The Great Wall of Segregation...
…Which is the wall the current Iraqi government is building (with the support and guidance of the Americans). It's a wall that is intended to separate and isolate what is now considered the largest 'Sunni' area in Baghdad- let no one say the Americans are not building anything. According to plans the Iraqi puppets and Americans cooked up, it will 'protect' A'adhamiya, a residential/mercantile area that the current Iraqi government and their death squads couldn't empty of Sunnis.The wall, of course, will protect no one. I sometimes wonder if this is how the concentration camps began in Europe. The Nazi government probably said, "Oh look- we're just going to protect the Jews with this little wall here- it will be difficult for people to get into their special area to hurt them!" And yet, it will also be difficult to get out.The Wall is the latest effort to further break Iraqi society apart. Promoting and supporting civil war isn't enough, apparently- Iraqis have generally proven to be more tenacious and tolerant than their mullahs, ayatollahs, and Vichy leaders. It's time for America to physically divide and conquer- like Berlin before the wall came down or Palestine today. This way, they can continue chasing Sunnis out of "Shia areas" and Shia out of "Sunni areas".
I always hear the Iraqi pro-war crowd interviewed on television from foreign capitals (they can only appear on television from the safety of foreign capitals because I defy anyone to be publicly pro-war in Iraq). They refuse to believe that their religiously inclined, sectarian political parties fueled this whole Sunni/Shia conflict. They refuse to acknowledge that this situation is a direct result of the war and occupation. They go on and on about Iraq's history and how Sunnis and Shia were always in conflict and I hate that. I hate that a handful of expats who haven't been to the country in decades pretend to know more about it than people actually living there.
I remember Baghdad before the war- one could live anywhere. We didn't know what our neighbors were- we didn't care. No one asked about religion or sect. No one bothered with what was considered a trivial topic: are you Sunni or Shia? You only asked something like that if you were uncouth and backward. Our lives revolve around it now. Our existence depends on hiding it or highlighting it- depending on the group of masked men who stop you or raid your home in the middle of the night.
On a personal note, we've finally decided to leave. I guess I've known we would be leaving for a while now. We discussed it as a family dozens of times. At first, someone would suggest it tentatively because, it was just a preposterous idea- leaving ones home and extended family- leaving ones country- and to what? To where?
Full Post
There is no doubt as to what Iraqis want. How about we stop second guessing them? Iraq isn't going to collapse into anarchy without the boot of a Great White Father on its neck. The exact same excuse was used to refuse to withdraw from Vietnam, until of course we did. No 'dominoes' fell, but millions of people were slaughtered so that Vietnam would take 20 years longer to become a unified, capitalist, semi-oligarchy.
If you wish to remain in Iraq to 'protect' Iraqis from themselves, you will have to fight the Iraqis who don't want you there. You will have to somehow avoid being manipulated by unscrupulous politicians who would quite happily use you to destroy their enemies. You will have to convince Iraq's neighbours that your domination of a neighbouring country you invaded and utterly destroyed for no reason is entirely friendly. If they'd just help you to settle things in Iraq you swear they aren't next. How can one do this without turning into a brutal occupier? Whomever figures that out wins a place in history as the first person to ever manage such a feat. Personally I think that just as the solution to rape isn't nicer rapists, the solution to occupation isn't nicer occupiers.
If you wish to remain in Iraq to 'protect' Iraqis from themselves, you will have to fight the Iraqis who don't want you there. You will have to somehow avoid being manipulated by unscrupulous politicians who would quite happily use you to destroy their enemies. You will have to convince Iraq's neighbours that your domination of a neighbouring country you invaded and utterly destroyed for no reason is entirely friendly. If they'd just help you to settle things in Iraq you swear they aren't next. How can one do this without turning into a brutal occupier? Whomever figures that out wins a place in history as the first person to ever manage such a feat. Personally I think that just as the solution to rape isn't nicer rapists, the solution to occupation isn't nicer occupiers.
