Break Up Iraq Now!

[abu afak]

BREAK UP IRAQ NOW!

By RALPH PETERS


July 10, 2003 -- PRESIDENT Bush consistently has done the right thing by ignoring the nay- sayers before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yet he's in danger of making the same mistake his father did at the end of Desert Storm - doing only half the job.
Just as the failure to press on to Baghdad in 1991 left Iraq and the entire region with cancerous problems, today's failure to recognize the artificial, unjust nature of the Iraqi state promises enduring discontent.

Will American troops need to return to Iraq a third time, in another decade?

Speaking of Iraq as a single, integrated country is a form of lying. Its borders were drawn by grasping European diplomats almost a century ago, with no regard for the wishes - or rivalries - of the local populations.

Today, the Iraq we're trying to herd back together consists of three distinct nations caged under a single, bloodstained flag. Our problems are with only one of those nations, the Sunni Arab minority west and north of Baghdad.

Favored by the British, the Sunni Arabs took power at Iraq's formation and maintained it through massacre, torture and imprisonment. Saddam Hussein was the ultimate expression of Sunni Arab tyranny over Iraq's Kurds and Shi'ites.

By holding Iraq together with U.S. troops, we merely encourage the Sunni Arabs - who remain hostile to our presence, whose extremists attack our soldiers and who still intend to recapture control of the entire country.



We are punishing our friends, rewarding our enemies and alienating the neutral. President Bush needs to perform radical surgery on Iraq now, while the world remains in a funk over our success. We still have a window through which we can thrust major reforms. But the window is closing. Defending the status quo is deadly folly.

The break-up of Iraq should proceed in two stages.

First, we should provisionally divide the country into a federation of three states, giving the Sunni Arabs one last chance to embrace reform.

* One state would encompass the Shi'ite region in the south, encompassing all of the southern oil fields.

* The second would be an expanded Kurdistan, including historically Kurdish Kirkuk and Mosul, as well as Iraq's northern oil fields.

* The third would be a rump Sunni Arab state sandwiched between the other two.

* Baghdad would become an autonomous district.

Stop worrying about Shi'ite extremism. If we mean what we say about democracy, the Shi'ites should be free to choose whomever they want as their leaders - even fundamentalists. Although the odds of theocratic rule emerging or enduring in southern Iraq are lower than the media imply, the Shi'ites, who long have been oppressed and persecuted, should be free to determine their own future.

Democracy means letting people make their own mistakes. We've made a few ourselves. The only thing upon which we should insist is strict supervision to ensure an honest vote.

We must, however, make it clear to Iran that meddling will not be tolerated.

As this column consistently points out, the Kurds deserve freedom and a state of their own. After the Jews and Armenians, they have been the most persecuted ethnic group of the last hundred years, always denied an independent homeland, shot, gassed, driven from their homes - and even victimized for the use of their native dialects. The world's willingness to look away from the long tragedy of the Kurdish people is inexcusable.

And consider how strategically helpful a Kurdish state, reliant on U.S. military guarantees, might be. If the Kurdish people agreed to host our forces, we could abandon our bases in Turkey, the use of which has been restricted almost to worthlessness. New airbases amid a welcoming population would be quite a change in the region. Even the Saudis and the Gulf Arabs would be on notice.

And what about Turkey? Our "long-time ally"?

I have no personal grudge against Turkey. On the contrary, I've visited the country many times and even took my wife there on our honeymoon. Istanbul remains one of my favorite cities. I've argued for years that Turkey was a vital ally.

But times change. Turkish treachery on the eve of our recent war cannot be overlooked.

Startled by the swiftness of our victory, the Turks immediately assured us that it was all a minor misunderstanding, that Turkey wished to remain the best of friends. Yet Turkey is again becoming the "sick man of Europe," plagued by ineradicable corruption, growing Islamic radicalism and a self-destructive military.

