Current Situation in Iraq: thoughts? Solutions?

[Gary Childress]

Kaiserguard made a very good point in another thread that there isn't much talk about Iraq right now.

I am therefore starting a thread so that we at CFC are not considered "uncaring toward civilian deaths".

Here is an article from today's news on the event. I've highlighted a few good sections and even underlined a couple GREAT sections.

I would particularly love to hear in this thread from any Iraqis who may be out there in CFC land. What is going on? What is your take on the situation? How can we outside of Iraq better understand what is going on and how to help/fix or otherwise stay out of it?

Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric appealed to Iraqi politicians on Friday not to make themselves "an obstacle" in the country's transition as the deadline looms for selecting the next prime minister.

The remarks by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, delivered by his spokesman, were another indirect appeal by the cleric to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to step down.

"The big challenges facing Iraq require that the next government command national and broad acceptance ... to face the crises that are hitting the country," spokesman Ahmed al-Safi quoted the reclusive al-Sistani as saying.

"No one should make himself an obstacle in achieving national consensus," al-Sifi added during the sermon in the southern Shiite city of Kabala.

Al-Maliki, who has led the country since 2006, has insisted he remain in the post for a third four-year term. His bloc got the most seats in April's parliamentary elections but failed to get a majority, so he needs to build a coalition in order to govern.

The next government is expected to grapple with an unprecedented blitz offensive by Sunni extremists from the Islamic State group, which in June seized a large chunk of the country's north and west.

Iraq's leaders are under pressure to form an inclusive government that can draw Sunni support away from the insurgency. But the Sunnis have long accused al-Maliki of marginalizing their community, and even many of his Shiite and Kurdish allies say he has monopolized power.

Iraq's newly-elected president, Fouad Massoum, is required to select a prime minister from the largest political bloc by next Friday.

Al-Sistani's appeal came as the United Nations said that more than 1,737 people were killed in Iraq in July, making it one of the deadliest months of the year but marking a decline from the previous month, when the Islamic State militants swept across much of the country. The death toll in June stood at 2,400.

Still, July's toll — which included an increase in killings in areas now under the control of the Islamic State — was considerably higher than May's, when about 800 people were killed.

Iraq's large, U.S.-trained and equipped military melted away in the face of the initial militant onslaught, but has since regrouped — though it has not managed to retake lost ground.

In announcing the latest casualty figures, the U.N. mission also reiterated its own calls on Iraq' feuding politicians to set aside their differences and form an inclusive government.

"It is time that they move forward on the creation of a new government that can address the root causes of violence in Iraq and ensure equitable development for all communities," Nickolay Mladenov, the U.N. special representative for Iraq, said in the statement Friday.

Militants with the Islamic State have also destroyed ancient shrines and mosques in Iraq's second-largest city, Mosul, claiming they stray from hardline Islamic practices and instead promote apostasy.

Al-Sistani denounced the targeting of holy sites on Friday, saying Islamic State extremists are "alienating themselves from the humane, Islamic standards."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iraq-deaths-drop-1700-july-24801713

The highlighted sentences above sound as though they come from a very great man (at the very least one who is great and worth listening to right now).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I know you want solutions, and all I ever provide is pessimistic analysis. But we all can only do what we can do, so here it is.

Iraq as a country consists of three distinct groups of people who pretty much hate each other. Their grievances against each other go back far enough towards 'the dawn of time' that they may be insoluble.

Saddam Hussein, standing at the end of a line of similarly styled 'leaders' kept these three groups 'united' by maintaining what amounted to absolute power, by whatever means necessary. Since those means included gassing recalcitrant civilian populations, building up a military force that pretty much no one wanted someone like him in charge of, and other problems, the world became concerned.

With no real clue as to how anyone else would manage Iraq without doing the things Saddam Hussain was doing to manage Iraq, America in its infinite arrogance destroyed Iraq's government. There was some patently ridiculous idea that in gratitude these three groups would not only suddenly put aside their differences, but choose to emulate America's own system of government despite the fact that it appears to be breaking down itself. Not surprisingly, that didn't happen.

Instead the three groups united in that always predictable common cause; repelling an occupying army. When that army withdrew, the civil war was inevitable, and it will continue until someone else strong enough and ruthless enough to keep the three groups to heel comes along...or two of the three groups are eliminated, whichever comes first.

