Win this article is has as much half truth and false info in it as truth. On the factual front, 300,000 Shia did not die during the rebellion; I think that was the figure of the dead during 8 years of Iran Iraq war. The Sistani list did not win by a "narrow" margin, it was a huge win (Alawi's bearly managed 9%). "Agha Panayi" is not a name. Agha means "Mr." so the name is only Panayi...etc...etc.
What is really wrong with this article is that it implicitly assumes any diviations from the neoconian fantasy Iraq is a bad outcome:
(1) US should push for a confederation in Iraq (instead of Federal system). Despite Peter Galbraith's implication that confederation is a bad thing, it is the best solution for Iraq's very diverse factions and if US resists it too hard, Iraq may well disintegrate into a bloody civil war with the end results of 3 states. Remember that the entity we call Iraq has no historical accuracy and was simply forged by the British from 3 Ottoman provinces. Why should they behave as one unified nation?
(2) Iran is Iraq's most important neighbor. Any government in Iraq (even a very pro-America one) has to work hard on good relations with Iran if it cares about Iraq's welfare.
(3) It is an indisputable fact that Iraq invaded Iran and caused countless death and destruction. Why should it not pay for that? And how come it is (and has been) paying for the much smaller damage it caused Kuwait for the past 13 years?
(4) Kurds have a very valid claim to Kirkuk.
(5) Kurds are ethnically, culturally, and linguistically very different from the rest of Iraq. Why should they they be subservient to a foreign culture? What is wrong with them being part of a confederation?
(6) The Iraqi Shia do not love Iran. They do not even like Iran. And in his recent visit to Iran the Iraqi prime minister politely refused to accept Iran's claim for damages. I see nothing wrong with them having their own state within the confederation.
(7) The insurgents can be defeated easily by the combined Shia/Kurdish alliance. They can easily create a Sunni state within the confederation and force the Sunni Arabs to migrate there (just as Saddam moved Arabs into Kurdistan and Kurds away).
The real issue is this: US has zero, zilch, nada credibility in the middle east. Worse if Muhammed himself was to return from the grave and shake hands with Bush, the Arabs would go back to paganism. Nor is America in any shape to dictate terms to Iraqis, Iranians or Afghans. US needs to take a realistic look at the situation and clear its head (and its priorities). The best solution, imo, is to kiss and make up with Iran. Having a friendly Iran will make the difference between day and night in the region. To see this for yourself, reread the article again and this time assume Iran is on the US side. |