The result of our renewed friendship? Last week, U.S. forces had to break up a secret Turkish military operation in northern Iraq, arresting a dozen of Ankara's special operations troops. The Turkish mission? To assassinate the senior Kurdish leader in Kirkuk. His crime? Cooperating with the Americans.

The Turkish chief of staff, Gen. Ozkok, threw a public tantrum, insisting that we had created a grave crisis by busting his assassins. Sorry, pal. You created the crisis. And you just blew any chance you and your government had of rebuilding bridges to Washington that will bear any real weight.

The Turkish military's scheme to undercut our occupation underscores the need for the Bush administration to stop thinking small when it comes to nation-building. Instead of just changing the oil in the old jalopy, it's time for a fleet of new cars. An independent Kurdistan should roll off the assembly line first.

The second stage of the division of Iraq would kick in if the Sunni Arabs still refuse to cooperate: We would declare the interim Iraqi Federation dissolved, creating three fully independent states in its place, with the Kurdish and Shi'ite states meeting along the Iranian border to guarantee the Kurds a corridor to the sea for their oil, gas and trade.

Then leave the Sunni Arabs to rot.

Oh, and there just might be a third step down the road, too. We should not miss any opportunity to support the longing for freedom of the tens of millions of Kurds held hostage behind European-imposed borders in Turkey, Syria and Iran. For Americans serious about human rights and freedom, Greater Kurdistan must be a long-range goal.

Military operations alone cannot change the Middle East. The European legacy of phony borders must be demolished, starting in Iraq. Don't betray our troops again by leaving the job unfinished to please our enemies.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World."

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...mnists/169.htm

[andak01]

I agree with the plan, but minus the anti-Sunni rhetoric. The Sunni tyranny is more of an effect than a cause. The British put the minority in power for the same reason that any imperial nation does, because they are less autonomous and easier to control that way. Saddam was more tyrannical that was expected. A Sunni controlled minority enclave would likely be attacked from both the north and the south. And it is there that Americans would probably need to be posted to prevent a three way war.

As for us being forced to go back to Iraq in fifteen years? I doubt we will have ever left. The families of those Americans might as well be moved over there permanently.

The down side of the plan is that an oil rout to the shipping lanes would need to pass through three countries. This can't be as profitable as taking the oil from one nation. Incidently, those who said that Iraq would be rebuilt from oil profits will need to reaccess the situation.

[abu afak]

Is Peters' 9 months ago suggestion making more sense than ever?

Looks like it.

The Shias in the South would certainly be happy with a religous state there... and it's Oil.

And The Kurds, our only real friends in Iraq and non-Arabs, have deserved a state for 50 Years.. one in which we'd be welcome (probably even bases etc)..
and one which would also have the Northern Oil fields and be viable.

As to the Saddam Symapathizing Sunnis and Central Iraq?
Give them a state too.. No oil. .. or chuck them in with the Shias.

[takeo]

The autor is drawing plans as a real colonial master would have done at one or another conference in Europe in the 19th century. He is deciding over the future of millions of people in the best interests of the us, and decided to punish the sunni's for being anti-American.
Well, we've seen all this before, we have experience with such divide-and-rule colonial policy in Africa and the middle-East, and believe me, it wasn't a great succes, and it is as far from democracy as can be.

His plans would certainly create new conflicts and new wars, the Turks will never accept an independant Kurdistan and they have the most powerfull army in the region. The sunni's would never accept such a solution and continue fighting, a shiite state would almost immidiately be subject to extremist religious tendencies and become a puppet of Iran. The war would pop over to Syria, saoudi Arabia, Turkey and much of the region. perhaps you consider a giant war in the Middle East to be in your advantage, but I doubt so, it can facilitate Arab Union and reshape the entire Middle East and Arab world. And presume Jordan and syria cease to exist, the regime in Egypt tumbles down and the war affects libanon as well, it means Israel would be at real peril.

the Kurds would be happy, as only ones, but they also have a long history of fighting among eachother.