The only good thing to be taken out of this would be a lesson, that being:

If you don't like how a government keeps its people from killing each other, consider whether you have any other way to do the job before you topple their government and grant them the privilege of killing each other.

 

[Princeps]

The US screwed up. Surprise.

Paul Bremer and his fellow travellers in the Neocon community had a deeply ideological vision for Iraq in which Iraq was supposed to become this uber-republican paradise. So Bremer passed his rules, shaping the Iraqi state perfectly according to western right-wing dogmas. Of course, to accomplish this radical vision, all power had to be centralized in Baghdad, because if local politics were empowered, it might resist the neolib policies or produce ideologically impure political rivals. And so, the Americans ended up promoting the worst traditions of middle eastern politics: over-centralization and non-democratic governance.

The problem really is that local politics are needed to for honest politicians to rise through the ranks: first proving their mettle and honesty at local level by managing municipal or city funds. But in Paul Bremer's Iraq, all money went to the central government: what mattered was connection and patronage in the capital, not your efforts to improve local lives. Thus, Iraqi politics are imploding into hatred and chaos, while the society is endemically corrupt, the institutions are hollow and power is over-concentrated to the hands of the Shiite autocracy in Baghdad.

 

[Tahuti]

The US invasion did eventually work out well for the Kurds though. (Don't get me wrong, I still think Iraq II should have never been fought)

 

[Gary Childress]

I know you want solutions, and all I ever provide is pessimistic analysis. But we all can only do what we can do, so here it is.

Iraq as a country consists of three distinct groups of people who pretty much hate each other. Their grievances against each other go back far enough towards 'the dawn of time' that they may be insoluble.

Saddam Hussein, standing at the end of a line of similarly styled 'leaders' kept these three groups 'united' by maintaining what amounted to absolute power, by whatever means necessary. Since those means included gassing recalcitrant civilian populations, building up a military force that pretty much no one wanted someone like him in charge of, and other problems, the world became concerned.

With no real clue as to how anyone else would manage Iraq without doing the things Saddam Hussain was doing to manage Iraq, America in its infinite arrogance destroyed Iraq's government. There was some patently ridiculous idea that in gratitude these three groups would not only suddenly put aside their differences, but choose to emulate America's own system of government despite the fact that it appears to be breaking down itself. Not surprisingly, that didn't happen.

Instead the three groups united in that always predictable common cause; repelling an occupying army. When that army withdrew, the civil war was inevitable, and it will continue until someone else strong enough and ruthless enough to keep the three groups to heel comes along...or two of the three groups are eliminated, whichever comes first.

The only good thing to be taken out of this would be a lesson, that being:

If you don't like how a government keeps its people from killing each other, consider whether you have any other way to do the job before you topple their government and grant them the privilege of killing each other.

Sounds like a pretty fair way of putting an "executive summary". Thank you for that.

Obviously the US invasion of Iraq was (so far) one of the 21st century's biggest blunders and follies. Now Iraq has to pick up the pieces, hopefully without anyone sending an army to screw things up more (unless maybe the UN can do something in a truly "internationalist" sense)

Now we are left with a situation perhaps worse than what was there under Hussein's policies of virtual genocide.

Hussein, as you point out, was no "angel" either.

So it appears from the article in the OP that one of the clerics there is pointing to a need for a governor to step down. I suppose that raises a couple questions:

1. Is that cleric correct? Will the current regime stepping down be the best thing for the country. Given the current situation, it would seem like the answer would be "yes".

2. Why are the different groups in Iraq so at odds with each other to the point of widespread bloodshed. Something is going on in Iraq which is not the same as what is going on in say, Australia, for example.

3. The UN person speaking at the bottom of the article certainly sounds like the most "reasonable" voice in the article by far. People need to get along without killing each other. It is not impossible. There are many examples of places which are getting along.

