Informationalism and Iraq

If there is one subject that a modern American citizen cannot escape if they wish to be a player in the discussion of our future, it is Iraq. Thus, I will attempt to deal with the situation in Iraq as an Informationalist. Perhaps viewing the situation from an Informationalist's perspective will shed some light on the problems and possible solutions.

As an Informationalist, historicism is very important as one begins to approach a problem. If we do not understand the events leading up to the current situation, it is highly unlikely that we are going to find a way to resolve the problem. I would cite politicians such as Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas who had no idea the distinction between Shi'a and Sunni factions overall, much less in Iraq. We cannot expect our politicians to pursue strategies that will actually solve these problems unless they actually understand what the problems are.

So first I will refer you to some links that can provide you with a comparative history of the situation in Iraq, and then give you a brief summary if you choose not to explore them, which I highly recommend that you do. I would also recommend you read the Wikipedia on each, however, due to the prejudice against Wikipedia, I will attempt to utilize more verifiable sources.

Links:

Shi'a

Sunnis

Kurds

Iraq

So, for those of you who do not want to make use of the links I have provided, here is a short history of the conflict:

The split of the Roman Empire into two provinces, combined with the later collapse of the western half in 450 AD and the weakening of the eastern half left a power vacuum in the middle east. It is natural that some force would come to fill this vacuum.

As many of you know, a man named Mohammed founded Islam in the 7th century AD. His successors took the title of Caliph, a role that can be equated roughly with the medieval Pope. However, unlike the Pope, the Caliphate became a post ruled in dynastic fashion, as opposed to election. The dispute over dynastic succession is the origin of the Sunni and Shi'a split.
The Shi'a believe that the 4th Caliph who was a relative of Mohammed should have had his offspring continue the dynastic rule of the Caliphate. However, a close associate clan took the power of the Caliphate and established the Umayyad dynasty.

The Shi'a split off from the main current of Islam and became an oppressed minority. This minority located itself mainly in the former area of Persia (Iran) and established itself as a separate sect of Islam with a similar belief structure.

The Umayyad dynasty flourished during the early 8th century. It relocated the capital of the Caliphate from Medina to Damascus in Syria. It came into conflict with the remaining Eastern part of the Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire. They lost favor in the heartland of Islam as another clan known as the Abbasids rose to power with the support of the Shi'a. They destroyed Umayyad rule in the mid 8th century everywhere except near the area of Spain, where the Umayyad Caliphate remained for some time.

The Abbasid Dynasty moved the capital of the Caliphate from Damascus to Baghdad. They continued the struggle against the Byzantine Empire, and struggled with the risen west which had now been somewhat unified by the authority of the Catholic Church. Their rule, like many, was marred with massive infighting during times of war and peace. They at first had the support of the Shi'a, as they did appear to have some blood linkage to Mohammed. However, they quickly turned to Sunni support and lost the favor of the Shi'a. In the late 13th century the Abbasid dynasty was all but overthrown by the rising Ottoman Turks.

In the early 14th century the Ottoman Empire under the rule of the Turkish Sultan became the primary force behind Islam. It would remain so until its destruction at the end of the First World War in the 1920's.

The Ottoman Empire was based out of Turkey. In the early 15th century they took over the capital of the Byzantine Empire known as Constantinople, formally bringing the eastern half of the Roman Empire to an end. It is this event which many argued had a primary affect on waking Western Europe from its slumber and bringing it into the Renaissance.

The Ottoman Empire began to decline as the powers of Europe began to expand in the early 16th century. Colonization of the new world and the coming Industrial revolution left the Ottoman Empire behind as a real world power. It attempted to assert its influence one last time in allying itself with the central powers in the First World War. However, it was defeated, and its defeat ended the Ottoman Empire.

The British and the French occupied most of the middle-east in the wake of the First World War, and the center of the Ottoman Empire shortly after became the Republic of Turkey. The British and the French partitioned their new middle-eastern provinces. They set up the area which would become Iraq under a king who needed their support to rule the area.

