When Iraq's legislature passed a bill requesting the end of U.S.
military forces in the country recently the problems of a divided sectarian
state emerged; the Shi’a Sunni divide shapes Iraq's political landscape. So a
quick review of the way things are is in order.
The present Iraqi Prime
Minister; dil Abdul-Mahdi al-Muntafiki, is Shi'a and formerly a leader
of an Iran-based Shi'a organization. The last time there was a Sunni leader
with a regime that lasted for a while was the era of Dictator Saddam Hussein.
Interestingly he was a member of the Baath Party invented in Syria. With the
Sunni being a minority in Iraq it takes a dictator to rule. The Shi'a simply
vote for Shi'a and work a de facto theocratic village form of government.
It is plain that the United States cannot withdraw its military forces
because of the infrequent need to intervene for various reasons. When Saddam
Hussein was in power and had his way during the food for oil U.N. sanctions era
50,000 Iraqis died annually because of privations forced on them by the
Dictator. Non-intervention was o.k. with Democrats and the U.N. because of the
corrupt kickbacks to select Euro politicians yet unacceptable to people of
conscience. Ending the regime of the Dictator was necessary. Imposing democracy
was nearly impossible because of the fundamental sectarian divide. A civil war
in Iraq followed helped along by Iran for sectarian reasons. When the U.S.
withdrew its forces under President Obama Isis grew.
The United States failed to support its Kurdish allies recently and that
in turn weakens their position in Iraq for they too are Sunni. That state
emboldens the Shi'a that rightly demands withdrawal of all U.S. military
because they have Iran at their back. Kickbacks and reciprocity to Iraq leaders
help them view the two states practically as one. Americans talk about war with
Iran because of the nuclear weapons program in that country and site numerous
post-1979 reasons for the war aided by historical amnesia pre-1979.
Before 1979 the United States supported the Shah of Iran whom they had
given dictatorial power to through a 1953 coup against the Shi'a Prime Minister.
When the U.S. chose to install and reinforce a de facto Dictator of Iran called
the Shah for 25 years it lost a lot of friends in Iran. Because the United
States has usually had daft political leadership concerning the history of the
region (and of Russia) since then the situation has gotten worse. What would be
helpful would be American political recognition of the true pre-1979 history of
Iranian-American relations; so long as American leadership has bad faith
attitudes toward real rather than amnesiac history of Iranian-American relations
the process of repairing relations will not start. The Bush administration
plans for post-war reconstruction of Iraq demonstrated the usual U.S. incompetence
at understanding history of the region. Probably that hasn't changed much.
Certainly the Obama administration was rash at giving Iran a treaty that
effectively allowed them 20 years of undisturbed infrastructure building and
research for nuclear weapons and then after 25 years the freedom to develop
nuclear weapons. What was lacking from the Obama method was public explanation
to the world that the U.S. recognized the pre-1979 history of Iranian-American
political relations to clear the air of gross misunderstandings.
So what should the U.S. do now? Squaring away the Kurds with greater
security and autonomous real estate in Syria and Iraq if not Turkey would be a
good idea for it is very probable that the United States will look to them
again as proxy warriors and peace police in the area. Yet President Trump
retreated from the effort, perhaps for reasons unknown, and let the Kurds
return to a state of greater political insecurity if not immediate jeopardy
with Turkey swelling even to consider landing troops in Libya as if they were Mussolini’s
fascist forces seeking to expand the lost empire in North Africa.
No comments:
Post a Comment