Sunday, October 1, 2017

Revolving Door in Iraq

                                                Revolving Door of Power
  With the recent resurgence of radical Jihad in Iraq, in the form of ISIS, The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria many countries are looking to the United States to figure out a way to stop the instability in Iraq. While the United States as well as its Kurdish and Iraqi allies have done a sufficient job at beating back ISIS forces and retaking many of the cities and territories they have occupied the real question still remains, how does Iraq become a self-sufficient and stable country? I believe the answer does not lie in creating one stable Iraq but, rather splitting the country into thirds. Iraq has been plagued since the days of Saddam Hussein with infighting between the three religious sects of Islam, the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. This “revolving door” of power struggles has only resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi people and the destruction of the country. If peace is ever to be found in the region, the country will have to be divided between the three diametrically opposed religious sects.   
    The beginning of this struggle could be seen as far back as Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi government in the 1980s to the 2000s. Hussein after his revolution in July of 1958, he supplanted his government with all Sunni Muslims. Hussein, a Sunni Muslim was particularly known for his ruthless and malicious attitude towards the other Islamic sects that occupied the territory of Iraq. Hussein attacked these sects on multiple occasions such as the Anfal campaign, in which his government launched chemical mustard gas attacks upon the Kurds of northern Iraq as well as, Later Hussein would also attack the Shi’ites of southern Iraq who also wished to gain independence. As a result, Hussein, marched the full force of his armies upon the Shi’ite rebels, destroying their homes and destroying the area they lived in making it completely uninhabitable. When he was finally arrested by U.S forces in 2003, he was charged with crimes against humanity against the Shi’ite people but, not the Kurds, as the Shia had supported the United States in the attacks and still refused to acknowledge the other religious sect. 
   The United States did not learn from the acts of Saddam Hussein, when Nouri al Maliki became President of Iraq in 2006. Al Maliki, who was exiled from Iraq for 24 years during Hussein’s regime was already paranoid of the Sunni Muslims who had once oppressed him years before and this was only heightened because of his power. While the Iraqi parliament was split between Sunni, Shia, and Kurds, this did not stop Al Maliki from attempting to force the Shia Muslims the as dominant party in Iraq. Maliki on multiple occasions refused to stop Shia Militia’s which were attacks Sunni and Kurd people and he even, accused Sunni politician and Vice President of Iraq, Tariq al-Hashemi, of planning the bombing attacks on Shia, Al Hashemi who would flee to Turkey, and other Shia and Kurd Muslims would blame Maliki for attempting to bring the Shia Muslims into full control of the government. Rafi al- Essawi a “greatly” respected minister of finance would later speak on Maliki’s discrimination of Sunni Muslims saying “200 to 300 Sunni’s would be arrested after a car bombing, all left in prison without trial.”  
        This oppression against Sunni Muslims would later lead to the utter failing of Maliki’s government and the Iraq civil war. This oppression is often seen as one of the main reasons many Sunni Muslims joined ISIS during the Iraq civil war. If the United States wishes to stop the instability in Iraq they need to either create an even parliamentary system between the three sects or they must completely separate the three into different states. Already the Kurdish have established themselves in the north and do not seem to wish to rejoin the country. If the United States does either they must also have a stronger and a longer presence as Al- Essawi also claimed that the parliamentary system had been working until the United States left in 2011. In order to form a stable Iraq the three religious sects must be separated or find even ground.




Bibliography:
 “In Their Own Words: Sunnis on Their Treatment in Maliki's Iraq.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/in-their-own-words-sunnis-on-their-treatment-in-malikis-iraq/.
Macfarquhar, Neil. “Saddam Hussein, Defiant Dictator Who Ruled Iraq With Violence and Fear, Dies.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 Dec. 2006, www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/world/middleeast/30saddam.html?mcubz=0.

Rosenberg, Jennifer. “The Heinous Crimes of Saddam Hussein.” ThoughtCo, www.thoughtco.com/top-crimes-of-saddam-hussein-1779933

4 comments:

  1. Hey Collin! I really enjoyed your take on the issue. I've never seen this proposition before and found it very compelling. You're mention about how when the US intervened and had a regime and nothing really came about it rings very true with how the US generally deals with issues. We seem to never learn that regime change does not really change anything and in the long run can actually be more expensive than holding out and thinking outside the box as opposed to a "quick fix" regime change. Overall, you made me really think while reading your post. Great job! Keep em coming.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Collin. I like how you analyze the religious interactions and your creative solutions. Can you imagine if suddenly Iraq were separated into like three different mini-Iraqs? What would they be named? It's just bananas to think about. Anyways, your use of comparison between violent regimes and their different religious clashes highlights your point well. Further examination of how these ideas could be applied would be interesting to see. Good work.

    P.s. I like your hat

    ReplyDelete
  3. Collin, I really like the idea of the parliamentary system in Iraq amongst the three sects. I would really like to have had an entire blog on that idea alone. Very interesting content. What would this system entail? How would the election process be? The complications are vast, so would separation be the best option? I think it would be but I am curious as to what your take on the matter is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. While I see where you're going with this, I believe splitting Iraq into thirds would just lead to fighting between those thirds. I think at this point any new system or rule of law would fall on deaf ears, as the issues in Iraq go far beyond an unstable legal system. How would this fix the centuries of fighting between the religious groups? How would this prevent the fighting from starting up again?

    ReplyDelete

Security Concerns: Playing Favorites

In my first Security essay, I wrote that social justice security and ontological security were the most important security issues, as they...