shakran

Tell that to the mom/sister/wife/kid of the dead soldier.

It's easy to sit back in your computer chair and preach to us that freedom is priceless. It becomes very different when you or a loved one has to go over there and put his life on the line for a lie.

And if freedom is so priceless, why did we go after Iraq first? There are plenty of dictators out there that make Saddam look like Mr. Rogers. Why aren't we going after them first?

The simple answer is that Bush & Co. didn't give a crap about democratizing Iraq. That just became an excuse once their WMD fabrications were exposed for the lies they were.

It is not our job to overthrow all the world's governments. It is hypocritical of us to force people to have a democratic government. The sooner we start concentrating on our problems and stop trying to meddle with everyone else's the better off we, and the rest of the world, will be.

powerclown

I'm not sure what benefits you are referring to StanT. Do you care to eleborate? Same thing in regards to US interests...somewhat vague here, and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

powerclown

Thanks for clarifying the situation, host. I just report what I read, as we all do here. Of course, the reader will continue to enjoy total freedom of choice and will come to those conclusions that most resonate with him/her. I consider myself lucky to be able to sound off without fear of prosecution or bodily harm.

stevo

It doesn't change the point that iraqis are more free now than they have been for centruies.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

powerclown

Ordinary Iraqis Wage A Successful Battle Against Insurgents

By ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: March 22, 2005
New York Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 22 - Ordinary Iraqis rarely strike back at the insurgents who terrorize their country. But just before noon today, a carpenter named Dhia saw a troop of masked gunmen with grenades coming towards his shop and decided he had had enough.

As the gunmen emerged from their cars, Dhia and his young relatives shouldered their own AK-47's and opened fire, police and witnesses said. In the fierce gun battle that followed, three of the insurgents were killed, and the rest fled just after the police arrived. Two of Dhia's young nephews and a bystander were injured, the police said.

"We attacked them before they attacked us," Dhia, 35, his face still contorted with rage and excitement, said in a brief exchange at his shop a few hours after the battle. He did not give his last name. "We killed three of those who call themselves the mujahedeen. I am waiting for the rest of them to come and we will show them."

It was the first time that private citizens are known to have retaliated successfully against insurgents. There have been anecdotal reports of residents shooting at attackers after a bombing or assassination. But the gun battle today erupted in full view of half a dozen witnesses, including a Justice Ministry official who lives nearby.

The battle was the latest sign that Iraqis may be willing to start standing up against the attacks that leave dozens of people dead here nearly every week. After a suicide bombing in Hilla last month that killed 136 people, including a number of women and children, hundreds of residents demonstrated in front of the city hall every day for almost a week, chanting slogans against terrorism. Last week, a smaller but similar rally took place in Baghdad. Another demonstration is scheduled for Wednesday in the capital.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*This update has no contributions or compensated spokesman.

boatin

Except for the dead ones.

I don't mean to be flip, but what is the math here? If the same number of Iraqis die in a "before Saddam/after Saddam" year, are they better off? If it's the same number, but the rest are free, does that make it ok?

What about if it's 1:2? Or 1:3? Is there some amount of death and suffering that could occur now that would make everyone say: geez, they ARE worse now than before?

I have a feeling there isn't a number high enough for some.



I'm not saying I know what those numbers are. But I'm not buying the blind assertion that things are better now. As I'm not buying the reverse. Sure seems like a good thing that Saddam is gone, to me.

But I can hold THAT opinion, and still fear where it's going. And be concerned that when all is said and done it won't have been worth it to America. If I had to bet my own money, I'd say that in 10 years we will be sorry we (the nation) did it this way.

We shall see. But I'm all for feeling good in the moment. Seize the day, guys.

boatin

One more thing: I can appreciate the outcome, and have contempt for the process. I don't believe the ends justify the means.

Because the "means" implies that other crap is going on as well. And that might not turn out so nice. The "means" is what builds trust. Within our nation, and without. And that's important.

That seems to be the piece that gets lost in the fray, somehow...

Elphaba

PowerClown, have you seen any commentary on small towns that have for the most part been left out of the fray? I would be curious to know if any changes were initiated by them after the fall of Saddam's government.

