Home > There Is No Iraq By Cenk Uygur

There Is No Iraq By Cenk Uygur

by Open-Publishing - Monday 3 October 2005
4 comments

Wars and conflicts International USA

Everyone is wrong — from the arrogant neo-clowns who brought you this war to the mindless bureaucrats who maintain it to the well-intentioned intellectuals that are grasping for a decent and humane way out. Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Iraq back together again.

Whether people want to leave or stay, the assumption is that they have what is best for Iraq in mind.

But there is no Iraq.

Today General Casey and General Abizaid admitted in the United States Senate that after two and a half years, they have only been able to train one Iraqi battalion. One! You could blame this on the incompetence of the Pentagon or the administration - and one is tempted to because that is usually the correct answer these days - but there is a better explanation. The Iraqis have no allegiance to their central government. They do not wish to serve in its army or to die for its goals.

That is because the West misunderstands the local culture of Iraq. An Iraqi Sunni is a thousand times more loyal to his fellow Sunnis than to some theoretical Iraqi government. The same is true of Shiites and even more true of Kurds. They don’t care about Iraq - we do.

The Iraqis are perfectly capable of fighting with passion and effectiveness. Just look at the insurgency - those are Iraqi fighters (at least 90% according to the various Pentagon sources). Look at the Kurdish peshmarga militia that maintains order in the north. Look at the Badr brigades and the Mahdi army of the Shiites in the south. All of these forces are perfectly capable and willing to fight - just not for the Iraqi army.

They are ready to fight for their sects. The only thing keeping them together in the short run is the US occupation. But the US occupation won’t last forever and can only keep a lid on sectarian ambitions for so long. At some point, the levees will be breached.

The Sunnis have already rejected the constitution and the Shiites don’t appear to be overly concerned about their lack of approval. It is wishful thinking bordering on fantasy to think that these different sects will get back together and live peacefully ever after. Eventually, the Shiites will have just as much trouble controlling the Sunni areas as we do. Their occupation will not be any more effective than ours. The Kurds will drive the Arabs from Kirkuk, and the separation will be complete.

There is no Iraq. It does not exist in the minds and souls of the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. There will be three different countries in the place we call Iraq, whether we like it or not.

Now, the question isn’t whether our troops stay or withdraw. Neither action would help towards a long term solution because we are headed the wrong way. If we stayed a thousand years, we couldn’t keep Iraq together. If we left now, there would be instant, horrific bloodshed. Neither accomplishes anything.

What we should be doing is working towards a realistic goal - a relatively peaceful transition towards three different countries in the area. We might not be able to keep these people together but we could probably help them to separate.

Of course, there are tremendous downsides to this solution. Allies like Turkey will be enraged, the Sunnis will rebel (so, what’s new) because they will be left without oil, there will be displacements and small massacres. Believe it or not, that is now the best case scenario. If you don’t believe me now, you will believe me many years from now after thousands more have perished trying to do the undoable. And then we’ll go through the painful transition I’m referring to anyway, because it is inevitable.

Of course, the real downside to this solution that is going to prevent us from doing what is necessary has nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with American politics. If we say now that we should split up the country, we will look like we made a mistake by going in the first place. It will be a major admission that we were wrong in thinking we could keep the country together. Our politicians would lose face. And that is the one price they are not willing to bear.

That is why we must make them bear it. The longer they protect their pride, the longer we keep on dying. All the while, going the wrong way.

As any sports player or fan knows, if your team’s heart is not into it, you will lose the game. Right now, the Iraqi army - all one battalion of it - doesn’t have its heart into it. They keep running from fights and battles because it is not their battles. Nor is it ours.

Let’s start fighting a fight we can win. Let’s create countries that people care about and are willing to protect not only through violence, but also through peace. The Sunnis might not care about keeping Basra or Mosul safe because they are Shiite and Kurdish towns, but they will care about bringing peace to Ramadi and Tikrit once they have ownership of them. Let’s give them a reason to care.

This war is a disaster of epic proportions. Iraq presented no threat to the United States before the invasion, now it presents a tremendous threat. There was almost no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before the war, now there is a tremendous presence. Iran was in a position of weakness before the war, and now it has a powerful new ally in Shiite led Iraq. Terrorism is on the rise. Osama bin Laden has been left alone to pursue his new attacks. There is instability in the Middle East. And this administration has absolutely no idea how to make it better.

George Bush still talks about freedom and democracy, as if they have relevance in the complicated sectarian strife in Iraq. Whose freedom, George? Whose democracy? It doesn’t feel like freedom to the Sunnis when they have been squeezed out of the Shiite and Kurdish controlled Iraqi government. That’s why they are fighting us - not because they hate their freedom but because they want it back.

In this quagmire full of nuance we have a president who is proud that he “doesn’t do nuance.” We’re in a lot of trouble. Our president is overmatched. Not by the Iraqis, but by the gravity of his office. The man is a simpleton in complicated times.

Our only recourse is to elect a completely new Congress that will force him in the direction of reality. The people who voted for this war and brought you this debacle are not going to be the ones who bring you out. We need new direction here at home so that we can have a new direction in Iraq, or what’s left of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-...

Forum posts

  • Totally agree with your opinion. Unfortunately, it wo’nt happen with this administration nor is there any hope on the horizon with the lack of a creditable opposition.
    The troops have lost control and have no hope of being pulled out.
    Many more innocent lives will be lost, I’m afraid, because of the sectarianism on all sides which the writer describes so well.

  • On this date, October 3, 2001 who stated:

    "If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation building missions then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road"

    No hints.

    cheers, jt.

    • I’m glad we’re not there for geopolitical reasons or oil.
      I’m guessing 4 major "enduring military camps" will become.?
      Donald creating "lily pads" for the forces throughout the region.?
      What kind of frogs is he intending to catch in these ponds.?
      His metrics are as confusing as his arthritic karate hand moves.
      cheers, jt.

  • I know it is not fashionable or in vogue to compare Vietnam and Iraq: but please consider:

    1) We misjudged them—and we have since—the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries.
    ..and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

    2) We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our experience.
    We totally misjudged the forces within the country.

    3) We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

    4) Our judgement of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of history, culture, and politics of the people in the area and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

    5) We failed them—and have since—to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine....We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds from a people from a totally different culture.

    6) We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large—scale military involvement...before we initiated the action

    7) After the action got underway and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course...we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did

    8) We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgement of what is in another people’s or country’s best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

    9) We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action...should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces fully (and not merely cosmetically ) by the international community.

    10) We failed to recognize that in the international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions....At times, we may have to live with an imperfect , untidy world.

    11) Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinary complex range of political and military issues.

    From Robert McNamara’s 11 lessons.

    As a former head of The Ford Company, The Secretary of Defense and later as The President of The World Bank, his opinions quoted bear an uncanny relationship to the Iraq adventure.

    I hold an anti-British Policy opinion of the UK’s war in Iraq in 1919 especially as stated by Sir Winston Churchill, " I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effects should be good, and will spread a lively terror . They were used and spread a lively terror.
    I hold the same anti-American Policy opinions of the terror bombing of Fallujah and other cities.
    I am ambidextrous when it come to condemning the foreign policies of Empires past and present.

    Who said if we don’t learn the lessons of history we are condemned to repeat them.?

    When I have more time I would be happy to deal with this "everyone knew" premise.
    From Paul W’s statement that we finally could all agree on...to forgeries on uranium documents and other obvious glaring ’intelligence failures’ maybe check out "dodger’s dossiers" and "sexed up reports" and those other confidential memos that are trickling out.

    cheers, jt.