19 comments:
Oooooo I respect your views. I truly do.
Trouble with it is this.
A) The Sunni were dominate in Iraq under Saddam
B) There was no ethnic conflict because the secular Sunni were in charge and their foot was on the neck of the Shiia
C) In 91 at the urging of Bush the Shiia rose up and ... were left to piss in the wind by the US. The Shiia were murdered in tens of thousands by secular sunnis.
D) Then the dinosaurs came but they got too big and fat.
E) The US came in and bought "democracy"
F) The US sacked the army and government. The secular sunnis that had dominated government were out of a job. And shiia were looking for payback. The sunni were unemployed and for many they became instant converts to "religion" because the religious AQ guys had cash. Remember unemployment was rife after the war. Esp since the US was paying not locals but US contractors to do the jobs the locals should have.
F) In the elections, the votes went along sectarian lines
G) Sectarian militias rose up because there was no one to stop them. AQ wanted a civil war so as to draw in Sunni Vs Shiia and largely succeeded.
H) It's now tit for tat with the Shiia govt nominally in charge and supporting their militias to waste the sunni.
I) In Vietnam a nationalistic idealistic government with a well trained dedicated apparatus were ready and able to take control when the US left. There is no such element in Iraq.
J) Almost the entire middle and professional classes have left Iraq. There are no doctors. No dentists. No professional administrators.
K) Saddam emptied the prisons as a last fuck you to the US. This released thousands of prison hardened crims in a culture where kiddnapping is often common.
I could go on and on. Don't get me wrong the US fucked up big time in invading. For both the reasons why and in the execution. But to expect the Iraqis to suddenly get along because the yanks are gone I think is misguided. What will happen is the Sunni will flee to Saudi, Jordan, and Syria (perhaps - Syria is nominally Sunni but controlled by a small Shiia cadre). And those that stay could be killed.
Really what should happen is this. Partition - or garrisoning not with US but with the UN. The UN would not be an occupier. It would be a peace enforcer. The US is an occupier I agree.
Anyway, my 0.02. At least you're passionate about it man. So many people don't give a shit about it anymore. Iraq has been the greatest policy fuck up since vietnam. No, it's a greater fuck up because at least leaving Vietnam left it to people whose ideology I may disagree with but their hearts were in the right place.
Iraq is more like yugoslavia with ethnic conflict the norm. And the only thing that fixed yugoslavia was ... Nato and UN peace keeping.
I really, really hope I didn't come across as some sort of snooty war hawk man. I am so not a war hawk. Those of course are just my feelings on it from what I know. And I remember the ethnic slaughter of yugoslavia in the 90s and how sickening it was. The US broke Iraq and it needs to fix it. But I don't think it leaving immediately without steps in place will. It's a shitty, shitty shitty situation with no clear solution. Except the UN taking over. And maybe partition (though that in itself comes with historical nasties).
But you raise excellent points. At the end it's all speculation. Who is to know what happens? Maybe they could try it and go back in if it does fall in a heap. In fact I'd say that's exactly what will happen.
Anyway, I respect your views man.
even after hearing an iraqi who lives in iraq tell you that ethnic conflict is NOT the norm, that kidnappings and violence are not the norm, you still keep insisting that it is.
there's this weird colonial mentality you can't seem to shake. why do you know what's better for iraq than iraqis? how do you even presume to know what iraqis are like? all of your suggestions are unsupported by iraqi public opinion. what do you plan on doing when they resist your partition plan for example?
I'm not so sure it's wise to send the UN into the mess. I don't think innocent UN soldiers deserve to lose their lives as a result of George Bush's actions any more than innocent Iraqis.
And regardless of whether the US withdrawal would 'work' or not, it is what most Iraqis want.
I suppose the situation is somewhat akin to pulling a knife out of a person that's been stabbed. It has to come out one way or another, but do it at the wrong time in the wrong situation and the person dies...
