Re: “Who lost Iraq?”
Complete over-simplification. There are in fact Iraqi nationalists who are Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite. A partition of Iraq has already taken place because, contrary to all of the propaganda about the U.S. “preventing” a civil war in Iraq, they in fact along with the British promoted it at every step of the invasion and military occupation. For years, all of these factions lived in an Iraq that was in fact one of the most modern nations in the Middle East with high literacy, modern medical care and income equality.
I believe the current fighting in Iraq is nationalist against collaborator much to the U.S. dismay since they tried so hard to play all three factions against each other whenever they could; it is not working with the exception of the Kurds in the north who desire a homeland but in fact the Kurdish controlled parts of Iraq include all of the factions you think should be divided into 3 parts. Kurds are an ethnic group not a religious distinction.
What is really going on in Iraq is the nationalists of all factions want to remove the occupiers and if that means defeating the collaborators of any group they will try to do it. Bush created a true Aburdistan by destroying the modern Iraq but I think there are many more surprise to come in Iraq unless the U.S. wants to re-occupy it in which case expect another insurgency like the last one.
EDITOR: Keep in mind that, just as Yugoslavia’s Marshall Joseph Tito held together Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia through his oppressive regime, Saddam Hussein and his Sunni cohorts were able to control the Shiites and contain the Kurds.
When Tito died, Yugoslavia came apart as had been predicted. When we toppled the ruthless Hussein, the same tendency existed in Iraq. Of course George W. Bush’s concepts of nation building poured kerosene on the fire.
LETTER WRITER: Keep in mind also that prior to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, a full third of marriages in Iraq were between the sects you advocate as partition lines of Iraq. Iraq may represent a rough line between Shia and Sunni in the Middle East but there is no distinct line within Iraq to draw a border.
Saddam’s regime included all minorities including the Christians but Sunnis were in truth over represented. It was the Paul Bremer occupation authority that required citizens to declare their “sect” on any government issued document. Even so, as the occupation and destruction of Iraq continued the insurgency was united against the U.S. occupation fairly effectively. Poll after poll of Iraqis including Shias indicated that a majority of Iraqis said life was better under the Saddam regime than under the heel of American occupation.
The current fighting in Iraq between “sects” represents the new political divisions created during Bremer’s de-baathification and subjugation of Iraq. It is completely inaccurate, as most propaganda is, to portray it as some type of carry over between the ancient schism of Islam between Shia and Sunni.
EDITOR: Very interesting. We have seen stirring up of ethnic identifications elsewhere with similar disastrous results. Thanks.