StanT

While I don't dispute the the "positive developments" that you pointed out while creating the topic, I think we are a long way off from justifying the cost of this war. The cost in lives, the hit on our (US) economy, and loss international respect far exceed the points that you make.

Ustwo

If we bring a stable, friendly to the West, democracy to the region, that will be worth quite a bit, far more than another dictator willing to help out Western interests.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

And if the people of Iraq vote in US unfriendly people?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

DukeNukem4ever

One thing here... the better part of the dead Iraqis are the BAD GUYS!
You say you agree that it's a good thing Saddam is out... then wouldn't you also agree that his little trained minions are dealt with?

__________________
The Happy Pirate - AARRGGHH!!

theusername

yawn. Same old mish mosh in this thread as every other one. This is not an argument whether we should be in Iraq or not or whether the war will be "worth" it in the end. That matter is simply null and insignificant at this point. No matter where you stand you should be rooting for a safe, stable, and peaceful Iraq. Debates should be over how to best reconstruct Iraq and ensuring security, not whether we should be reconstructing and securing it or not.

__________________
?

shakran

That statement doesn't change the point that it was not our responsibility, our job, or our right to effect that change.

We are not the world's policeman. Trying to force democracy on everyone is a guaranteed way to get everyone pissed off at us. That does NOT enhance our national security.

And DukeNukem, you're dismissing the droves of Iraqi civilians who have been killed since the beginning of the war, and who continue to be killed every day.

As for them being more free, freedom does you no good if you can't leave your house to enjoy it. The average Iraqi today is taking his life into his hands just going to the grocery store. If that's the kind of freedom you're selling, I'm not buying.

powerclown

Thanks for the acknowledgement...I understand and respect the points you make here. They are of course as valid as mine, or anyone elses.

I remain hopeful that this turbulent period in world history will bear fruit down the line, preferably sooner than later. When I look around, I see 'Globalization' bringing people of differing nations, cultures, religions, races, customs, etc. more closer together than ever before in history, and into potentially constructive, mutually beneficial working relationships. Because of this, I see a need for all to observe an international code of conduct, for all involved to be able to step up to the table with dignity and integrity, for all involved to step out of the shadows of the past. We are all aware now that there will be certain specific geopolitical areas of the world more sensitive than others. Nations need resources to look after the needs of their consumer-citizens. Law, order, and equilibrium need to be re-established once again amongst an ever-widening circle of nations in the new paradigm of Globalization. Growing pains are unavoidable, in my opinion, because nothing in life of value comes without a price. My 2 cents...

powerclown

You mention changes made by small towns in Iraq; sorry, but I'm not sure I follow. What changes are you referring to?
Feel free to elaborate if you wish..... Agreed. You're last sentence hits the nail square on the head to my way of thinking as well. I look forward to just such a discussion here one day soon.

powerclown

*More positive news out of Iraq that you won't hear about on CNN for whatever reason:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

US government backs loans to small businesses in Iraq (06/04/05)

This year, the US government will help more than 100,000 American small businesses obtain access to capital through SBA loans. Now it wants to help grow small and medium-size businesses in Iraq.

The Overseas Private Investment Corp., a federal agency that backs investments in developing countries, teamed with Citigroup to establish a $131 million loan program in Iraq. Iraqi financial institutions will tap these funds to make loans to small and medium-sized businesses.

"This facility is critical as a first step toward rejuvenating the private sector of Iraq as it strives to tap the capital markets," says Ross Connelly, OPIC's acting president and CEO.

OPIC provides political risk insurance, loans and loan guaranties to American businesses that invest in new and emerging markets. Fees cover the costs of its programs.

The agency also will pick a manager soon for a private equity investment fund that will invest in technology-based businesses in emerging markets. The purpose of the fund is to "bridge the digital divide in developing countries," according to the agency.

Source: Bizjournals
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

powerclown

doublepostdoublepost

Elphaba

I'm willing to give my question another read, Powerclown.