Yes Iraq has had a great deal of turbulence in its history but we also need to get past that turbulence in some way? But how? How do you make people concerned about the lives of people whom they "hate"? It's a difficult problem but not one without a possible solution. It's been done before. Europe has devoted many hundreds of years to beating itself up. Now there is a "union" (which seems like a pretty "reasonable" thing "overall" to me, sort of like a mini-UN maybe, so long as it does not get out of hand with the real UN). Perhaps Europe can be some sort of model for how countries can overcome centuries of warfare to unite with each other without facing a common enemy or a harsh dictator to keep them "in line".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The US invasion did eventually work out well for the Kurds though. (Don't get me wrong, I still think Iraq II should have never been fought)

With no civil authority the people who have always hated the Kurds, who widely outnumber the Kurds, and are much better armed than the Kurds, bode no better for the Kurds than Saddam did. You think this current band trying to take charge isn't up for a little ethnic cleansing?

 

[Tahuti]

With no civil authority the people who have always hated the Kurds, who widely outnumber the Kurds, and are much better armed than the Kurds, bode no better for the Kurds than Saddam did. You think this current band trying to take charge isn't up for a little ethnic cleansing?

They are, though the Kurds now have mustered enough autonomy to defend themselves. If ISIS attacked Saddam's Iraq instead, the Kurds would have been abandoned right away - save for the oil rich regions.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

2. Why are the different groups in Iraq so at odds with each other to the point of widespread bloodshed. Something is going on in Iraq which is not the same as what is going on in say, Australia, for example.

Australia is an outlier, just like the US. Colonialization totally marginalized the native population, producing a continent wide uniformity that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. And before anyone points to the 'human rights breakthrough' of allowing those totally marginalized natives into society, please note that that happened absolutely under the terms of the society and the natives were allowed in only once they were so totally defeated that they had nothing much of their own to bring in with them.

In the rest of the world various somewhat balanced tribes struggling for dominance is the norm.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They are, though the Kurds now have mustered enough autonomy to defend themselves. If ISIS attacked Saddam's Iraq instead, the Kurds would have been abandoned right away - save for the oil rich regions.

Autonomy doesn't defend anything. Guns do. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that ISIS has far more of those than the Kurds have. If ISIS attacked Saddam's Iraq the Kurds wouldn't have even known it, because the Iraqi military would have barbecued them before they got past the border, because I know Saddam's military had plenty of guns.

 

[Ajidica]

Well, the US invasion of Iraq mucked things up and our penchant for federalizing/balkanizing along religious/ethnic grounds really didn't help things at all.
As far as solutions go, as far as I can tell there aren't any clear options, but the best option would be to find somebody more tactful than Maliki to be president and establish a unity government by bringing in Sunnis to high level positions. Unity governments have gotten a bad rap, what with South Sudan and Palestine, but considering ISIS got most of their support from disaffected Sunni tribes some accommodation needs to be made with the Sunni tribal leaders that would ensure they don't feel threatened by a majority Shia government.
I think Masada pointed out in a previous thread that the successes against Sunni extremist militants in the tribal areas during US occupation mainly consisted of us convincing the tribal elders that it would be better to work with the government than side with the militants. The government in Baghdad needs to create a situation with the tribal elders where they believe their interests are better represented and protected with the government than with the nutters in ISIS.

 

[Tahuti]

Autonomy doesn't defend anything. Guns do. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that ISIS has far more of those than the Kurds have. If ISIS attacked Saddam's Iraq the Kurds wouldn't have even known it, because the Iraqi military would have barbecued them before they got past the border, because I know Saddam's military had plenty of guns.

The point being that autonomy gave the Kurds access to guns.

The position of Kurdistan in the ISIS conflict is similar to that of Israel in the six-day war. The Kurds are simply more motivated, better trained and better armed, like the Israelis, they stand a chance despite being outnumbered.

ISIS got to rampage through Iraq because plenty of Sunni soldiers are disillusioned with Iraq and are given to desert.

 

[Snorrius]

Since "democracy" does not work in Iraq, a practical solution would be to install a secular dictator or restoring monarchy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Since "democracy" does not work in Iraq, a practical solution would be to install a secular dictator or restoring monarchy.

Hey...recognition that what is needed is pretty much exactly what they had. That's refreshing.

Assuming you are including allowing this secular dictator/king to do what is necessary to keep his reluctant subjects in line (gas as needed certainly works) and defend his borders against hostile neighbors on all sides (build a huge military force).

Otherwise you're just putting a name and a face on one side of the continuing civil war.

