Sunday, November 20, 2005

Iraqi Sectarian Strife

The New York Times has a good article on their front page about a Shiite who traded homes with an old Sunni friend so that each could get out of a neighborhood in which they were the minority. It had gotten to the point where they were each afraid to go outside because they felt they would be the target of sectarian violence. The point of the piece was that Iraq is becoming more polarized, as Sunni and Shiite further segregate themselves, and that we are running the risk of seeing the shit hit the fan in terms of civil war.

I think that this "polarizing" tendency is something common to all mixed societies, especially in times of significant internal strife or anxiety. The difference between mixed societies that work and those that don't seem to be both political and economic. In a society where economic prosperity is hard to come by (by one or all of the different identity groups), you often get resentment brewing between the groups. I think that this was the case in the US during the depression, in the southern antebellum states, in France right now, and more dramatically in the Sudan. A lack of economic integration as they have in Singapore, in many parts of India, in the meritocracy of the wild west, in Canada (the 51st state), et cetera, can cause a serious rise in tensions between those different identity groups.

Also, politically, I think that it is necessary for a mixed society to have a strong political machine to keep the order if it doesn't want to see sectarian chaos. The rise to power of Slobodan Milosovic (sp?) after the fall of the Soviet Union is a classic example of how the removal of a strong political machine that keeps the peace can lead to schisms that tear a country apart. Cyprus is another good example, where the Turks and the Greeks have interacted harmoniously when political representation was protected, but where they turned upon one another when the British withdrew. All throughout the Middle East and Africa, post-WWII, states cannibalized themselves when the colonial powers pulled out and ceased to have the stabilizing force of an outside, autocratic government. They largely broke apart along ethnic or sectarian lines.

We broke Iraq. We are responsible for fixing it. But we're not going to "fix" anything by simply blindly trusting that if we keep our troops there long enough to keep the peace that the rabble will settle down. Iraq needs security--security and economics are mutually interdependent--but they need security on their own terms. Another autocratic regime isn't good for them, us, or the region, but an alternative to such a regime has to be on their terms, not ours.

They need security. It should be their call. I don't advocate turning over operational control of our military to the Iraqis, so PLEASE don't misconstrue what I'm about to say. But I do believe that we should let THEM tell US what they want in terms of security. They're going to have elections in December. I think we should leave it up to them. If they want us to stay in significant numbers in order to provide security, I think that we owe them that, unless the situation becomes simply too untenable (which is what the debate would be about). If they want a measured draw-down of US troops, one that allows "us to stand down as the Iraqis stand up", we should give them that opportunity. If they want an immediate pull out, a "cut and run" scenario, we should honor their wishes. But as long as the Iraqi people feel that it is the Americans imposing their will, through the mechanism of our security forces, on the Iraqi people, we will always have these problems. We own the problem now; if we want to get the support and cooperation of the Iraqi society as a whole, we have to make *them* own it.

4 Comments:

Blogger fallenmonk said...

That may be one solution. A referendum on the ballot and let them vote on whether we stay or not. That would probably satisfy a lot of people politically.
The administration is going to have find some solution to make a graceful departure and that might provide the political cover they need. The American people have pretty much decided that we have to go.
It is Bush and his neocon buddies that are going to insist upon some dignity with the whole affair.
Don't forget also the "big oil" folks who were part of the original push to get our hands on the Iraqi oil.

Sun Nov 20, 04:50:00 PM 2005  
Blogger sadiq said...

I think that what it comes down to is satisfying the Iraqi people. They are the ones who have the real investment in Iraq, and they are the ones who either support or break the insurgency. If they believe that they are in control of the situation, they will make the important choices for themselves.

If we take from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the ammunition of having a "Christian occupation" by making us either officially invited by the Iraqi people or officially gone, the Iraqis have a much greater incentive to stand against Zarqawi. He's playing us right now, and I for one hate to be played.

The administration DOES want a graceful way out, and this very well MIGHT provide them political cover. But that's irrelevant. As for Bush, his cronies, "big oil", et cetera, their opinions and concerns should be secondary to the safety and security of the Iraqi people. Give them three choices, to which they can vote yes or no to each:

1. Do you want America out now?

2. Do you want America to stay as they are now until the government officially asks them to leave?

3. Do you want troops to draw down on a province by province basis, based on the government's requests?

Whichever choice gets the most votes, we honor. It gives them control, it gives us a way out, and it takes the power away from Zarqawi.

Sun Nov 20, 10:18:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Mia said...

couldn't have said it better myself. Have you been peeking at my notebook?

Tue Nov 22, 01:47:00 AM 2005  
Blogger sadiq said...

Heh... what's the quote? The one about "great minds"...?

Tue Nov 22, 09:07:00 AM 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home