[Mediocrates]

No just the reverse. America and for the most part Europe was formed out of some effort to draw boundaries around commonalities. The US really only has one language and culturally the drive to accept major societal differences ended with the Civil War. Unlike European colonial powers who waved a pointer over a map and made "Iraq", "Syria" and so on. Those countries were formed articificially with no thought on how it would work or if it could work. So if they then break up, like Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union then is that necessarilly bad? Probably not.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by takeo
The autor is drawing plans as a real colonial master would have done at one or another conference in Europe in the 19th century. He is deciding over the future of millions of people in the best interests of the us, and decided to punish the sunni's for being anti-American.
Well, we've seen all this before, we have experience with such divide-and-rule colonial policy in Africa and the middle-East, and believe me, it wasn't a great succes, and it is as far from democracy as can be. ....

Actually takeo, my Knowledgeless Friend....

Iraq WAS created in a 'Colonial' way in the 20th Century... By Britain.

It idiotically combined 3 provinces of the Former Ottoman Empire which were not Compatible to begin with, and gave them to a Hashemite (Faisal) who had just been tossed out of Saudi Arabia, as Booty for the Arab help in beating the Turks. The same way Jordan was created and for the same reason and given to a different Hashemite Prince, Abdullah, Great Grandfather of the current Abdullah.

Anyway.. such states days are often numbered.
Just as in Yugoslavia, (or the USSR) the collapse of a 'Strongman' leads to natural national yearnings.
Certainly this is another prime example.

Perhaps the USA's biggest mistake is trying to keep these incompatible 3 together.
Probably just to assuage the Turks (and Arabs for that matter) who would Freak out if the Kurds finally got their deserved State.

Surely, if a few million Palestinkians, who are just generic Arabs and could easily be absorbed by their Arab Brethren neighbor countries, deserve a state, 25 Million Kurds, a separate ethnic, lingual, and cultural group, persecuted by all their Arab neighbors AND the Turks, need one even more.

Surely, even a Leftist reactionary like you who doesn't know Fact 1 of Middle East history can sympathize with this true and deserving Underdog.

[takeo]

I'm going to answer the other threads when I have time in a few days. This one I'll handle right now.

No just the reverse. America and for the most part Europe was formed out of some effort to draw boundaries around commonalities. The US really only has one language and culturally the drive to accept major societal differences ended with the Civil War. Unlike European colonial powers who waved a pointer over a map and made "Iraq", "Syria" and so on. Those countries were formed articificially with no thought on how it would work or if it could work. So if they then break up, like Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union then is that necessarilly bad? Probably not.

actually Iraq isn't an artificial state, and neither the sunni's nor the Shiites want to break away. Remember Mesopotamy? It was more or less on the same territory as Iraq nowadays. The eastern boundaries are not artificial, since they are the same as the boundaries between the Arab and Persian culture. (a very big difference, despite the common religion, Iranians think Arabs are hotblooded crasy motherers who **** their camels, for them Saddam is the typical Arab stereotype, Arabs think Iranians are intellectual weirdo's, complicated and scary people, who always look sad, the persians like to brag that arabs imported their entire culture from Persia and were nothing but underdevellopped nomads before they imported persian culture) neither are the western boundaries artificial, just look on the map, Western Iraq and Eastern syria or Jordan is nothing but pure desert, and this desert also marks the difference between the more Roman-Greek-European influenced arabs (Syrians, Lebanese, ...) and the more Eastern Arabs, influenced by Persia and Asia. It seems to be difficult to differientiate between Syrian and Jordanian Arab but Iraqi arab is very distinct.
The only artificial boundary is the one with Kouweit, drawn because of geo-strategical colonial Brittish interests.
The examples you have choosen aren't exactly shining paths for human kind, are they? Yugoslavian break-up was very bloody and unnecessery, certainly in Bosnia(more or less comparable to the Iraqi etnic situation), however it is true that yugoslavia consisted of very different cultures, more so than the difference between sunni's and shiites. (however, I agree, Kurds are very different from mainstream arab Iraqi's). As in Bosnia shiites and sunni's live together mixed in cities and regions, share more or less the same culture, and they intermingle and all feel Iraqi nationals. Czechs and slovaks are two very distinct peoples and Czechs live in Czechia and slovaks in Slovakia, so the break-up was easy, altough many people still don't understand wHY it was necessary.