Are there any unaffected towns in Iraq that are now making their own political changes without fear of retribution?

aKula

Though I am opposed to the decision to invade Iraq, I hope that the 'new' Iraq will succed. I think most people would agree that an end to the fighting and Iraq becoming peacfull aswell as a having a government that represents the views of the Iraqi people is the most desirable outcome. The Iraqi politicians have a tough road ahead of them if they are to achieve this.

jorgelito

Here's a cool link to first hand accounts of what's happening on the ground in Iraq. Sort of like a diary. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4613785.stm

I think this is a really great idea. It really puts a human stamp and face on the "news". There's different experience, nothing "partisan". I think you'll get a lot out of it.

Did you guys hear the recent news of trying to raise teachers salaries in Iraq? I'd say that is a positive. And of course, another car bombing too unfortunately. There's good and bad.

Mantus

I think the best approach, as always, would be to look at it from all directions.

- In my opinion we need to learn from our mistakes. This cannot be done if we don't hold any one accountable for them.

- Since the project is already on the way we need to think of how to succed in it's completion. As such we need to figure out what our goal is. "Freedom" is a great word to sell to the plebs but it doesn't mean much.

- If the outcome of the project looks grim then perhaps it's best to think about the option to pull out.

powerclown

Good question. An overview of the political makeup of Iraq can be found HERE, among other places.

1) Northern Iraq, Kurd majority
2) Central Iraq, Sunni Arab majority
3) Southern Iraq, Shia Arab majority

The Kurds to the North are an autonomous ethnic group apart from the Sunnis & Shia. They are quite organized and relatively stable politically. Local governmental structures, based on tribal lines of authority, have been key to stability there.

Throughout the rest of Iraq, a strong centralized government with universal legitimacy is still in its infancy. For example, it is common in the Shia south and even in the poorer districts of Baghdad, to find a cleric at a small, local mosque regarded as a political/moral authority.

A similar role is played in Sunni regions by the heads of large, interconnected tribal groups that run businesses, dispense charity and provide a political lead for the entire community.

Time will reveal just how effective a centralized, democratic leadership (based in Baghdad) functions across this scenario.

powerclown

Nice link, jorgelito...

Personal dispatches from all walks of life in Iraq. Simply awesome. Thank you.

powerclown

*More bland, bloodless, non-violent, un-sexy, low calorie, low-ratings worthy news out of Iraq:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ministry Asks for Funds to Compensate Victims of Former Regime

By Sadeq Rahim
Azzaman, 2005-03-20

The Ministry of Human Rights wants to set aside 5% of oil revenues to compensate families of victims of the former regime.

A ministry statement, obtained by the newspaper, said the money should be deposited in a fund to be set up specifically to look after those still suffering from the regime’s atrocities.

The statement comes as the country marked the 17th anniversary of the chemical attack on the Kurdish city of Halabja in which 5,000 Kurds were killed.

“The money in the fund should be used to help the victims of Halabja and Anfal and those with diseases as a result of the use of chemical weapons,” the statement said.

In Anfal operations conducted before the end of the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war, more than 4,500 Kurdish villages were reported to have been destroyed and nearly 180,000 Kurds killed.

Non-governmental Iraqi rights organizations that sprang up after the fall of the regime are reported to have collected massive data on the victims, which also include tens of thousands of Iraqis who were uncovered in mass graves.

But still it is hard to have exact statistics on how many Iraqis suffered directly at the hands of the former regime.

The rights groups maintain that it is wrong to say that the atrocities were only directed at minority groups such Kurds and Shiites.

Most Iraqis suffered and there is hardly a person in Iraq who does not know about a case involving a violation of human rights, they say.

The ministry statement said chemical attacks targeted 250 villages in the north.

