The fake "nation-state" of Iraq
|
|
| Also listed in: activist support group | America for Gay Rights | American people For Hillary | Clinton and Obama- Unity in November | Fans of Howard Dean | National Stonewall Democrats | Washington State Democrats |
The legacy of British colonialism can be seen in the sectarian strife that now engulfs Iraq, and which was only "controlled" by a dictatorial despot until the USA invaded and occupied the country.
"Country" is not the correct word for the nations carved during Britain's Imperial days. They could be more accurately described as "Colonies."
One of the goals of an Imperial system is to keep the masses so involved in petty issues, that they can't unite to fight the Empire. The Romans accomplished this task through the manipulation of law and order in Rome's colonies, which were for the most part drawn to encompass and encircle individual cultural groups.
The British, on the other hand, accomplished the goal by including rival cultures inside the borders of individual colonies. If it weren't for the influence of the British Empire on physical geography, Iran would include all Shi'ite territory, Kurdistan would be its own colony, instead of being divided between Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria as it is today.
It is a testament to the ancient strength of the Kurds that Britain had to split their territory into 4 parts to ensure their subjugation. Iraq is a nation divided ethnically between the kurds and the arabs, and spiritually between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. It, like so many ex-colonies (India, Angola, Zimbabwe spring immediately to mind) was set up to be governed by a despot. In Iran and Jordan, to be sure, the despot was named "king" and the royal families were intended to rule for generations. This explains why the Pavlavi family was initiated as the "Peacock Throne." and its patriarch named the "Shah" of Iran.
The dream of a peaceful, democratic Iraq will only come about if the nation is a federation of three independent states which would serve as homelands for the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish populations. Otherwise, the "country" will have to fall under some form of iron rule and central control, which is the very opposite of Democracy.
In conclusion, Iraq is a fake nation-state, and to try an maintain it as one indivisible nation would require an indefinite "surge" by American troops. Yes, the surge has "worked" in that the increased presence of more troops have subjugated the population. Democracy will not take hold, unless a loose federation is established encompassing 3 separate democracies.
"Country" is not the correct word for the nations carved during Britain's Imperial days. They could be more accurately described as "Colonies."
One of the goals of an Imperial system is to keep the masses so involved in petty issues, that they can't unite to fight the Empire. The Romans accomplished this task through the manipulation of law and order in Rome's colonies, which were for the most part drawn to encompass and encircle individual cultural groups.
The British, on the other hand, accomplished the goal by including rival cultures inside the borders of individual colonies. If it weren't for the influence of the British Empire on physical geography, Iran would include all Shi'ite territory, Kurdistan would be its own colony, instead of being divided between Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria as it is today.
It is a testament to the ancient strength of the Kurds that Britain had to split their territory into 4 parts to ensure their subjugation. Iraq is a nation divided ethnically between the kurds and the arabs, and spiritually between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. It, like so many ex-colonies (India, Angola, Zimbabwe spring immediately to mind) was set up to be governed by a despot. In Iran and Jordan, to be sure, the despot was named "king" and the royal families were intended to rule for generations. This explains why the Pavlavi family was initiated as the "Peacock Throne." and its patriarch named the "Shah" of Iran.
The dream of a peaceful, democratic Iraq will only come about if the nation is a federation of three independent states which would serve as homelands for the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish populations. Otherwise, the "country" will have to fall under some form of iron rule and central control, which is the very opposite of Democracy.
In conclusion, Iraq is a fake nation-state, and to try an maintain it as one indivisible nation would require an indefinite "surge" by American troops. Yes, the surge has "worked" in that the increased presence of more troops have subjugated the population. Democracy will not take hold, unless a loose federation is established encompassing 3 separate democracies.
Whether intentional or by virture of their own ignorance, those from the western world have ignored the realities of the ancient tribalism and cultures of the Middle East and made arbitrary decisions that create false boundaries which violate this ancient history.
That is the problem that is central to the unrest in the Middle East: BORDERS THAT VIOLATE thousand year old histories.
And, in my opinion that is one of the keys if not THE KEY to setting things right in middle east: A fair renegotiation of these boundaries that does not disregard a thousand year old history because those in the West "know better."
Every decision made regarding the looting of the museums and the destruction of public institutions in Iraq, was deliberate. Rumsfield deliberately wanted historical and cultural references and icons, destroyed. Huh?? I hear you say. The troops watched and were ordered to stand down.
Why?? It's called a "clean slate" theory. Before any changes can be made to a culture, you have to wipe our references to the past.
The ignorance, the irrelevance, the apathy with regard to middle eastern culture and specifically Iraq, all planned with precision and all deliberate.
But what did get accomplished is this and no surge in the world, or stick will ever be able to change it...unless of course, you are an advocate of a "scorched earth" policy.
Iraq is already separated into ethnic and sectarian divide. The Kurds have their own military, own territory and laws. In fact, as part of the Iraq constitution, nothing happens in their territory, without their approval. The Shiite/Shia territory is, southern Iraq. They are theological based as a sect, heavily influenced by Iranian and their own clerics in Iraq. Some would say they are financed and armed by Iran. So be it. You will never be able to change that either unless you unleash the dogs of hell. World condemnation along with Shiite resistance to the death, would follow. Not a good scenario.
We are there for the Sunni. They are short on numbers and they really don't have a lot of options regarding protection, land or resources. The Green Zone and concrete barriers throughout Baghdad, seems to be their only source of comfort.
Having said all that, (which is a lot), we have broken a country, killed a lot of people and have lost a lot of our own. Although no one is saying it outloud, the reality is, three separate and distinct enities in Iraq, each with their own agendas.
As I have pointed out in many posts, there were winners in this fiasco and they should be the ones that the american people should concentrate on. We have been distracted by "shock and awe" and the pursuit of freedom, democracy, and liberty that apparently became the goal and the reason for the invasion and occupation, of Iraq.
None of the reasons published, reported or debated have anything to do with the real reason.
Money and Privatization and a shitload of both. The american people were raped and worse, they managed to bend a foreign and soverign country over, and looted it, killing, maiming and destroying a culture and a civilian population. Unadulterated Rape.
This has transcended any political discussion. This is also, not a partisan issue. This is criminal and until the american public, see's it for what it really is...we, will continue to debate and discuss a distraction and a illusion.
Other than those clarifications I couldn't agree more with you.
thanks for reading my post and noting your comments.
The Middle East has been described as the last "great frontier" for economic opportunity and investment. There were many targets on the list. Iran, Jordan, Syria and naturally, Iraq. UN sanctions did not break their backs. Saddam hung in there with his nationalized industries and was arrogant and independent. Seen pic's before the invasion? After 10 years of sanctions, Baghdad, looked pretty good, schools were open as were the hospitals.
The "perfect storm" of 9/11 and terrorists threats, enabled to implementation of a plan and the excuse to invade and occupy a country in the Middle East. Saddam and Iraq was the perfect target. WMD's, Nuke's, Biological Weapons?? Perfect.
Done deal and most americans bought it.