I think the result of the actions proposed by the autor will be a war, that's for sure, and the war will infect other Arab nations as well, such as syria, Lebanon, saoudi Arabia and Jordania, who all have a very fragile etnic, social and religious balance. The result will be the dissolution of those states and than the prospects of a nasserist all-Arab union could be very real.

Actually takeo, my Knowledgeless Friend....

Iraq WAS created in a 'Colonial' way in the 20th Century... By Britain.

that's what I said. But Iraq is certainly less artificial then a "sunni" or shiite" state. (the example of Lebanon by the way shows that such is not necessary, today lebanon is a more or less affluent democracy where shiites, sunni's and all kinds of Christians share power)

It idiotically combined 3 provinces of the Former Ottoman Empire which were not Compatible to begin with, and gave them to a Hashemite (Faisal) who had just been tossed out of Saudi Arabia, as Booty for the Arab help in beating the Turks. The same way Jordan was created and for the same reason and given to a different Hashemite Prince, Abdullah, Great Grandfather of the current Abdullah.

As I indicated above, Iraq wasn't a very artificial state, on the contrary to Jordan, kouweit and saoudi Arabia (because those bedouins who originally lived in Jordan (before it was aflooted by Palestinian refugees), kouweit and saoudi Arabia never had solid state structures and were semi-nomads). Kouweit was always a part of mesopotamia, Saoudi Arabia was divided among different empires during history.

Anyway.. such states days are often numbered.
Just as in Yugoslavia, (or the USSR) the collapse of a 'Strongman' leads to natural national yearnings.
Certainly this is another prime example.

The soviet-union DID function well, despite the giant cultural differences. The Russian culture was the binding element between the different republics. Even today Uzbeks, Tadjiks, Latvians, Georgians all of them will seek eachother company when they arrive in a foreign country, they still feel "soviet". (jews and non-Russian Baltic people are an exception to the rule, they feel "superior", altough Soviet Jews will always seel eachothers company, certainly in Israel, there are even Birobidjan-circles in Tel aviv, go figure...) besides the Russian federation is a multicultural country as well, more than 150 peoples who speak over 100 different languages live in present Russia. But of course you can't compare the soviet-union to Iraq, shiite and sunni arabs share the same culture, you can compare to Bosnia as I did above, or to lebanon perhaps.

Perhaps the USA's biggest mistake is trying to keep these incompatible 3 together.
Probably just to assuage the Turks (and Arabs for that matter) who would Freak out if the Kurds finally got their deserved State.

the kurds and other people such as turkmens who live in the north are a different matter, the best solution would be to give them a large autonomy, almost identical to independance. But not formal independance, since this will never be accepted by their neighbours Turkey, Syria and Iran.

Surely, if a few million Palestinkians, who are just generic Arabs and could easily be absorbed by their Arab Brethren neighbor countries, deserve a state, 25 Million Kurds, a separate ethnic, lingual, and cultural group, persecuted by all their Arab neighbors AND the Turks, need one even more.

Yes, they need one, but reality as such doesn't allow them to have one. But at least the difference with palestinians is that they have (formally) civil rights, Palestinians on the other hand are occupied but they are not equal Israeli citizens. Kurds in Turkey who speak well the Turkish language can integrate fully in the Turkish society, this is not true for palestinians in Israel.

Surely, even a Leftist reactionary like you who doesn't know Fact 1 of Middle East history can sympathize with this true and deserving Underdog.