The outbreak of the Second World War and its disastrous effect on Britain and France forced them to give up their colonial possessions in the Middle East. Iraq was put under the rule of the king which could not stand without their support, and thus he was almost immediately overthrown.

From the 1940's onward Iraq was ruled by one military dictatorship after another until the Ba'ath party came to power. The Ba'ath party operated under a political platform of Arab Socialism. It is different from the usual association of socialism with secularism, but is overall left in its leaning.

Saddam Hussein came to power using the mechanisms of the Ba'ath party and established a form of military dictatorship over the country. Early into his rule he began a War with Iran, which was one of the most deadly non-nuclear wars ever fought in history. The United States initially supported Saddam because of his stance against Iran. It must be noted that this was during the Cold War, and hard-line military dictatorships were often favored by the US or USSR in order to further their broader agendas against one another.

Iran is primarily a Shi'a nation in the area where Persia was once dominant centuries ago. It was ruled by an American installed dictator until the 1970's when a coup brought to power an Islamic republic that has had bad relations with western powers such as the United States since its foundation.

Much bad blood was created from Saddam's War with Iran. This is because Saddam brutally oppressed the Shi'a majority in Iraq, as Iran is also Shi'a and many of the Shi'a in Iraq did not support the Sunni minority government. Saddam also brutally oppressed the Kurds in the Northern Portion of Iraq, because of their association with Iran to overthrow Saddam's government in hopes of creating a Kurdish state in return. This oppression took the form of deadly chemical attacks, which lead to the accusations that Iraq continued to possess chemical weapons, and that Saddam was a war criminal for using them.

It should be noted that a little history of the Kurds is necessary here. They are an ethnic people who live in Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey. These people have been brutally oppressed over the centuries for their more secular stance as well as their desire for a national homeland known as Kurdistan.

The War against Iran was a disaster, and it left Iraq so far in debt that Saddam attempted to invade the wealthy state of Kuwait in the early 1990's. This Endeavour was thwarted by a Coalition including the United States in what would be called the First Gulf War.

After Saddam's defeat in the first Gulf War, his dictatorship limped along under constant bombardment from United States forces and constant accusation of the possession of unlawful chemical weapons.

After the attacks on the World Trade Center Buildings in American on September 11th, the Bush Administration began to pursue Saddam with renewed vigor on his WMD program and his funding of Terrorism in Palestine. This culminated in a Second Invasion of Iraq in 2003. An invasion that was successful in immediately ending Saddam's fragile regime, but has been plagued with problems stemming from the Sunni, Kurdish, and Shi'a division, as well as divisive influence from Syria and Iran.

This brings us to today:

Nearly 3000 American troops have been killed and many more wounded. The Iraqi parliament is split between the factions of Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd.

The Shi'a, especially under the influence of Shi'a cleric Al-Sadr are accused of supporting Shi'a death squads. The Kurds want great autonomy in the northern part of Iraq as part of their dream of establishing Kurdistan, Al-Qaeda is using Iraq as a base of operations against the United states, and the Sunnis who were in power under the rule of Saddam are conducting an Insurgency against the American backed and Shi'a dominated government. It should also be noted that the original Iraqi military was disbanded by the Coalition Provisional Authority, and this fatal mistake is one that must be delt with so that order can be regained.

The Iraq Study Group Report states that violence is rising and that that the country will slide into complete chaos if something is not done soon.

So now that we as Informationalists have explored the history, what can we do?

So, the situation in Iraq boils down to this:

The Shi'a are the majority population in Iraq, and thus they have been swept into power by the recent Iraqi elections. Many of them have been using their newfound power to exact revenge for decades of Sunni oppression. These Shi'a are supported on a basic level by Iran, as their Shi'a dominated republic is an outcast like the Shi'a in Iraq from the majority of the Muslim world. As has been shown, the Shi'a and Sunni conflict goes back centuries, and the blood spilled between the two in Iraq has only deepend the divide.