It also said there was still no information on “a great number of Iraqis” who were reported missing under the former regime.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

roachboy

i wonder what the assumed relation is between this stream of information on the order of "the american occupation is doing some good"--which seems to me obvious at some level, at least in that it explains why there is not complete fiasco, complete catastrophe in iraq--and the legitimacy of the war itself. i recognize that some folk who oppose the war, and who opposed it, have some difficulty processing such "good" as is being done by the american occupation--but it seems to me that this cuts both ways, and that this thread is working entirely on conservative/bush administration grounds by trying to use such "good" as is being done as a way of avoiding troubling questions about the war itself, declaring them "moot" etc....

so how about it, folks--can you look simultaneously at this type of information, applaud it and concede that the war itself was illegitimate?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

Simply look around you, roachboy. Up and down this thread, for example. A microcosm of a sentiment expressing itself clearly in the concerns of like-minded individuals. I find certain developments in Iraq - when I hear about them - astonishing, and find myself saying, "Hmm, I did not know that. You mean there is something happening over there besides anarchy and mayhem? Well, good to hear it. There seems to be progress here; in fact, there seems to be a reasonable basis for hope."

The process can be ugly - the destination worthwhile.

Elphaba

Thanks, Powerclown. Would this not explain why there is very little "doom and gloom" reporting regarding the Kurd's?

roachboy

so you think that the ends justify the means.
wasn't that what the americans used to criticize stalin for? was this attitude not in itself the hallmark of an authoritarian regime, from the american viewpoint, not long ago?

and so, for you, questions about the war itself are in fact irrelevant?

i have read through the thread, and i note that the folks who raise this kind of objection are usually followed with yet another in a stream of happyface press pool releases of the type the bush administration has been trying to emphasize as part of their "public diplomacy" project over the past few months. public diplomacy of course being, in this case, a synonym for sell the war.

curious.

it is not that i have any real problem with the fact that in certain parts of iraq, the american occupation has been trying to do good things--in the context of an illegal and illegitimate occupation, of course. but i really do not understand how this functions to even begin to address the problems raised by the war itself.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Lebell

Of course you can.

Just like some of us look at the casualties and things like Abu Gharib (sp?) and still think the war is in general a good thing.

I think much of it depends on your point of view.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

roachboy

obviously, lebell, if you are predisposed to support this war, then rationalizing the consequences, even the foulest ones (torture--the system of undefinite detentions without trial at lovely country-club settings like guantanamo--they are linked if you accept the administration's hogwash about this all being elements of the "war on terror")...

what i was asking about was what i see as the a motive for the thread itself--not just ok so there are some good things happening in the context of an illegal and illegitimate occupation--

but then you probably could have said the same of the belgian congo during the period when the belgians were doing brutal, horrific things to communities that did not make their rubber quota. for example--but elsewhere, there were nice buildings being put up and i am sure that the even the belgians could have found local people who would have been willing to argue on camera (*questions of motive never come up on camera if the person posing the question, and the apparatus distrubuting the clips, each have no interest in posing them) that their presence was not the wholesale catastrophe that anyone else would see in it--

but whatever--the question is about substituting this happyface list of Great Accomplishments on the part of the occupation for question about the legitimacy of the occupation.

this objection has been raised a number of times in the thread already and never gets an actual response. so i thought it time to force the matter.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

jorgelito

Hi Roachboy, I don't think that the info is necessarily mutually exclusive. I intrpreted the original post more as: presenting another side to the situation on the ground there and not as ignoring the (obvious) negative stuff. My assumption is that the positive news isn't being substituted for the negative, rather it's being presented to provide another view.

I don't think anyone doubts for a minute that there are bad things happening: the bombings, security issues, infrastructure, soldier abuses... the list is long.

Hower, it is nice to hear, that amidst all the sh*t that's happening, there are glimmers of hope and positive instances occurring.

The legitimacy issue (IMO), is another issue altogether, maybe for another thread even. I think we can still appreciate the little positive stories coming out of Iraq, and still be anti-war or see the war as illegitinmate. I'm against the war but I still posted a link to some nice positive things in Iraq. I even mentioned how the locals were fed up with insurgents and started to fight back. I thought it would be good for balanced and stuff.

As far as troop withdrawal or exit strategy, (IMO), that is still another thread too we should open up (and play armchair generals & strategists) and disseminate the series of US foreign policy moves that got us into this "mess". (I have to wait until after finals

Anyways, I thought you raised really good points Roachboy, but maybe slightly off the main point of the thread (at least that's how I intrepreted it).

powerclown

I would say yes, but add: relatively speaking.

