Disintegration of Iraq is imminent
Rauf Naqishbendi
August 01, 2007
Unscrupulous British political architecture originally engineered this troublesome country called "Iraq." Now, almost eight decades later, the British will revisit Iraq and pay the price for defective workmanship, still believing that current actions can correct past mistakes. The United States is falling into this British trap and is thus piling up its own mistakes as it goes along with its commitment to keep Iraq integrated within the current geographic borders.
The US invaded Iraq hastily, without weighing the consequences fully, and the aftermath of this poor judgment has turned out to include a high burden of warfare cost at a time when America faces gigantic trade account imbalances, a soaring federal deficit, and a decline in American political might and economic superiority in the world. Put all these factors together and it is easy to predict the superpower’s gradual decline. The Iraqi occupation can only serve to speed this up.
From the beginning of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration consistently and persistently defended Iraq’s territorial integrity. Now, years after the Iraqi invasion, still no progress has been made in the attempt to unify the country, and it is crystal clear that Iraqi people will remain divided.
Let us navigate through the current situation. First, there was an Iraqi election and, in real terms, many Iraqi Sunni who makes up twenty percent of Iraq’s population did not participate. Then, the Kurds voted for the Iraqi parliament and the Kurdish parliament, and independent Kurdish parties started an unofficial campaign for a referendum on an independent Kurdistan. More than ninety-eight percent of all Iraqi Kurds voted in favor of a breakaway from Iraq.
The crucial question here is, if Iraq is to remain integrated, why do the Kurds have their own parliament? Why does that Kurdish parliament have the power to reject domestic policies legislated by the central government in Baghdad? Supposedly, no ruling will apply to them unless it is ratified by their Kurdistan parliament, which literally means that the Kurdish parliament has veto power over the central government’s legislative body. The Kurds have clearly made this type of declaration, are clearly disinterested in a unified Iraq, and make every attempt toward securing their sovereignty, then it will happen. It’s just a matter of time.
The Kurds are still a part of this new Iraq and yet they are separate from it. In addition, they have negotiated with the Shiites and will now maintain control of their own economy by managing their own petroleum and its proceeds. Thus, even if Iraq keeps its current geographical borders, it will still remain a divided nation on ethnic and religious lines. So why not break Iraq, if not into three countries, at least into two? Why prohibit a newly freed people from determining their own destiny?
The problem with the current setup situation as we go forward is that Kurds in Iraq will have a different set of laws and regulations than the Arabs. Consider that in the United States, federal law supersedes state law. However, the founding fathers have left provisions to allow elected state assemblies to legislate laws that address specific states needs such as regulating state taxes as an example. But by no means are the states to enact any legislation that would contradict or be inconsistent with federal laws or the United States constitution, and this is a logical hierarchy. Unfortunately, the US, as an occupying force in Iraq, has neglected to enforce this fine line between federal and state legislation, which has understandably created immense friction between the minority Kurds and the majority Arabs.
What a mess!
What a gross plan!
This is a moral disgrace by any means if one would only look to the irreconcilable consequences on the horizon. The US’s gross mistake was to let the Shiite leaders, who are advocates of the Iranian Ayatollah, to establish themselvesas the most powerful voice in Iraq. The fact is that these same Shiite leaders have been persistently asking for Iraq to be an Islamic state as much as possible while the Kurds persistently oppose this. The fact is that in the beginning, the Iraqi constitution will be flavored with Islamic elements, but as time passes, this flavoring will turn into a key ingredient. There is no problem with Islam as a faith. The problem is that the faith is dominated by a consortium of religious extremists whose domain of influence is borderless. Undoubtedly, the Shiites will push to include Kurdistan in the realm of their Islamic rule. When this materializes, federalism will fall apart, the Kurds will be threatened, civil war will erupt, and the devastation will be immeasurable.