The Kurds in the north still dream of their homeland of Kurdistan. They are a more secular bunch and their lack of desire for sectarian violence has caused their area to be more prosperous than the Sunni or Shi'a dominated areas in Iraq. In the future this unbalance of wealth coupled with Shi'a rule may prove to be yet another split. However, for the time being the Kurds have a loose alliance with the Shi'a against their collective Sunni oppressors.

The Sunni are in a state of cultural shock due to their loss of power. This is also unusual given the dominance of the Sunni sect throughout the rest of the Muslim world. Not only are they more apt to support the old regime and Ba'ath party run by Saddam (a Sunni), but they are angered by the death squads supported by clerics such as Al-Sadr. This is fueling the Sunni led insurgency against the new Iraqi government.

Al-Qaeda is also in Iraq. It has a loose affiliation with the Sunni insurgency, but its overall goal is simply to fight the Coalition forces.

Now, the Sunni overall dislike the coalition forces. The Shi'a as a majority feel that the coalition forces should leave the country. The only thing close to support that the coalition has comes from the Kurds. Other than that, the United States as picked western friendly individuals and helped to elevate them into prominant status within the government. This has generated much resentment towards the current government, which is at the same time powerless to rebel too far against its Shi'a support block.

Syria and Iran are also working to undermine coalition support within the region, and to establish an Iraqi government that is supportive of the regimes in Iran and Syria.

So, how does one solve all these complicated blood spilling conflicts when the only thing most seem to have in common is disgust with the coalition?

I would encourage all of you to read the Iraq study group report cited earlier, as it offers many potential solutions. However, I also attempt to offer mine using the perspective of Informationalism.

1. We have to be agressive about controlling the ability of the Iraqis to obtain weapons for the time being. A close crackdown on the boarder and a massive weapons exchange program should be initiated where guns would be exchanged for some other useful good.

2. This will bring the coalition into conflict with the Shi'a militias as well as insurgents. These people must be forced to give up their weapons. They have already shown they are willing to brutally murder innocent people for nothing more than revenge. The coalition military must engage the militias and disarm them as effectively as possible.

3. This will be met with outrage from most of the Iraqi government. So the coalition must do some deal making. Greater autonomy must be allowed for the Kurdish and Sunni dominated areas of Iraq, in exchange for the giving up of militias. A system must also be set up for the sharing of country oil revenues.

4. With the destruction of the militias the Iraqi army and police force must be allowed to patrol the country in greater numbers. The coalition forces will take on more of an advisory role as they begin their withdrawl. The Iraqi government should be provided with UN and Arab League support to the fullest extent possible. This includes aid to the Iraqi people and the creation of large government works programs to bring the basic industrial structures of Iraq back online.

5. Massive amounts of aid must be given to the people of Iraq. In order to gain their support, the coalition must ensure that their basic needs are being met by their government. Currently, this is not being done effectively.

6. The coalition must build schools, as well as set up student exchange programs where Iraqi children can be taken to Western countries to be educated. I am aware this appears ethnocentric on the surface, but the western education system is far closer to Informationalism than Islamic education. Prisoners must also be offered a kind of education to make it more likely that they will not return to negative activity upon their release.

7. The coalition must hold talks with Iraq, Syria, and Iran with a moderator in order to come to border and trade decisions, as well as moderate the influence each power has upon the new Iraqi government.

Notes: The crackdown on the militas must be done within a 72 hour period. The military operation must be swift in order to ensure its effectiveness. After the deal of regional independence is reached under the table, the coalition must isolate as many insurgent and militia targets as possible, and eliminate them. This must be done with the help of the Iraqi army and police. Also, in order to do this, many more troops will be required. We currently have close to 150k troops in the country of Iraq. We must increase this number to at least 300k if we hope to establish any kind of peace.

What if we simply leave?

Then the country will descend into chaos.


What if we just keep the forces that we have?

This might be possible, but we will have to conduct many swift special operations in order to eliminate troublesome militia leaders. It will be a long arduous task and success is not nearly as likely.


One thing is for sure, what we are currently doing is not working. Any better ideas?