Yes I can and I did. My knowledge can certainly be improved, but I am glad to say that I know more about the middle East than you or mediocrates (except Israel perhaps). You have never been to any of the other states and your knowledge of the Arab culture and other middle-Eastern countries is, well, deficient.

[abu afak]

You just make up stuff .. as usual/

You make -0- sense.. quote no sources, for your 'Beauties.

The USSR did not function well for all it's people and that's why they wanted and eventually got independence.
It held together, as I said, for the Same Reason Yugoslavia did..
'Strongman' Regimes..

Same as Iraq.


"Mesopotamia"! ... Huh?!$^%$#$%

Mesopotamia has come and gone.. yes .. the rivers are still there, but the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Sumerians, are Not.
They were even all long gone before the Arab Conquest 2 Thousand years later. ..


Give Iraqi’s Their Autonomy
By Chuck Diaz

Since the American Revolution, the purpose of war has been a fight for freedom. Our forefathers declared freedom as an American’s unalienable right. And as such, have inspired our outlook on protecting or gaining freedom and other human rights for a variety of countries.

The Iraqi conflict isn’t much different. Though there are many factors contributing to U.S. involvement and the desire to oust Saddam Hussein, the underlying result is freedom of oppression for the Iraqi people.

We’ve heard over and over again that the “issue” isn’t with the Iraqi people, but with the regime in power. So what do the Iraqi people really want? If they were to help us overthrow the current government without a war, what would take its place? Who would be in control?

Looking back in history, it’s clear that there really isn’t an “Iraqi People”. After WWI France and Britain arbitrarily divided the spoils[1]– France taking over Lebanon and Syria and Britain gaining the former provinces of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, which ultimately became Iraq. The region was made up of the three former provinces of the Ottoman Empire, each with its own religion, culture and way of life that was not necessarily compatible with neighboring provinces. The three provinces that formed Iraq were controlled by tribes, the Sunni’s, the Shia’s and the Kurds.
The Shia’s and the Sunni’s have hated each other since the year 609. During the debate about the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, each province was led to believe that they would gain autonomy over their own kingdom. The West was content to believe that these Eastern peoples would cooperate and go along with the new boundaries imposed by the greater powers.

The Brits even decided to install a king, King Faisal, who was a friend of Britain and pledged to be loyal. Britain went so far as to encourage Arab nationalism to help diminish the power of the Ottoman Empire. However, this new Iraqi constituency didn’t necessarily even know they were Iraqi and most did not hold any loyalty to the West.

As time passed no Iraqi nationalism was born. In 1921, Winston Churchill visited Cairo to investigate and saw that all was out of control. He realized the Turks had never dominated these people in all their time of trying and Britain was not having much success either.

In order to control these varying peoples, King Faisal resorted to military control and British military occupation. However, in 1932 a coup liberated Iraq from British command and established an independent nation. Control was once again established by Britain and King Faisal returned to power. When King Faisal died in 1933 his son took over and though he was more anti-Britain, he wasn’t a good politician. He died shortly thereafter, leaving the throne to an infant son, King Faisal II. The regent installed to act in place of the young king was pro-British, but again, the army was not. The army led another coup under the leader Rashad Ali who formed his own government and announced allegiance to Germany. Once again, Britain stepped in and squelched that rebellion. So peace was once again demanded and Iraq was back to a Britain-friendly role, but the country was still full of a discontented people who saw their sovereignty of their kingdoms demolished. There was much inequity amongst the tribes.

In 1956 the Baghdad Pact with Britain, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran was signed. Shortly after, in 1958 King Faisal II was murdered along with the rest of the royal family by army officers who wanting to start their own republic. The break with Britain was now permanent.

That brings us almost up to date with the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis still not altogether an “Iraqi People.”
That is why it is an error to say Saddam Hussein gassed his own people. In his mind the Kurds are not “his people.” The people of the region come from an ancestry hundreds of years old. The League of Nations created Iraq to secure oil for Britain and France and in 1932 Iraq was admitted to the League of Nations. To keep these people under a single ruler whether it is a democracy or dictatorship assumes the UN and the rest of the world have that right to do so.