 

[kochman]

With no civil authority the people who have always hated the Kurds, who widely outnumber the Kurds, and are much better armed than the Kurds, bode no better for the Kurds than Saddam did. You think this current band trying to take charge isn't up for a little ethnic cleansing?

Wait, what?
You're conflating two groups together (sunnis in general, or shias in general, or both, and the ISIL) unfairly.
Also, we'd support Kurds with air support/troops, just as we have "Iraq", if it came down to it.

As for now, ISIL isn't going to attack the Iraqi Kurds, they want one enemy at a time, and already have more than that.

 

[Tahuti]

Since "democracy" does not work in Iraq, a practical solution would be to install a secular dictator or restoring monarchy.

The monarchy in every Arab country ought to be restored.

 

[Snorrius]

Otherwise you're just putting a name and a face on one side of the continuing civil war.

Obviously the guy in question should be supported by some power which have solid experience in installing meaningful dictatorships or monarchies, say, France or UK. I would not trust this job to USA. They are good when you need to break some government but do not understand how to maintain colonial rule without chaos and havoc.

 

[Gary Childress]

Australia is an outlier, just like the US. Colonialization totally marginalized the native population, producing a continent wide uniformity that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. And before anyone points to the 'human rights breakthrough' of allowing those totally marginalized natives into society, please note that that happened absolutely under the terms of the society and the natives were allowed in only once they were so totally defeated that they had nothing much of their own to bring in with them.

In the rest of the world various somewhat balanced tribes struggling for dominance is the norm.

It is certainly true that the Natives of N America were marginalized and subdued. They are citizens like everyone else now, though. But look at Europe. Europe was colonized much longer ago by the Romans and various people entering the area at the expense of others. Now the descendants of those people have some sort of relative peace there. I mean, there is nothing we can do about the past. It would be a little difficult to oust all the non native Americans from the US at this point. (I would however happily vote for a Native American who runs for President on a sensible platform.)

The past is informative about what not to repeat but we also do not have time machines (maybe never will if current physicists are correct). Clinging to the past can mean that people may hate us for something, it may also mean us clinging to 911 or WW2 for example. That is not a good state of affairs. WW2 and 911 are over. Time to move on to a new world.

As I stated elsewhere, I am not a "pessimist" nor "optimist". Had I visited the Earth a million years ago without knowing the future I probably would have thought, "no way are those "apes" ever going to survive past 10 thousand years). But life goes on. We may not make it another 10 thousand years. The world may end in less than 100 years. Who knows. I'm not going to stop living the in the present moment. Paraphrasing Robert Frost, "I have many miles before I sleep." (At least I hope).

Have you ever read, The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus? Great little essay. I highly recommend it. His conclusion is essentially that "Sisyphus" is "happy" rolling his boulder up a hill only to have it fall again. It gives him a way to engage himself in the world, even if it is a task that has no end. After all, what are the alternative? Lay down and die? I don't know about you but I'm only 47 and just "laying down to die" is not much of a viable option for me at this point.

I try to get along. I try to preserve the world for future generations. I see children playing outside and they remind me of when I was a child. I was a "loner" but I had a good childhood regardless of harassment and other things that happened to me. I was too dumb at the time to change myself. I'm trying to cut down on my "carbon footprint" just a "little more". There are still "good" things to do. By "good" I mean "good" for everyone. Selfishness is not a virtue, contrary to what Ayn Rand believed. But she was from the Soviet Union, escaping persecution from the "Bolsheviks". She was reacting to her fears. I don't criminalize her but her philosophy, isn't.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Solutions: revive Saddam.

 

[kramerfan86]

As others have mentioned it either will take an iron fisted dictator or a democratic leader who is good at "crossing the isles" and convincing all the sides that the central government is in their best interests at the end of the day even if they hate the other groups involved in that government. Regardless one thing is for sure, Al Maliki must go

 

[Snorrius]

The monarchy in every Arab country ought to be restored.

I think non-Arabic countries could be better off with monarchy as well. After all having monarchy seems to increase one's chance to get to the top of Human Development Index.

Here is first ten countries:

Norway - monarchy
Australia - monarchy
Switzerland - rare confederation, not average "democracy"
Netherlands - monarchy
United States - thalassocracy
Germany - republic
New Zealand - monarchy
Canada - monarchy
Singapore - benevolent authocracy
Denmark - monarchy