I don't think you're a war hawk at all, Mikey, but the US can't 'fix' Iraq. It already is a failed state, and whether it stays or goes... it's only a question of whether the scale of the disaster can grow any greater.
Well Gam, the opinion polls I have read are majority of Iraqis don't want the US there but, here's the kicker, the majority don't want them to go straight away.
It's not a colonial mentality. AQ and sunni extremists launched a civil war starting attempt. I'd say probably in an effort to flame the region and tie the US down leaking blood and treasure for years to come.
Sure, I'm not an Iraqi. But I've read a lot about the conflict. I just can't see how the US upping and leaving right away will solve anything. But at the same time they are occupiers and not achieving much beyond stopping naked outright war.
You're right. Before the invasion Sunni/Shiia relations were largely fine - save in the south. But a secular dictatorship was in charge. Then it got prised off. Then one segment went to war on the larger segment that was now in charge.
I hope it sorts itself out. I do. But I can't see leaving is going to work.
"But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it?
In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace.
For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before; They then murdered more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave labor camps.
We saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnam when the Communists entered the city of Hue last year. During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed, shot to death, and buried in mass graves.
With the sudden collapse of our support, these atrocities of Hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation -- and particularly for the million and a half Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the Communists took over in the North."
Richard M Nixon - November 3, 1969
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
William L. Shirer quoting George Santayana in Rise and Fall
of the Third Reich (1959).
I dunno Gam. Vietnam is an example of how not to get mired in a counter insurgency where you're propping up the government.
But in Vietnam you had a powerful fully capable government ready to step in, one without ethnic issues to deal with (apart from the montards who'd supported the US and French and ended up being settled from Thai refugee camps over the next 20 years).
It's a different ball game. This is more akin to yugoslavia where a dictatorship died and an ethnically diverse populace then went to war with each other.
And the peace keepers are still there. Difference is people want them there. I guess that's what has to change.
wrong again. all that happened in yugoslavia is that we went and supported the other side who immediately set about ethnically cleansing their enemies. in the case of the al-qaida linked kla, they took western money and guns and fomented an ethic conflict which we intervened in on their side. afterwards, in addition to drug running and human trafficking, they set about ethnically cleansing serbs from kosovo a task which has been largely completed with little outcry from the west.
i find it ironic that you're so impassioned about things you argue about yet every time we argue about the ME i find myself having to point out the factual misconceptions you have about various things. i also find it ironic that you now believe that iraq is not similar to vietnam in contrast to your previous opinions. doesn't put you in very good company...
No way Gam. Yugoslavia was not solely formented by Al Queada. It was a mutal ethnic war that saw Muslims Vs Croats Vs Serbs Vs Albanians. And the reason why was because the dictator in charge was taken out. Russia backed Serbs. French backed Serbs. Islamic countries backed the Bosnian Muslims. Croats went at everyone else. Why? Because in WW2 they tried to murder each other and only the presence of a secular dictator with a massive security apparatus stopped them.
The US is in a Vietnam esq conflict - mired in a stupid foreign war that it consuming lives and money is true. But there's no comparasion to the exit situation of vietnam. They are two different situations.
So you see, like and unlike Vietnam. Hey we came to the middle. Let's hug.
I take umbrage at the factual misconceptions. We're not talking hard facts. We're talking interpretation of events. I understand you see the timeline as being as noted. I see it completely differently. My recollection was a shit storm of ethnic conflict from day one. Remember Kosovo happened AFTER the original dissolution of yugoslavia and the conflicts there. I'm guessing your interpretation is based on Kosovo alone as opposed to the entire conflict.