So what should the EU and US do to bring peace to the area after ousting Saddam Hussein? With infighting amongst themselves, most are not pro-Hussein government. Hussein is a Sunni, a people who are the fewest in number. But Sunni’s, Shia’s and Kurds are the people that we must rely upon in hopes of a coup to disintegrate the current regime. And if not, those we must continue relations with once a war is won.

So what do the people in the region want? Same thing they’ve always wanted, autonomy of their kingdoms, the way it was before the Ottoman Empire.
Why don’t we give it to them this time?

The present Iraq should be divided into three separate countries....

SUANews.com

[MGB8]

Takeo,

Iraq is very much a made up state.

Mesopotamia, Babylon and tne Persia once centered in Baghdad are gone - and the ethnic unities and political realities that made those states possible are in the dust bin of history with them.

Meanwhile, I don't think that "breaking up" Iraq is the answer - BUT, I think that the FEAR of Iraq breaking up has been one of the greatest detriments to the establishment of a real democracy in Iraq - and this pressure does not come from the US, but from the US, mainly the state department, caring too much what the neighbors thing.

How did the US Constitution, full of minority protections, get formed? Well that's an easy question to answer historically - different regional factions sent representatives to hammer out a compromise that would protect their interests. No compromise, no minority protections - no Constitution, no US.

Meanwhile, Democracy is much easier to institute on a local level, and more than that, its EFFECTS are much more visible.

So why aren't we doing that? Splitting Iraq up into its 18 or so regions or districts that Saddam had drawn up, and bringing democratic elections to each one by one? Why hasn't the harbringer of all that's good, the UN (yes, HEAVY sarcasm) even suggested this (instead of picking, in who knows what manner, what did the guy say - trusted and respected figures - umm...and this is so different from the US Governing council how? That the UN picks the people instead of the US going through its process???? What a farce).

I'll tell you why....because the Arab controlled UN is terrified of minority rights (particularly if they are given to the more ethnically distinct Kurds) and do not want to see Democracy succeed.

So we go about, trying to install democracy top down, when the easiest and best way, the way we've been partially succesful with in parts of the North of Iraq, is to do it with less numbers BOTTOM UP.

Of course, this would also allow for the possibilities that, if the groups can't compromise, the regions would say - screw this, we'll go it alone. That's the nature of democracy, folks. Better than the UN-i-stan we look like we are heading for.

[takeo]

You just make up stuff .. as usual/

Its not because you quote a text from ... yes who exactly is Chuck Diaz or Suanews? ... that you have any more credibility. If I use sources, whenever I have time (because it is timeconsuming and I have other things to do as well which are more fun) and feel like searching on the internet, I use credible sources acceptable to everyone. And I think I put quite some references and links during all the time I was active on this forum. Now a bit less but still more than you ever did.

The USSR did not function well for all it's people and that's why they wanted and eventually got independence.
It held together, as I said, for the Same Reason Yugoslavia did..
'Strongman' Regimes..

in part, but remember that the dissolution of the Soviet-Union came from above(Gorbatchov, Yeltsin, ...) , actually during a referendum in 1991 or 1990 most people voted for the continuation of the union. Today many people in Ukrain, Georgia, Uzbekistan, and other impoversished republics deplore the demise of the Soviet-Union. Exeptions are the Baltic republics.

Same as Iraq.


"Mesopotamia"! ... Huh?!$^%$#$%

Mesopotamia has come and gone.. yes .. the rivers are still there, but the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Sumerians, are Not.
They were even all long gone before the Arab Conquest 2 Thousand years later. ..

