Titanic, Hindenburg, Iraq...
The United States claims a vested interest in the success of the Independent state of Iraq. It has become conventional wisdom that withdrawal of US troops would result in chaos and, in the worst case scenario, a possible disintegration of the entire Iraqi country. It is this supposed worst case scenario that is presented as being so unacceptable a result of a US troop withdraw that said withdrawal should not be conducted without otherwise guaranteeing the success of the Iraqi state…
Even accepting that, it still leaves one BIG question. What is so bad about Iraq disintegrating?
Iraq was cobbled together by the British in 1921 from Mosul, Bagdad, and Basra in a manner that was imagined most likely to serve British interests. That is, 85 years ago, the British slapped together a state of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites, knowing full well that the state was of dubious viability because it was not designed to serve the needs of its citizens but rather to help the British keep control of the area and the resources and commerce therein. It is worth considering that, because the state of Iraq was created by British artifice rather than some sense of internal community, it may not be a viable independent democratic state.
The people of (in?) Iraq didn't unite to form a state, it was forced upon them. It was maintained at first by a brutal pro-British monarchy. After the Iraqi military murdered the royal family in 1958 and a distressingly short and abortive attempt at a Republic, the Baathists came to power in a 1963 coup and held it together through equally brutal means over the next 40 years until the 2003 US invasion. There is absolutely no history or other evidence that, absent brutal treatment, Iraq will remain cohesive. If brutal treatment of its people is required to hold Iraq together, it is not only acceptable if Iraq disintegrates, it may be inevitable.
Even accepting that, it still leaves one BIG question. What is so bad about Iraq disintegrating?
Iraq was cobbled together by the British in 1921 from Mosul, Bagdad, and Basra in a manner that was imagined most likely to serve British interests. That is, 85 years ago, the British slapped together a state of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites, knowing full well that the state was of dubious viability because it was not designed to serve the needs of its citizens but rather to help the British keep control of the area and the resources and commerce therein. It is worth considering that, because the state of Iraq was created by British artifice rather than some sense of internal community, it may not be a viable independent democratic state.
The people of (in?) Iraq didn't unite to form a state, it was forced upon them. It was maintained at first by a brutal pro-British monarchy. After the Iraqi military murdered the royal family in 1958 and a distressingly short and abortive attempt at a Republic, the Baathists came to power in a 1963 coup and held it together through equally brutal means over the next 40 years until the 2003 US invasion. There is absolutely no history or other evidence that, absent brutal treatment, Iraq will remain cohesive. If brutal treatment of its people is required to hold Iraq together, it is not only acceptable if Iraq disintegrates, it may be inevitable.
posted by Minotaur at 8:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home