The North is far from secured. Back in November 04, violence brought on by the insurgency (made up of 2 parts: FRE, Former Regime Elements, and extremists) was at an all-time (post-Hussein) high in areas in and immediately surrounding Mosul & Kirkuk, Northern Iraq. Short overview here. What the insurgency is trying to do in Northern Iraq is goad the Kurds into a sectarian war based on longstanding animosity between the Kurds and Sunni Arabs in the region. The insurgents are doing what they can to disrupt the political process of putting into effect a legal system based upon the rule of law and order, as opposed to how it was under Hussein (violence, fear and intimidation were the 'law' of the land, in every sense of the word).

So it's early days in the North as well. Coalition Forces in Mosul are in the process of transitioning over security responsibilities to local Iraqis. More on the matter can be read about here: Handoff to Iraqi Forces Being Tested in Mosul.

jorgelito

There is an interesting dynamic going on in the north right now too that may contribute to levels of reporting.

Turkey, Syria, and Iran are very concerned at developments in Kurdish areas as they have their own restive Kurds who may be influenced by developments in northern Iraq. For example, if some charismatic Kurdish cleric/leader unified all the Kurds and advocated independence and nationalization of the oil fields in Kirkuk et al, the situation would get real hairy, real quick. Kurds in Syria, Iran, and Turkey may try and follow suit or "seced" their areas to join a greater Kurdistan. That would create precedent. Most major powers and junior powers do not wish to see this happen for fear of a domino effect (EX: Timor, Kashmir, Tibet, Basque, etc).

The US supports Turkey (EU bid, NATO bid) as a hedge or thorn in Europe (to keep them in disarray) and as a friendly, democratic Muslim nation in the region. During the early stages of the invasion, Turkey sent soldiers to secure Mosul for fear of Kurds and possibly to gain some spoils of war but were told not to by the US so they retreated.

So the situation is awkward: The US often espouses supporting democracy and freedom for people but the reality is we rarely mean it (EX: lack of support for Taiwan). To support Kurds on humanitarian grounds and our own principles of democracy and freedom would alienate our ally Turkey as well as cause unrest in the region.

Also, Mosul has not been hit as hard with insurgent activity (at least reported) since the elections. Basra (in the south) has also been relatively quiet. In the US zone, Baghdad, is the most restive and insurgent due to the heavy Sunnis (who lost power and privilege) population.

An interesting note: Kurds are Sunni. Make me wonder why all the hostility. Just cause they're not Arab? What happened to Muslim brotherhood?

powerclown

No reason why we can't have a bit of debate mixed in here.

I do think the ends justify the means here. One sometimes finds it awkward to debate another who is willing to cite extreme - and often times unrelated - data to the matter at hand. I say: "Yes, the ends justify the means in this particular situation". You respond with: "Yes, well that is the same, exact philosophy that allowed Stalin to murder 13 million people." The semantic problem here is that I am using the phrase to describe a situation completely unrelated to Stalin.

It's like saying, for example:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I support tearing down these trees to make room for a courthouse."

as having the semantic equivalence to:

"I support tearing down these trees to make room for a concentration camp.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It seems to me you are comparing Apples to Oranges.



To address your other question: what "problems raised by the war" were you referring to?

powerclown

NATO's Assistance to Iraq

NATO is helping Iraq provide for its own security by training Iraqi personnel and supporting the development of the country’s security institutions.
In response to a request by the Iraqi Interim Government, NATO has established a Training Mission in Iraq and will support the establishment of a training centre for senior security and defence officials.

All NATO member countries are contributing to the assistance, either in Iraq, outside of Iraq, through financial contributions or donations of equipment.

What is the aim of the operation?

NATO is involved in training, equipping, and technical assistance - not combat. The aim of the Training Mission is to help Iraq build the capability of its Government to address the security needs of the Iraqi people.

What does this mean in practice?

NATO is training and mentoring middle and senior level personnel from the Iraqi security forces in Iraq and outside of Iraq, at NATO schools and training centres. The Alliance also plays a role in co-ordinating offers of equipment and training from individual NATO and partner countries.