They were not gone, they assimilated with other peoples who passed trough Iraq, the last one the Arabs, who established their culture and religion in Iraq, and made it the center of the Arab and Islamic world. the Egyptians didn't disappear either, etc.
Iraqi people feel Iraqi and Arab, but national pride is quite strong. More than a century of nationbulding combined with a shared culture and past made them one people, eventough indeed their culture is similar to other Arab cultures.

[takeo]

Meanwhile, I don't think that "breaking up" Iraq is the answer - BUT, I think that the FEAR of Iraq breaking up has been one of the greatest detriments to the establishment of a real democracy in Iraq - and this pressure does not come from the US, but from the US, mainly the state department, caring too much what the neighbors thing.

the neighbours have very good reasons to fear the break-up of Iraq, so should the us. I'm not mentioning the word democracy because that's just propaganda-talk, what's happening today in Iraq not even close to democracy.

How did the US Constitution, full of minority protections, get formed? Well that's an easy question to answer historically - different regional factions sent representatives to hammer out a compromise that would protect their interests. No compromise, no minority protections - no Constitution, no US.

those minority protections never prevented the massacre of the aboriginal populations and the discrimination of the blacks, so the us isn't a good example is this respect. Better examples would be Switserland, Finland, Canada perhaps but NOT the US.

Meanwhile, Democracy is much easier to institute on a local level, and more than that, its EFFECTS are much more visible.

Smaller nations are more often than not dictatorships, and the local level is very heavily influenced by local strongman and the ruling notables.

[abu afak]

Takeo.. you did not answer single fact or point in the article, you merely hemmed an hawed and admitted I was partially right on the USSR (which you were wrong on the first time)..
more takeo backtracking.

Here's the article and my points again.

Try harder this time and go for coherence and non-avoidance
It is not enought to say "who is Chuck Diaz".. he cites Facts and History and makes many good points.

Originally posted by abu afak
You just make up stuff .. as usual/

You make -0- sense.. quote no sources, for your 'Beauties.

The USSR did not function well for all it's people and that's why they wanted and eventually got independence.
It held together, as I said, for the Same Reason Yugoslavia did..
'Strongman' Regimes..

Same as Iraq.


"Mesopotamia"! ... Huh?!$^%$#$%

Mesopotamia has come and gone.. yes .. the rivers are still there, but the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Sumerians, are Not.
They were even all long gone before the Arab Conquest 2 Thousand years later. ..


Give Iraqi’s Their Autonomy
By Chuck Diaz

Since the American Revolution, the purpose of war has been a fight for freedom. Our forefathers declared freedom as an American’s unalienable right. And as such, have inspired our outlook on protecting or gaining freedom and other human rights for a variety of countries.

The Iraqi conflict isn’t much different. Though there are many factors contributing to U.S. involvement and the desire to oust Saddam Hussein, the underlying result is freedom of oppression for the Iraqi people.

We’ve heard over and over again that the “issue” isn’t with the Iraqi people, but with the regime in power. So what do the Iraqi people really want? If they were to help us overthrow the current government without a war, what would take its place? Who would be in control?

Looking back in history, it’s clear that there really isn’t an “Iraqi People”. After WWI France and Britain arbitrarily divided the spoils[1]– France taking over Lebanon and Syria and Britain gaining the former provinces of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, which ultimately became Iraq. The region was made up of the three former provinces of the Ottoman Empire, each with its own religion, culture and way of life that was not necessarily compatible with neighboring provinces. The three provinces that formed Iraq were controlled by tribes, the Sunni’s, the Shia’s and the Kurds.
The Shia’s and the Sunni’s have hated each other since the year 609. During the debate about the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, each province was led to believe that they would gain autonomy over their own kingdom. The West was content to believe that these Eastern peoples would cooperate and go along with the new boundaries imposed by the greater powers.

The Brits even decided to install a king, King Faisal, who was a friend of Britain and pledged to be loyal. Britain went so far as to encourage Arab nationalism to help diminish the power of the Ottoman Empire. However, this new Iraqi constituency didn’t necessarily even know they were Iraqi and most did not hold any loyalty to the West.

