The Three "Iraqs" - Why the War was Always Doomed To FailureSubmitted by spacehabitats on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 17:49
In campaigning for RNC delegate, jigsawgyrl (my wife), is confronted by a lot of "old school" GOP'ers who have bought the Neoconservative line about Iraq; that we broke Iraq and now it’s our duty to fix it. They believe that we need to stay there “until we win”.
When she asks them what would constitute winning they will usually give an answer something like, “When all Iraqis can live together in a stable, peaceful democracy.”
That prompted me to come up with the following.
The mainstream media hides this problem (and it's solution) in plain sight, by largely ignoring it.
And because it does not fit in well with the globalist’s plans to build ever larger super states, their politicians are only too happy to ignore it as well.
It doesn’t mention Ron Paul because we are not running as “RP” delegates.
It also doesn’t mention issues like constitutional declaration of war or U.N. involvement just to keep it simple.
Iraq’s Dirty Little Secret
I know the “dirty little secret” of Iraq.
It explains why the war was doomed from the beginning.
It also explains why it will continue to be a disaster for the United States as long as we are there.
When 9/11 happened, like a lot of other Americans, I wanted to smash something. When President Bush told us that Sadaam Hussein was harboring terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, I believed him and felt we needed to do something. But what we did not know and President Bush wasn’t telling us (or possibly what even he did not realize) was that there was no “Iraq”. There were, and still are, THREE “Iraqs” (Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish).
Not recognizing this fact has led us to make a monumental mistake; a mistake that we are compounding daily.
The country that we call “Iraq” was created artificially out of three states or kingdoms. They did not voluntarily choose to come together, as did our original thirteen colonies. They were forced together by the League of Nations in 1926 under British rule. The three states were, and remain to this day, divided by significant cultural, religious, and ethnic differences. They have been at war off and on for centuries. They have NEVER peacefully co-existed under anything but a monarchy, a blood-thirsty military dictatorship, or military occupation. They are not a republic, not because they do not believe in democratic principles, but because “they” are not a nation at all. The three Iraqs never wanted to form a nation in the first place!
What Bush also didn’t tell us was that he was going to make us stay in “Iraq” indefinitely; until we FORCED these three peoples to live together as a happy and stable “democracy”. Whether or not you think we had an obligation, or even the right to do this, it is simply impossible. A constitutional republic derives its legitimacy from the will of the people, the “consent of the governed”, and can never be imposed on an unwilling people. There is more to forming a nation than deciding what type of government there will be. There is also the critical matter of who will be governed, and by whom. When you realize that there are really three “Iraqs”, suddenly everything starts to makes sense.
We won the conventional war easily and even enjoyed the status as “liberators” to the Shiites and Kurds… at first. But any hope of “nation-building” based on a model of a western democracy was doomed before we started.
It is as if after Pearl Harbor we had invaded China instead of Japan, and then set about forcing Tibet and Korea to merge with China under our military occupation.
The Kurds have always wanted a nation of their own, and they have been the happiest since the war because, for the most part, they were already segregated from the rest of Iraq and have been allowed the most autonomy. Shiite leaders have seen a united, democratic “Iraq” as being their opportunity to rule over the Sunni and Kurdish minorities using the ballot box. The Sunni’s, realizing this, have been at the core of the insurgency because they, justifiably, fear discrimination and retribution at the hands of a Shiite-controlled government.
Our own Bill of Rights guarantees Americans our freedom of association but we denied that for the Iraqis. Sadaam Hussein forced the three Iraqs to live together at the point of a gun, and, to our shame, we continue that same tyranny.
The former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union existed as two “nations” only as long as they were ruled by powerful and ruthless tyrants. When those tyrants were removed, the "nations" dissolved and were quickly replaced by multiple smaller countries divided along cultural and ethnic boundaries.
Expecting the three “Iraqs” to behave differently isn’t just unrealistic, it is insanity; painful and expensive insanity. The involvement of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Syria, or Iran are all the result, not the cause, of this problem.
Politicians are justifying our continued presence in Iraq to prevent a “bloodbath”. What they refuse to consider is that we are already causing a bloodbath. Some political scientists, historians, and Middle East “experts” have talked about the “three Iraqs” obliquely. But no one consistently points out that by our military presence and insistence that the sects remain integrated, we have become the problem. It has become the Emperor’s New Clothes of political theories, obvious to anyone that looks at Iraq with an open mind, but ignored by the news media and politicians.
If we had allowed “Iraq” to schism along sectarian lines, the war would have been over four years ago. I’m not saying that there wouldn’t have been bloodshed, but it would have been a fraction of what occurred anyway. The birth of a nation, like the birth of a child, often involves pain and blood. The birth of our nation certainly did.
But the result would have been their own nations, with their own governments. And if, and only if, they chose to pay the price, they could have also won their own liberty.
There never has been any other way.