Islamic caliphate. I can’t wait for all that to happen.
Although I’m in favor of a withdrawal from these failed states, I don’t for a moment advocate a hands-off involvement afterward. The only way we can be secure in the long-term is to foment permanent discord between all these two-bit psychopathic states. They are much easier to manage if they are using their resources fighting with each other. God willing, they will remain forever in a permanent state of bickering, belligerent, and toothless chaos.
I agree Mr. Whipsnade. I favored taking out Saddam and then letting the country dissolve into chaos and internal conflict. We could have created a beautiful vacuum where Iran came in on the part of the Shiites and the Sunnis Arabs on the part of the Iraqi Sunnis, leaving the Kurds against all which would have poked a thorny stick into the side of ever sliding towards sharia Turkey. I say withdraw and stand back ever ready to rain down death from above if necessary.
So what evidence is there that there is a failed state in Iraq? Merely the existence of a modest insurgency and some tribal level conflicts? Doesn’t sound compelling to me. Having said that, if Iraq breaks up, the three way partition is the obvious way to do so.
we never should have invaded that country.
This would have been the right solution when we first invaded the country – and I mean back under Bush 41. But now what’s done is done. We never should have invaded in the first place. We never should have had an alliance with (or a care in the world for) Kuwait. Now? We should just leave. If Turkey and Iran want it let them have it. If they don’t, let the “Iraqis” kill each other. Obviously that’s what they want. The only people I feel sorry for are the Christians, but Dubya betrayed them by helping create a MUSLIM state where Christianity is practically illegal and already people are being executed for converting to it; and now nothing can be done. Let ‘em be.
Regardless of US’s wishes or of the west, the middle east political map can’t and will not remain as is today. Current middle east map is not based neither on natural boundaries nor ethnic divisions. Is based on oil and The west’s empirical tendencies. Sooner than latter US will leave IRAQ.
When It happens what’s hold IRAQ together today will crumble, and The Kurds will declare independence which will trigger not only a civil war but regional war. Nationalist Turks definitely will try to crush their own Kurdish population, Syrian Sunnies will take over Syria from the Alevites minorities. Most likely Jordan will became the new Palestinians state, Iran defiantly will aligned with Iraqi Shiites, and who knows what else will explode. This may be far fetched today but It will happen and When it does we will see a different map with bunch of brand new nation states.