Here we go, trusty wiki to the rescue
Yugoslav war
I think you were focussed more on the 1999+ conflict and I was more on the original post dissolution conflicts.
did you also read the linked wiki article about how bill clinton lied about the serbian genocide to trick americans into bombing serbia?
the west didn't fix the fyr, it destroyed it and turned it into various subsets of warring clans which is what i pointed out. there's your parallel with iraq.
a collapsing dictatorship acts against separatists, western leaders fabricate intelligence to sell a phony war. the war kills lots of civilians and the following occupation splits the nation into warring cantons bent on ethnically cleansing their little areas. there's a difference though, the left bought clinton's war and still defend it.
this is the 'fixing' you want for iraq?
I have to disagree with your characterisation of the conflict Gam. Ethnic war was sparked internally and eagerly embraced by all involved. The West only became involved as a peace keeping initiative. Not to back any one side. I have not read anything on the conflict that suggests a deliberate fabrication of intelligence or genocide as an excuse to intervene. This is stuff that happened. They are still unearthing mass graves to this day. And will do for years to come.
The west didn't destroy Yugoslavia. It fell apart all by itself. They stepped in when it impacted on Europe as a whole. That and to prevent perceived genocide. The west failed in Rwanda. I think that played a part in the decision to intervene. Of course those in FRY were European and those in Dafur are not. But would Bush have intervened on humanitarian grounds in FRY. Doubt it. I will go read the linked wiki tho and see what it says and see if I change my mind though.
here make up your own mind
you can try this too. it doesn't make for as thrilling reading as the "slobo = hitler hur hur" reporting of the regular media but this what happened and for the most part why.
Interesting points raised on Kosovo. I will read some more on it. BUT it still does not change the fact that enthic war occured in that region that required peace keeping to intervene - such as the earlier ethnic slaughter (the 8000 dead in one massacre; rape camps etc). And assuming in the immediacy of kosovo, could they risk it again given the markers they'd be looking at regarding potential ethnic slaughter? Probably not. Intelligence in a war situation is always fraught with uncertainty.
Thanks for providing the link.
Nice standard of debate. I have to weigh in on the Nixon/Vietnam thing.
Nixon was both right and wrong.
He was right in saying that the North would kill and torture and shitload of southern Vietnamese if you the US left.
They did. Many of the Vietnamese refugees in Australia are victims of that persecution.
He was wrong in thinking that the U.S could do anything about it.
Had they never gone in the first place, the North probably wouldn't have tortured and killed so many. But the US did, and the people in the South fought with them, and so on and so on.
I think the parallels with Iraq are pretty obvious.
Things no doubt will get shittier for everyday Iraqis, sans US troops. But I they're (I believe) going to get shittier, regardless, and US troops aren't gonna stay forever (or beyond 2008, really).
The many "reconstruction" projects are an unmitigated joke and disaster, so keeping em round for that is pointless.
Training of the armed forces seems to have dramatically slowed down, aside from the fact that it was a mind-blowingly partisan force anyway, and thus really only aiding one side of the civil war, not governance in any way.
etc. etc.
I personally like the idea of UN troops, too. If only they had some more to spare.
"He was right in saying that the North would kill and torture and shitload of southern Vietnamese if you the US left.
They did. Many of the Vietnamese refugees in Australia are victims of that persecution."
i have to point out the irony of nixon using wholesale torture and murder millions of south vietnamese to protect them from being tortured and murdered by the north vietnamese.
the same way an occupation to protect iraqis from each other will have to kill and imprison iraqis.
since the ethnic conflict in iraq is being funded and maintained by the occupation things will get better for iraqis when the occupation ends.
You don't have to point it out; I'm well aware of it, however he was right in saying that the North would make things very bad for the South, which they did.
My point, though, is that that kind of thing is inevitable - in Iraq, just as it was in Vietnam.
Like you suggest, I think UN troops would do a hell of a lot better at peacekeeping - there's more accountability for a start, especially if Blackwater and co could be persuaded to leave as well, and reconstruction could be done by aid agencies where possible.
Well, you're right about it being inevitable- it's been going on for quite some time now...
Post a Comment