Monday, January 31, 2005

The Sham That is the Iraqi Election

This is all a joke. The elections in Iraq are simply handing power over to the Shiite Arabs. Nation by Nation estimates that 55-65% of Iraqis are Shi'as. Only 19% are Kurdish Sunnis and 13% are Sunni Arabs. The remainder include Turkomans, Assyrians, Armenians, Yazidis, and Jews.

With the Sunni Muslims, which make up the vast majority of the Iraqi Turkoman population, boycotting the election, this new Iraqi government will soon become the enemy of these people. This will very likely result in the escalation of violence and guerilla insurgence in Iraq, and maybe even lead to a full-scale civil war between the different religious sects in the country.

It must be understood, when discussing the Middle East, that the borders we now know of are not the original borders, but were redrawn by the Brits and French at the closing of the first World War. Here is a brief summary of how the Iraqi border changes played out:

Until and during the first World War the Turkish Ottoman Empire controlled much of the area. The Allied forces encouraged the Arabs in Palestine to rebel against the Turks, ensuring victory in the war.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 defined areas of British and French control and influence in the Middle East.

[On a side note, just FYI: This agreement provided that the area of Palestine would be governed by an international body, made up of influence by the British, French, and Russians. The French eventually ceded control of Palestine to the British who made conflicting promises to the Palestine Jews, in a letter sent to Lord Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, and to the Palestine Arabs that they would have their own sovereign nation in Palestine. These promises were the cause of much debate in the area, leading to the Jewish-Arab conflict we see today.]

The Sykes-Picot Agreement gave Britain control over the provinces of Baghdad and Basra. Two years later, in 1918, a low-level British diplomat, Gertrude Bell, haphazardly drew a map of what were to be the new boundaries of modern-day Iraq, and also the boundaries of what was to be called Transjordan. This new Iraq was to include Basra, Baghdad, and also the then-French-controlled province of Mosul. The partitioning of the Middle East was heavily influenced by the European oil companies, the "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company" (the predecessor to British Petroleum - a.k.a. BP) and "Royal Dutch Shell". The fight for oil eventually led to a British-French agreement in which Britain obtained control over the oil-rich area of Mosul. Britain then put into action its plan for a new Iraq, while still maintaining control over the area of Kuwait, so as to regain funding lost during the war.

Now, there was a reason the Ottoman Empire had the boundaries they did. Mosul was predominantly Kurdish, while Baghdad was Sunni and Basra was made up of Shi'a Muslims. These different religious groups have never gotten along, and so remained segregated from each other under Turkish control. The Brits combined the areas into one nation, disregarding their differences, and so caused the country to have civil war after civil war, resulting in over fifty different governments between 1921 and 1958.

You see, a simple democratic election is not going to solve the conflicts of these religious groups. I do not claim to have the definitive answer, but I know this is not it. What I think needs to be done, first, is to allow the groups to again segregate and obtain control over their respective areas;
then they can establish their independent governments. This would rule out the need for civil war in the name of obtaining control over the governance of their people.

Think about it this way: It is as though the British combined New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Now, if elections were held and it was a simple majority-rule vote, New York would obviously be in control over the area. I just do not think that the citizens of New Jersey and Rhode Island would like that very much, and I think that there would be some trouble a-brewing.

Just one man's opinion...

Until next time I remain,


Blogger MarineLiberal1775 said...

I was checking out political blogs to get some ideas for my own blog, came across yours and read a little. Awesome analysis concerning Iraqi elections. My site is at We Democrats and liberals have to stick together. Side question: what do you think of Howard Dean becoming (more than likely) the next chair of the DNC? Take it easy. Semper Fidelis

5:13 PM  
Blogger jdf said...

I thank you for your compliments on my article. I also thank you for serving this country in a FAR BETTER way than this administration!

I must state, though, for the record, that I am not a Democrat nor am I a liberal. I am simply a human being fighting for freedom in a very slavery-ridden world.

I hesitate to comment on the next election as I have not done any research to date, apart from learning that Hillary Clinton will be running. I think that Arnold will be making a push to change the Constitution, but I don't think the American people would go for that. At least I hope not. Anyway, I don't know if they will have much of a choice. As far as Howard Dean goes, I guess I don't really care. Both parties are a facade to keep you from seeing what is really going on. This country is controlled by corporate interests and east-coast European blue-bloods and the two party system is kind of like supporting both sides in a war - you can't lose.

All I can say is keep fighting the good fight. Continue speaking to your friends, family, and everyone you meet about the horrors going on in this country and maybe, just maybe, it won't be too late to wake the proletariat and get them to stand up for what is right.


2:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home