As time passed no Iraqi nationalism was born. In 1921, Winston Churchill visited Cairo to investigate and saw that all was out of control. He realized the Turks had never dominated these people in all their time of trying and Britain was not having much success either.

In order to control these varying peoples, King Faisal resorted to military control and British military occupation. However, in 1932 a coup liberated Iraq from British command and established an independent nation. Control was once again established by Britain and King Faisal returned to power. When King Faisal died in 1933 his son took over and though he was more anti-Britain, he wasn’t a good politician. He died shortly thereafter, leaving the throne to an infant son, King Faisal II. The regent installed to act in place of the young king was pro-British, but again, the army was not. The army led another coup under the leader Rashad Ali who formed his own government and announced allegiance to Germany. Once again, Britain stepped in and squelched that rebellion. So peace was once again demanded and Iraq was back to a Britain-friendly role, but the country was still full of a discontented people who saw their sovereignty of their kingdoms demolished. There was much inequity amongst the tribes.

In 1956 the Baghdad Pact with Britain, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran was signed. Shortly after, in 1958 King Faisal II was murdered along with the rest of the royal family by army officers who wanting to start their own republic. The break with Britain was now permanent.

That brings us almost up to date with the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis still not altogether an “Iraqi People.”
That is why it is an error to say Saddam Hussein gassed his own people. In his mind the Kurds are not “his people.” The people of the region come from an ancestry hundreds of years old. The League of Nations created Iraq to secure oil for Britain and France and in 1932 Iraq was admitted to the League of Nations. To keep these people under a single ruler whether it is a democracy or dictatorship assumes the UN and the rest of the world have that right to do so.

So what should the EU and US do to bring peace to the area after ousting Saddam Hussein? With infighting amongst themselves, most are not pro-Hussein government. Hussein is a Sunni, a people who are the fewest in number. But Sunni’s, Shia’s and Kurds are the people that we must rely upon in hopes of a coup to disintegrate the current regime. And if not, those we must continue relations with once a war is won.

So what do the people in the region want? Same thing they’ve always wanted, autonomy of their kingdoms, the way it was before the Ottoman Empire.
Why don’t we give it to them this time?

The present Iraq should be divided into three separate countries....

SUANews.com

[Ghanbari]

Kurds in Turkey who speak well the Turkish language can integrate fully in the Turkish society, this is not true for palestinians in Israel.

Yeah maybe but then they must deny their ethnic background, they must be like the nationalistic turks, they must not talk their own language any more and they should never talk about kurds!!! Is it worth it? NO!

I think Palestinians have 1000 times better then the kurds! the whole world are supporting them in every way, why?
There are no arab palestinans they are artificial! They belong to Jordan.

[Cellis]

it's false!

http://aksiyon.com.tr/detay.php?id=24108

check this new. they are Pro-Turk, nationalist Kurds who are reading speaking and listening in Kurdish language in DIYARBAKIR, or "AMED" in Kurdish. They are members of the "Nationalist Movement Party" (Turkish Nationalist Party)...

http://www.aksiyon.com.tr/resim/595/20.jpg

[Ghanbari]

it's false!

http://aksiyon.com.tr/detay.php?id=24108

check this new. they are Pro-Turk, nationalist Kurds who are reading speaking and listening in Kurdish language in DIYARBAKIR, or "AMED" in Kurdish. They are members of the "Nationalist Movement Party" (Turkish Nationalist Party)...

http://www.aksiyon.com.tr/resim/595/20.jpg

Turkey and its leaders is just like Iraq and saddam hussein! They are paying (poor) people for their nazi propaganda and tell them what to say and what to think! People like those that you showed was very regular at saddams time but when Iraq was free they spit on saddam and his bath party! Dont You think that they are going to do the same with turkey if it becomes free? And dont tell me that is free, everyone smart person knows that the Generals in turkey have more power then the elected leaders!