Iraq has been a troublesome country since its inception and it will remain such within its current artificial border. The experience of Yugoslavia, which wasn’t long ago, dictates that no nation should be forced against its will to merge with another nation. This lesson should be applied to Iraq, because arranging peaceful Iraqi breakup is far more preferable than allowing a bloody and catastrophic conflict. The experience of Yugoslavia should never be repeated.
The US invaded Iraq hastily, without weighing the consequences fully, and the aftermath of this poor judgment has turned out to include a high burden of warfare cost at a time when America faces gigantic trade account imbalances, a soaring federal deficit, and a decline in American political might and economic superiority in the world. Put all these factors together and it is easy to predict the superpower’s gradual decline. The Iraqi occupation can only serve to speed this up.
From the beginning of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration consistently and persistently defended Iraq’s territorial integrity. Now, years after the Iraqi invasion, still no progress has been made in the attempt to unify the country, and it is crystal clear that Iraqi people will remain divided.
Let us navigate through the current situation. First, there was an Iraqi election and, in real terms, many Iraqi Sunni who makes up twenty percent of Iraq’s population did not participate. Then, the Kurds voted for the Iraqi parliament and the Kurdish parliament, and independent Kurdish parties started an unofficial campaign for a referendum on an independent Kurdistan. More than ninety-eight percent of all Iraqi Kurds voted in favor of a breakaway from Iraq.
The crucial question here is, if Iraq is to remain integrated, why do the Kurds have their own parliament? Why does that Kurdish parliament have the power to reject domestic policies legislated by the central government in Baghdad? Supposedly, no ruling will apply to them unless it is ratified by their Kurdistan parliament, which literally means that the Kurdish parliament has veto power over the central government’s legislative body. The Kurds have clearly made this type of declaration, are clearly disinterested in a unified Iraq, and make every attempt toward securing their sovereignty, then it will happen. It’s just a matter of time.
The Kurds are still a part of this new Iraq and yet they are separate from it. In addition, they have negotiated with the Shiites and will now maintain control of their own economy by managing their own petroleum and its proceeds. Thus, even if Iraq keeps its current geographical borders, it will still remain a divided nation on ethnic and religious lines. So why not break Iraq, if not into three countries, at least into two? Why prohibit a newly freed people from determining their own destiny?
The problem with the current setup situation as we go forward is that Kurds in Iraq will have a different set of laws and regulations than the Arabs. Consider that in the United States, federal law supersedes state law. However, the founding fathers have left provisions to allow elected state assemblies to legislate laws that address specific states needs such as regulating state taxes as an example. But by no means are the states to enact any legislation that would contradict or be inconsistent with federal laws or the United States constitution, and this is a logical hierarchy. Unfortunately, the US, as an occupying force in Iraq, has neglected to enforce this fine line between federal and state legislation, which has understandably created immense friction between the minority Kurds and the majority Arabs.
What a mess!
What a gross plan!
This is a moral disgrace by any means if one would only look to the irreconcilable consequences on the horizon. The US’s gross mistake was to let the Shiite leaders, who are advocates of the Iranian Ayatollah, to establish themselvesas the most powerful voice in Iraq. The fact is that these same Shiite leaders have been persistently asking for Iraq to be an Islamic state as much as possible while the Kurds persistently oppose this. The fact is that in the beginning, the Iraqi constitution will be flavored with Islamic elements, but as time passes, this flavoring will turn into a key ingredient. There is no problem with Islam as a faith. The problem is that the faith is dominated by a consortium of religious extremists whose domain of influence is borderless. Undoubtedly, the Shiites will push to include Kurdistan in the realm of their Islamic rule. When this materializes, federalism will fall apart, the Kurds will be threatened, civil war will erupt, and the devastation will be immeasurable.
Iraq has been a troublesome country since its inception and it will remain such within its current artificial border. The experience of Yugoslavia, which wasn’t long ago, dictates that no nation should be forced against its will to merge with another nation. This lesson should be applied to Iraq, because arranging peaceful Iraqi breakup is far more preferable than allowing a bloody and catastrophic conflict. The experience of Yugoslavia should never be repeated.
Print
Email
