What type of government do the Iraqis want?

Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ] 

Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,534
Location: Houston, Texas

06 Jan 2020, 3:33 pm

With the civil war of recent years, the recent killing of Qassem Soleimani, and the Iraqi Parliament voting to expel all foreign troops, I am led to the following question:

What type of government system do the Iraqis want?

Do they want a secular, Western-style democracy? A return to Baathism? A Sunni- or Shia-dominated theocratic state a la Iran?


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,890
Location: Stendec

06 Jan 2020, 3:35 pm

The Iraqis, like the Europeans, are not a monolithic group, so saying what they all want is difficult, if not impossible.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,147
Location: temperate zone

06 Jan 2020, 4:15 pm

The "civil war" was (and still is) next door, in Syria. But one faction in Syria invaded Iraq (namely ISIS).

Iraq was cobbled together as an artificial country out of pieces of the collapsed Turkish Ottoman Empire at the end of the first world war.

Its never really functioned well as a unit, and when it ever did function it took brute force (either by the British occupiers, or by the native dictator).

There are different ethnic groups. The majority are Shiite Arabs (ethnically Arab but religiously allied to the Iranians next door). But minority of Sunni Arabs dominated the country before, and during the reign of Saddam Hussein. And then there are the Kurds in the north. The Kurds are our most fervent allies, and have helped us the most in fighting America's enemies (Saddam when he ruled Iraq, and then in fighting ISIS). So the impulse of Washington has always been to support Kurdish dreams of autonomy from Bagdad. The trouble is this....though the Kurds are the enemies of our enemies, they are ALSO...the enemies of friends. ISIS and Teheran and Assad of Syria hate them, but so do our NATO allies the Turks, and the current Iraqi government that we installed to replace Saddam is just as much at loggerheads with them as Saddam was. An independent Kurdistan in the north of Iraq would inspire Kurds in neighboring Syria and Iran to break away (no love lost by us), but would ALSO inspire Kurds in Turkey to rise up (threatening the NATO alliance itself).

So the answer to your question is this: "please ask a better question".

You need to break it down by asking "what do Iraqi Kurds want?", "what do Iraqi Arab Sunnies want?", and "what do Iraqi Shiite Arabs want?". And then ask "is it possible for the three major groups to cooperate?".

And, as Fnord says, individuals WITHIN each of those groups probably vary. Some, with Western education, do have notions of a western style democracy taking root. Others may crave some kind of theocratic dictatorship, or a secular dictatorship. Some resent the open ended US presence on their soil, but some probably do not resent it.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,890
Location: Stendec

06 Jan 2020, 4:28 pm

It might be safe to say that the Iraqis want a stable, secure government without American presence or influence.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Kiprobalhato
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 29,119
Location: מתחת לעננים

06 Jan 2020, 8:03 pm

their own.


_________________
הייתי צוללת עכשיו למים
הכי, הכי עמוקים
לא לשמוע כלום
לא לדעת כלום
וזה הכל אהובי, זה הכל.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

08 Jan 2020, 11:00 am

naturalplastic wrote:
The "civil war" was (and still is) next door, in Syria. But one faction in Syria invaded Iraq (namely ISIS).

Iraq was cobbled together as an artificial country out of pieces of the collapsed Turkish Ottoman Empire at the end of the first world war.

Its never really functioned well as a unit, and when it ever did function it took brute force (either by the British occupiers, or by the native dictator).

There are different ethnic groups. The majority are Shiite Arabs (ethnically Arab but religiously allied to the Iranians next door). But minority of Sunni Arabs dominated the country before, and during the reign of Saddam Hussein. And then there are the Kurds in the north. The Kurds are our most fervent allies, and have helped us the most in fighting America's enemies (Saddam when he ruled Iraq, and then in fighting ISIS). So the impulse of Washington has always been to support Kurdish dreams of autonomy from Bagdad. The trouble is this....though the Kurds are the enemies of our enemies, they are ALSO...the enemies of friends. ISIS and Teheran and Assad of Syria hate them, but so do our NATO allies the Turks, and the current Iraqi government that we installed to replace Saddam is just as much at loggerheads with them as Saddam was. An independent Kurdistan in the north of Iraq would inspire Kurds in neighboring Syria and Iran to break away (no love lost by us), but would ALSO inspire Kurds in Turkey to rise up (threatening the NATO alliance itself).

So the answer to your question is this: "please ask a better question".

You need to break it down by asking "what do Iraqi Kurds want?", "what do Iraqi Arab Sunnies want?", and "what do Iraqi Shiite Arabs want?". And then ask "is it possible for the three major groups to cooperate?".

And, as Fnord says, individuals WITHIN each of those groups probably vary. Some, with Western education, do have notions of a western style democracy taking root. Others may crave some kind of theocratic dictatorship, or a secular dictatorship. Some resent the open ended US presence on their soil, but some probably do not resent it.



Umm... correction: About half of Iraq Arab Shias reject the supreme leader concept and are ideologically rivals to Iran.
There’s a strong rivalry between Al Najaf (the holy place for Arab Shia) and Al Qom.
The intra-shia divide is growing and I predict a total split leading to two different sects in the coming years.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,147
Location: temperate zone

08 Jan 2020, 3:52 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
The "civil war" was (and still is) next door, in Syria. But one faction in Syria invaded Iraq (namely ISIS).