Since August 2004, a NATO Training Implementation Mission of about 50 officers has been working on the ground in Baghdad to train and mentor senior-level personnel from the Iraqi security forces.

The Alliance is now expanding and enhancing its assistance.

After the Summit meeting of NATO Heads of State and Government at the Alliance's Headquarters in Brussels, 22 February 2005, NATO's training mission will be fully staffed up to 360 personnel and fully funded.

It aims to provide training to about 1,000 Iraqi officers in the country, and about 500 outside of Iraq per year, as well as a significant amount of military equipment.

The next stage of expansion, which would lead to a further increase in personnel, will be NATO help in establishing an Iraqi Training Education and Doctrine Centre in 2005, to provide leadership and management training for the middle and senior level of the Iraqi forces.

In addition, the Alliance is also helping to coordinate training, equipment and technical assistance provided by NATO nations on a bilateral basis, both inside and outside of Iraq, to ensure that the Allies complement each other.

This work is carried out by a NATO Training and Equipment Coordination Group, which was established at NATO Headquarters on 8 October 2004.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is made up of the following member countries: Belgium,Bulgaria, Canada, CzechRep, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

powerclown

From what little I understand about the Kurds: While Sunni Arabs are Muslim, not all Kurds are Muslim. They are predominantly Muslim, but some tribes are also Jewish and Christian. Maybe the Arabs see them as not purely islam, or 'traitors to islam' etc..??Yes, I agree to an extent. But strictly speaking, I don't believe anyone thinks a democracy in Iraq will mirror a democracy in the US. I think the point is to instigate change from a dictatorship to some form of rule by/for the people. India, for example: a democracy, but not neccesarily identical to the form of democracy in the States.

Interesting read jorgelito...cheers.

jorgelito

Ah yes, the Kurds. I'm not too sure about the composition of Kurds and Sunnis but if you can wait a week or so (these damn finals) then I will try and pull up numbers. But in regards to their "conflict", I believe it's mostly based on ethnicity (RE: Sunni Arabs vs. Sunni Kurds).

So to illustrate (approximate):

Shias (Shiites) - Arab, muslim - 60%
Sunni - Arab, muslim - 20%
Kurds - Sunni, muslim - 20%
Other - Assyrians, Chaldeans, Jews, Christians - ??

There is a girl in my class; get this: she's French-Kurdish-Jew. But it's more through marriage I think.

Yeah, I don't have any disillusions of democracy blooming overnight in Iraq, but it's their own (in theory) and will evolve/grow accordingly. Likewise, it would be unreasonable for us (US) to expect the Iraqis (democracy) to start looking like ours.

When finals are over, I'd like to start a new thread on policy and strategy specific to Iraq.

jorgelito

Ok, I can't resist.

The thing about the Kurds and Arabs can be framed thusly:

Two schools of thought in the post-Ottoman years trying to decide what direction the newly formed states, mandates and territories, especially post-WWI.

Basically: pan-Arabism vis-a-vis pan-Islamism. So Iraq faced somewhat of an identity crisis in its nascent years. Are they Arabs? Muslims? or Iraqis?

Trying to reduce often complex idenity compositions into singular labels proved to be the disunifier. For example: Kurds are sunni muslim but do not consider themselves Iraqi nor Arab. Sunnis are Arab (or Kurds), muslim, and the traditional elites in Iraq though they are a numerical minority. Shia are Arab but not sunni, but are also Iraqi but feared to ally with Iranian shias which turned out to be an unfounded fear (because shia in Iran are not Arab, they are Persian).

The British (and League of Nations) faced this very problem back in the day; trying to "classify and label" the denizens of an Iraqi state artificially created from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire.

Secondly, the dynamic changed from empire to nation-states. Previously, the people of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra were imperial Ottoman subjects, part of a diverse empire.

Elphaba

Jorgelito, you have offered an excellent beginning in understanding the region. If we make an attempt to follow the history of Mesopotamia, one of a very few great civilizations of the time, we may come closer to understanding the region as a whole.