Why is there such a mess in Iraq?

A country rich in oil, one of the cradles of human civilization, bestowed with a democracy and rule of law which it received from the benevolent world community. That is Iraq. Why is this country deteriorating? Why is there a civil war? Why are terrorist militias controlling half of the country? Why is nothing done against the corrupt elite?

The problem is that the few people who really understand something about Iraq are all busy elsewhere. They are enjoying retirement and may not even have heard the recent news out of Iraq. If you know any of them, please tell them to get back to the office immediately! Iraq needs their help. Now more than ever.

George W Bush painting

Dick Cheney rifle

Donal Rumsfeld private

Condoleeza Rice piano

Colin Powell singing(Hier gibt es das ganze auf Deutsch.)

About Andreas Moser

Travelling the world and writing about it. I have degrees in law and philosophy, but I'd much rather be a writer, a spy or a hobo.
This entry was posted in History, Military, Politics, USA and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Why is there such a mess in Iraq?

  1. Pingback: Warum versinkt der Irak im Chaos? | Der reisende Reporter

  2. Helene Zenia says:

    Are you kidding?  George Bush is the solution?  What planet are you on???  These guys created the disaster that is now Iraq.  

    • In all fairness, we should not forget what Iraq looked like before the US-led intervention. It was a brutal dictatorship with just as much sectarian violence, only that is was directed by the government against its people.

  3. I agree the current situation in Iraq is terrible, terrible for Iraq, for Middle East and for remain conscious world. I must also agree, this recent mess is no fault but of George Bush and his counter part Tony Blair. I must also agree, that Iraq was led by a brutal dictatorship who committed crimes against humanity – but she shouldn’t forget who put him in power in Iraq, how he became a puppet of the west – who armed him to the teeth and let his become a wild card in Middle East. This wild card, would enable America to gain free, unlimited, and long term access into Middle East, thus protecting its own interest (oil) and that of its proxy states (Israel).

    So, in my view, in recent times – the mess we see in Iraq is the doing of the west – deliberately creating a situation where after the withdrawal of US and their allies troops would force a vacuum in which power will be fought for by many factions.

    You really wasn’t expecting Iraq to be a stable country (if it indeed remains as a country, or divided into 3 states) following the invasion and post war in Iraq?

    • I don’t think it was in the interest of Israel to have Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Remember that it was Israel which destroyed Iraq’s nuclear program, thus saving Iran during the Iraq-Iran war and saving the region of a much bigger, unimaginable mess. Also, Israel has also been quite supportive of the Kurds in northern Iraq, when nobody else cared much about them.

      The original problem was also not caused by the US, but may rather date back to the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement which carved up the Middle East along arbitrary lines.

    • In a situation when national security only matters – external problems need to be prioritized in the sense of understanding which is a greater threat and thus deal with that first and then see how the situation turns out once the dust has settled. Israel did just that. Israel, naturally will follow the footsteps of all great empires, and in this case the British Empire. Who were masters of divide and conquer. They picked out a ethnic minority or a ethnic group who were less liked or oppressed – bought their loyalty and promised them victory only if they allied with the them (since the British always were the outside foreign force). They would then arm them with military equipment, intelligence and political support – thus making it easier to wage a proxy war and destabilize the region in preparation of a foreign force to rule. This would often take decades and decades to accomplish this. In my view – Israel is doing just that, picking a side that has always been disadvantaged making sure they are fully supported to aid Israel. We may not see that just yet but in coming future Kurds in Northern Iraq will be to Israel what Israel is to America and the British.

      Prior to Sykes-Picot agreement, prior to World War I and II, the region controlled by the Ottoman Empire were extremely stable – Ottoman Empire held a global role and was a superpower. Naturally it makes the case to divide it up into so many part that even if it wanted to revive it couldn’t. That same principle continues now to further divide into smaller pieces. America only came into the scene recently, since the global role was transitioned from UK to America.

      What people don’t understand, or overlook is the role Pakistan is to play in the future. I’m extremely keen on understanding religious scriptures from different religions – and Pakistan is that dark horse which will come out on top, much like USA was a dark horse prior to World War I and II but who came out to the top.

      Interesting discussion..

    • Once difference between Iraq and the Ottoman Empire however is that the Iraqis really don’t seem to want to be one country, and everybody else is trying to keep them together – against their will and maybe against all logic. Because why shouldn’t countries split up?

      I honestly also understand almost nothing about Pakistan, maybe because I haven’t been there yet. I agree with you that it’s very much overlooked. If they ever get beyond their obsession with India…

  4. The Ottoman Empire succeeded in Keeping their empire in tact for centuries. Their common denominator was their religion. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it made sense that the west (especially UK and France) couldn’t have another Islamic Empire and thus brought in nationalism for the territory controlled by Ottoman Empire. If you compare how Saladin united different tribes throughout the Middle East for the conquest of Jerusalem, it proved that united they could lead and divided they simply couldn’t survive as an empire. So now, as the Muslims communities in Middle East are government by leaders who look to the west for support, means that Muslims in general are oppressed, and thus you have situations whereby their want to govern themselves and see that as a better choice than what the alternative.

    Pakistan is to China what Israel is to USA. Pakistan being a young state, has achieved remarkable success. Not only does it have Islam as their main religion it also shares a strong Islamic/Mughul Empire history. It also is the first Islamic country who has developed their own nuclear technology. Despite being diseased with corruption it still manages to stay afloat and that is because of its clearly (World Rated Number 1 intelligence agency) and an army which is in the top 10 best armies of the world.

    • The Ottoman Empire at any time in history had a lower share of Muslim population than any of the Middle Eastern States (except Israel) today. The share of the non-Muslim population declined steadily, not least due to migration to escape oppression and to genocide in the case of Armenians.
      After the Ottoman Empire joining the Central Powers in World War I and committing genocide, it’s no surprise that nobody wanted to sustain it. There was an Arab (!) revolt against the Ottoman Empire and there were Arab nationalist movements which wanted independence. This was very much in line with what happened elsewhere in the World in and after World War I. “Self-determination” was all the rage, leading to numerous new states being formed. The Austro-Hungarian Empire ceased as well and that had nothing to do with your argument that “the west (especially UK and France) couldn’t have another Islamic Empire and thus brought in nationalism”. Muslims were (and are) no less nationalist than non-Muslims. The problem is that the nationalist movements in the Middle East were always autocratic, while in Europe – slowly and with many, many setbacks – democratic nationalist movements developed.

      I don’t see the causal link between “looking for Western support” and “oppression of Muslims in general”. There are a number of Muslim countries who don’t need Western support (e.g. the Gulf states which are the richest countries in the world with the West depending on them, not vice versa) or who loathe Western support (Iran since 1979, Libya under Gaddafi, Syria) where Muslims are oppressed terribly.
      The Muslims in the Middle East with the highest level of political freedom are the roughly 20% Muslim population of Israel (not Palestine).

  5. List of X says:

    Somehow, even in retirement, Dick Cheney looks like he wants to shoot someone. Of course, he already shot someone during a hunting trip at least once, so this is probably how he does his R&R.

Please leave your comments, questions, suggestions:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s