Iraq was cobbled together as an artificial country out of pieces of the collapsed Turkish Ottoman Empire at the end of the first world war.

Its never really functioned well as a unit, and when it ever did function it took brute force (either by the British occupiers, or by the native dictator).

There are different ethnic groups. The majority are Shiite Arabs (ethnically Arab but religiously allied to the Iranians next door). But minority of Sunni Arabs dominated the country before, and during the reign of Saddam Hussein. And then there are the Kurds in the north. The Kurds are our most fervent allies, and have helped us the most in fighting America's enemies (Saddam when he ruled Iraq, and then in fighting ISIS). So the impulse of Washington has always been to support Kurdish dreams of autonomy from Bagdad. The trouble is this....though the Kurds are the enemies of our enemies, they are ALSO...the enemies of friends. ISIS and Teheran and Assad of Syria hate them, but so do our NATO allies the Turks, and the current Iraqi government that we installed to replace Saddam is just as much at loggerheads with them as Saddam was. An independent Kurdistan in the north of Iraq would inspire Kurds in neighboring Syria and Iran to break away (no love lost by us), but would ALSO inspire Kurds in Turkey to rise up (threatening the NATO alliance itself).

So the answer to your question is this: "please ask a better question".

You need to break it down by asking "what do Iraqi Kurds want?", "what do Iraqi Arab Sunnies want?", and "what do Iraqi Shiite Arabs want?". And then ask "is it possible for the three major groups to cooperate?".

And, as Fnord says, individuals WITHIN each of those groups probably vary. Some, with Western education, do have notions of a western style democracy taking root. Others may crave some kind of theocratic dictatorship, or a secular dictatorship. Some resent the open ended US presence on their soil, but some probably do not resent it.



Umm... correction: About half of Iraq Arab Shias reject the supreme leader concept and are ideologically rivals to Iran.
There’s a strong rivalry between Al Najaf (the holy place for Arab Shia) and Al Qom.
The intra-shia divide is growing and I predict a total split leading to two different sects in the coming years.


Interesting.

One of the islands visited by Gulliver in "Gulliver's Travels" was split by a holy war between "the big enders", and "the little enders" (the faction that favored breaking eggs on the small end vs the faction that preferred to break eggs on the big end). I am sure there were also subfactions within the little enders and within the big enders, as well! :lol:



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,534
Location: Houston, Texas

16 Jan 2020, 3:20 am

Perhaps Iraq should be split into three nations: a Sunni Arab state, a Shia Arab state and a Kurdish state.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

16 Jan 2020, 3:36 am

naturalplastic wrote:
The "civil war" was (and still is) next door, in Syria. But one faction in Syria invaded Iraq (namely ISIS).

Isn’t this backwards? ISIS started in Iraq, gained strength as an Al-Qaeda affiliate during the war there, and used the Syrian civil war as an opportunity to invade the Levant. That’s why the leader was “al-Baghdadi” for example.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,147
Location: temperate zone

16 Jan 2020, 3:46 am

The_Walrus wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
The "civil war" was (and still is) next door, in Syria. But one faction in Syria invaded Iraq (namely ISIS).

Isn’t this backwards? ISIS started in Iraq, gained strength as an Al-Qaeda affiliate during the war there, and used the Syrian civil war as an opportunity to invade the Levant. That’s why the leader was “al-Baghdadi” for example.


Tim talked about a "civil war". He talked about it as if it were Iraq that was in a civil war. And he talked about this "civil war" in the past tense. Iraq was not, and is not in a civil war. Syria was in a civil war. And it's still going on. I correctly corrected him.

So I don't know what your point is.

ISIS did start in Iraq as a rogue breakaway part of Al Queda. But that doesn't change anything I said above.

ISIS, as you said, took advantage of the civil war in Syria, and rose up to power, and actually became a defacto country for a while by controlling territory in Syria the size of a US state, and had a capital (Raqaa) in Syria, before ISIS and Assad decided to agree to not fight each other. Assad and ISIS were then both free to turn their backs on each other. Assad then attacked west (against the Western backed factions), and ISIS attacked east across the border into Iraq. So that later -attacking into Iraq, would be more of a "war of aggression" then a "civil war". But it was a rather major war. ISIS did seize a lot of territory in Iraq including the major city of Mosul, before they got their asses kicked by Iraqi/Kurdish/American/allied forces.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

17 Jan 2020, 5:05 am

One that the US has no say in.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,534
Location: Houston, Texas

17 Jan 2020, 7:28 pm

Perhaps a 3 republics-within-a-republic thing, like Bosnia?


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,147
Location: temperate zone

17 Jan 2020, 8:09 pm

That, or separate countries.

Belgium is also divided into two countries within a country: the French speaking south, and the Flemish speaking north.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,534
Location: Houston, Texas

17 Jan 2020, 9:15 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
That, or separate countries.

Belgium is also divided into two countries within a country: the French speaking south, and the Flemish speaking north.


And the German-speaking far east.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!