Iraq

[softwareNerd]

By softwareNerd from Software Nerd,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I did some catching up on Iraq news. The situation has improved significantly in the last year or so.

Sunni areas: After the U.S. invasion, Kurdish areas were peaceful, but many Sunnis allied with the Al Queda, while the Shia allied with Iran. In the last two years (remember the battle for Fallujah), the Sunni areas have been brought around to where they are peaceful enough for life to begin again. (Michael Totten files informative reports from the Sunni areas of Iraq.)

The primary characteristic of the so-called "surge" seems to be the strategy of taking back the streets -- taking control of neighbourhoods, rather than simply establishing bases on the outskirts of cities and making patrols. The Sunnis are being paid by the U.S., to keep the peace; but, the peace does appear to be genuinely popular.

One also sees the Al Queda leadership addressing the Iraqi Sunni community in threatening tones, and complaining that other Muslims are not doing enough to help the islamist insurgency in Iraq. Mosul is the last major city with significant problems; but, the Iraqi government is trying to take control there too.

The Shia insurgency -- with cleric Sadr as the most public face -- had declared a ceasefire, probably hoping to wait the U.S. out. Nevertheless, with the Sunnis relatively quiet, the Iraqi government has moved against Sadr. They started with a fight in Basra, in the south (Iraq's only port). The Iraqis said they would do it without U.S. help, and some news-reports spoke of how they needed to call in U.S. support after all. I don't think that's a big deal, since they did do much on their own, and since the political willingness to take on the Shia militants is a bigger step than the actual fight.

Having shown force in Basra, the Iraqi government turned to Sadr city in Baghdad. This time, the U.S. support was closer, but the Iraqi units were out front. Again, some news-reports said that many Iraqi soldiers deserted rather than fight, and some units shrunk back when faced with particularly dangerous situations. The bigger point is that -- overall -- the Iraqi army won this battle. (More reports on Basra here and here.)

Cleric Sadr warned that he would lift the cease-fire and spoke of "open war". His fighters were being killed, and he was threatening to fight back -- how lame is that? Soon, he issued a clarification, saying that his "open war" would not be with the Iraqi government, but with the U.S. Now, he's declared a truce. This seems like a potential turning point.

In an odd development, Sadr's Iranian supporters distanced themselves from him. According to one article linked above, Sadr's militia were gaining over the Badr militia that is closer to Iran. So, Iran still remains a huge threat, but it is good to see the Shia-militia on Shia-militia rivalry, and -- more importantly -- to see the government has that moral authority to act against them. [A good summary of the initiative against Shia militia from the WSJ, here.]

Problems remain: There are rumours that the Al Queda and the Shia are trying to cooperate against their common enemy. The bigger threat is Iran's ability to support an insurgency, particularly if the U.S. pulls out.

Iraq still has a long, long way to go. Still, the Sunni areas reached a turning point about a year ago, and need to consolidate. The Shia area are in the middle of a potential turning point. If the Iraqi government can build on these successes, in a few years, Iran will be the only remaining major threat.

What next? The Iraqi government is finally holding together and taking baby steps in the right direction. However, it does not seem to be strong enough to take on various militia without help from the U.S. Even if McCain wins and keeps the U.S. there for another 4 years, there are real problems. Given the history of the region, there's a strong likelihood that any coalition will slowly break, along Shia, Sunni, Kurd lines.

I have an Iraqi neighbor with family in Iraq, who is there now as an Army interpreter. He tells me that things have settled down, and he feels that -- given time -- it can be stable. I think his optimism reflects what the "silent majority" would like, not what their politicians will deliver. I don't think the big risk is ascendant Islam. The more likely risk appears to be a sectarian split, and a division of the country into three major areas. the way the Balkans have split.

That's my "capsule" on Iraq.

[punk]

We should keep in mind that none of the countries that were originally arranged as European colonies and later gained independence make much sense at all.

They were deliberately designed to contain a non-homogenous population that would be at odds with each other.

Iraq, as with all these countries, is little more than a geographic designation, created without any reference to the human population.

Iraq only worked when it was ruled by a dictator with an iron fist.

[DarkWaters]

[The Middle Eastern nations] were deliberately designed to contain a non-homogenous population that would be at odds with each other.

I am going to assume that you meant to say "which" instead of "that". The accusation that the British intentionally gerrymandered the Middle East so they could gleefully watch the different ethnicities battle is absurd!

Iraq, as with all these countries, is little more than a geographic designation, created without any reference to the human population.

While this is certainly true, I think it is also important to recognize that there is no real reason why the Middle Easterners of different tribal backgrounds cannot coexist in peace. Thus, the real problem is the tribalist mentality as well as the competing strands of militant Islam.

Of course, it is certainly unreasonable to expect two or more competing groups of individuals who embrace these mentalities to coexist peacefully in one nation. However, I think it is unjust to suggest that the British have created these problems, when the real cause of these tensions is of an ideological nature.

[punk]

I am going to assume that you meant to say "which" instead of "that".

Actually, having checked a grammar book, I can state that the only correct choices are "who" and "that", since the word "population" refers to people rather than things.

"the tree which grew in the courtyard"

"the man who gave the boy a book"

"the population who/that would be at odds with each other"

"Who" and "which" as relative pronouns may always be replaced by "that".

That, and I was referring to former colonies in the Middle East as well as Africa, so your correction isn't quite right.

The accusation that the British intentionally gerrymandered the Middle East so they could gleefully watch the different ethnicities battle is absurd!

The British and the French deliberately created territories with populations that didn't get along with each other to make it less likely they could try to throw off the colonial governments.

Divide and rule.

[DarkWaters]

The British and the French deliberately created territories with populations that didn't get along with each other to make it less likely they could try to throw off the colonial governments.

So your statement did intentionally claim that the grouping of different ethnicities and/or religious sects was intentional. I did not realize this at first. That being said, your previous statement needed no correction.

Can you please provide supporting evidence of the above claim? There might be evidence from transcripts from meetings of the League of Nations when they issued all of the various mandates. Reflecting on your statement further, I would not be too surprised if it were true.

[Nyronus]

I'm not sure about deliberate Gerrymandering, but it is a historical fact that colonies were made without care to tribal or religious consent. Why these new nations don't just redivide into smaller and less culturally exclusive states is beyond me.

Glad to hear the good news. Who would have guessed that sending forces out to go and fight the enemy would have worked so well!