I believe Iraq will be broken up into three virtual ‘states’ weakly bounded together under a nominal federation that serves only to give the impression of a unified country. Oil revenue will be distributed among the three ‘states’ to disperse (oil) power and each ‘state’ will be left to control themselves.
This way the United States of Israel (lets call it what it is) and the Iraqi nationalists can save face and say it’s still a unified country and the oil, if controlled by the national government, could remain linked to the US$. The separatists should also be quite happy with this compromise because they would have almost total freedom to do as they please in their own regions.
As soon as they instigate this, the killing will dry up almost overnight.
The two biggest problems I see with this scenario is what happens to the Shiia in Sunni areas and Kurds in Shiia area etc? Do they do a mass relocation as they did in India re the creation of Pakistan? The other problem is the Iraq / Iran power balance lurches towards Iran.
And to be quite honest, any death threats I make are completely empty. I’m just illustrating a point. If you’re going to be as closed-minded as to just yell “VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!” at anyone who disagrees with you then what use are you to society?
This is not to say that you, nor anyone else, could never be of use to society. You could always realize why there is need for change, which is why I would never kill you nor anyone else. I’m waiting for that change.
On the flip side, before you say it, I am quite aware that I also need to change. I need to be more concrete about certain things. It’s a balance.
Mosul (the old city Nineveh!) was added to the Basra and Baghdad regions to undermine Turkey’s strong claims to the region (“… this mandate was contested by Turkey which continued to claim the area …”)
The British seem to have followed the Ottomans, “… for three out of four centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule, the vilayets of Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra were administered from Baghdad.”
The Briton’s choice of Faisal bin Husayn as the first king of Iraq does not seem like such a bad one, he resided in Britain for some time, and was the King of Syria before being deposed by the French. He seems to have enjoyed the support of the people. Faisal was from a Sunni clan.
The Mesopotamian Sunnis were also favored during the Ottoman period, (“… 85% of the Turks in Turkey are Sunni …”) and were therefore trained and experienced in administration of that region.
did he really have the support of the people? someone who lived otuside of the country for a long time doesnt seem like the kind of guy often loved by arab populations. what sort of records are there of the feelings or even violent dissenting activity of rebels at this time? around the 1940s? or 1920s?
i also remember at some point there was a succesfull revolt and a promising nice guy who first used the term “jihad” accurately as “some action of any kind that benefits all muslims” when he said he was going to team up with iran and other oil rich countries, suck the west dry, and use the money to help all muslims. he was quickly destroyed by britain and someone who sounds a lot like Faisal was put in his place (Faisal might actually be his replacement).
so basically youre saying its ok for a sunni to rule by himself over a country that is overwhelmingly not sunni because the west decided that a city that belonged to turkey should go to iraq, and turkey is largely sunni? so the west decided that a sunni chunk now belongs to this oil rich region dominated by non-sunnis, so therefore we can rule it with a sunni.
i would say that the west benefited by this decision not only because they coincidentally happened to have a perfect candidate for appointed puppet who was a sunni, but also because the kurds and shiites would constnatly be fighting eachother trying to take control of this unified iraq, and they wouldnt have enough time to care about the fact that the western war machine is taking all their oil.
you would say that the previous rulers, the ottoman empire, also used sunnis to control the shiite and kurd areas? and not just the turkish area britain forced into iraq? because the ottomans knew that sunnis are a good unifying force and if it was a kurd or shiite, there would be much more hate?
probably only because i dont remember this happening in my life, i dont think countries just go to war because of “claiming” some land somewhere. i mean, i can easily imagine rebels like kurds in turkey saying that they ought not to be controlled by sunnis who dont care about them, but the actual government of kurdistan standing up and saying “thanks america for freeing us, now we are going to fuck up your friends” seems weird to me.
i mean, they will just wait until our troops leave, then mobilize their army and march into wherever they want? simply because there are traditionally kurdish people in those areas? when was the last time this happened, was it mainly a fight between muslim sects, was there any western imperial control in effect? i dont remember something like this ever happening at all unless it was hating jews or dealing with the relatively massive india. and if the same exact thing did happen, it was long before 9/11 and the muslim world united to fight the war on the war on terror and prepare for the apocalypse.
i dont really see those things as problems. i mean if there is anything bad about being shiite in a kurdish area, will it be worsened if there is more autonomy? i mean did the government of saddam have a lot of civil rights laws to protect conflicting groups? and the new american sponsored government will allow more discomfort for people living with groups that are different from their own? i dont see why.
and as for iran
i dont think the war on terror should be about smashing our problems in the face until they are too weak to fight back, because terrorism is like a little leak dripping from around the edges of our sledgehammer as it rests on the ground, with our “enemies” firmly squished beneath it. we cant smash the little drips with our hammer or prevent them from sneaking around and dripping their filth onto our nice clothes. we need a paper towel of peace, the hammer is not appropriate.
maybe we can sell this idea to iran in exchange for whatever abolition of their nuclear deterrent we want to happen because of our “perceived” fear. maybe making our “enemies” stronger is what will lead to less hatred and death. all im saying is give peace a chance, nobody ever tried that before.
maybe its not “strengthening” iran, its lifting up our vicious hammer and letting iran form into the United States of Iran just like we did, except america did it with the help of superior land quality and an open frontier, untapped resources etc. all iran has is a desert and a relatively small amount of sellable resources (compared to pre-industrial america), so its easy for the empire of the day to control and keep iran down.
i mean, if the area was left to develop on its own, the people of those shiite areas would be, at worst just like texas, which was conquered by america, wars were fought and people died, and today texas is technically as much a part of america as washington. shiite iraq and iran should be allowed to progress naturally towards that instead of their side of the globe looking like a messy blob of many different colors all competing with eachother.
what do you think young impressionable arab teenagers in a farm village think about that? “I’m going to kill Imp and his family.” thats what.
im SO SORRY. i promise not to kill you and your family, or ever use a metaphor again.