Dangers of Iraq division

Amid the difficulties to form the new Iraqi government, upon which many hopes were hold, talks on dividing Iraq floats to the surface, promoting this choice as the best way to bring peace to this war-torn country. But is that true? Let’s see.

Iraq is a multicultural country-;- the diversity in this land was its most characteristic feature since existence. Even its ancient civilizations were not one as in Egypt, there were Sumerians, Akkadians, Amorites, Assyrians and Chaldeans, but they form a homogenous culture despite the differences in religion, dialects´-or-languages. Then it was the home for Judaism, early Christianity, Mandaeanism and Islam. This diversity is not localized to its modern borders but it is a part of the region diversity built over centuries, thus dividing Iraq will lead to the division of the whole region and this can never be achieved peacefully but through long bloody wars in this oil-rich region.

The division will never be an easy task-;- extremist Shiite people are now talking on maps that include Samarra, a northern city with a Sunni majority, because of the holy Al-Askari shrine there, the assault on that shrine caused bloody civil conflicts in 2006 that led to massive deaths and emigrations. The city of Samarra was built by the Abbasid caliph Al-Mu’tasim as an alternative capital after the people of Baghdad felt angry because of his Seljuk “Turkish” army behaviors there. Any insistence on including this city into the Shiite state means long bloody wars.

Baghdad is another big problem, its being the capital of the country long time ago led to obvious demographic changes there, almost few of its people now are really from Baghdad. Baghdad lost many of its Identity over times due to political changes and agendas. In 1922, Jews accounted for around one third of the city’s populations, and then many people from southern Iraq came to settle in Baghdad following the agricultural reforms and nationalizing decisions in 1958. Saddam on the other hand, prohibited people from buying homes in Baghdad unless they were recorded to live there in 1957 census. But many accusations that he was excluding the people from his Sunni regions from that decision. After 2003, this decision was abolished and the demographic change continues because many people left Iraq willingly´-or-after receiving threats, this affected the whole Iraqi sects. The Majority of Baghdad now is Shiite, but this doesn’t mean other sects are not obvious, there are Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, Failis “Shiite Kurd” etc., almost the eastern bank of Tigris “Al-Rusafa” is Shiite and the western bank “Al-Karkh” is Sunni, but this is not a matter of fact. Al-Kadhimiya, a major Shiite district, where the holy Shiite shrine “Imam Kadhum” locates , is on the western side of Baghdad as well as Al-Shu’la and many other neighborhoods. On the other hand, Al-Adhamiyah, a major Sunni district where Abu Hanifah mosque locates, is on the eastern side of Tigris. Any trials to divide Baghdad will fail and means long bloody conflicts. There are many mixed neighborhoods and families. So there is no way to create ghettos´-or-division as what had happened in Berlin, as well as the incorporeal importance of the city, on which both Sunnis and Shiite will fight to conquer. The areas surrounding Baghdad are almost Sunni´-or-mixed dangerous areas since before the withdrawal of US troops.

The maps discussed by extremist Shiites includes a large area of modern day Al-Anbar, based on old Iraqi maps when Karbala governorate was bigger before Baath regime redrew the maps of Iraqi governorate and creating new ones. This is a trial to retake a stolen land as they see´-or-a way to prevent any geographical contact between the possible Sunni province and Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, extremist Sunnis drew maps that include the whole deserts to the southwest and south of Iraq to surround the Shiite province and prevent any contact between it and Saudi Arabia, in way to protect it´-or-to form a safe zone between them. They even talk about districts with Sunni majority in Basra, southern Iraq. All these indicates that Iran and Saudi Arabia are planning together to divide this cake and that these agendas are supported by them based on the religious emotions of people in Iraq apart from the intellectuals.

The geographic distribution of Iraqi ethnicities and religions is difficult-;- there are Sunnis in the southern governorates as Basra and Al – Nasiriyah, and Shiite in northern Iraq as Mosul and Salah Al Din. As well as the presence of other ethnicities in Iraq, Turkmen consider Kirkuk their capital and they were the majority indeed, before Baath trials to Arabize the city and then the Kurdish trials to change the demography of Kirkuk. Turkmen distribution follows a strip that extends from Diyala in eastern Iraq to Tel Afer in the northwestern corner of Iraq, actually following the old Silk Road in the middle ages. Turkmen leaders want their own region, and they might get the Turkish support, they consider Kirkuk their jewels as Kurds consider it Jerusalem of Kurdistan, despite its being an ancient Assyrian city under the name of Arrapkha, the modern name was first used during the Parthian era. This means another major war supported by Turkey which had old intentions to include Mosul and Kirkuk after World War I. the situations in northern Iraq makes it more complicated than the south, despite Kurds asked for Badra in the southeastern governorate of Wasit, whose population is a mixture of Arabs, Turkmen and Faili Kurds, and where an oil field lies which was unexploited till 2011.

Diyala, is another big problem, as its populations is a mixture of Sunni, Shiite Arabs and Kurds, the presence of strong militias and terrorist groups make it a possible place for severe conflicts. Its proximity to Iran might make it difficult for it to let it go to a Sunni province. Kurds already take the cities of Khanaqin and Jalaula, but major conflicts might take place if the division is decided.

Not to forget the fate of indigenous Iraqi minorities who had paid the heaviest bill since 2003, Iraqi Christians: Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriac, Armenians, whether catholic, orthodox´-or-protestant have suffered a lot of this war. The numbers of Iraqi Christians had dropped from 1.5 million before 2003 to almost half a million now. The majority of Christians live in mixed and terrible regions whether in Baghdad, Kirkuk´-or-Mosul. Nineveh plains, the historic center for Christianity in Mosul, had fallen in the hands of terrorists amid international silence. The nazi like actions of ISIL against Christians and Yazidis in Mosul, Nineveh plains and Sinjar: marking their homes, churches, kidnapping sisters, and finally forcing people to leave their cities unless they pay money´-or--convert- into Islam. Christianity has deep roots in this land dates back to the first century and was the major religion even in Najaf and Karbala, the holy Shiite cities now. These wars might bring the Christian existence in orient to extinct as what had happened to Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks in Turkey in World War I. these indigenous minorities have nothing to do with this war, still they are weak and target for radical Islamic groups in Iraq and Syria. As well as their refusal to be under Kurdish control. These minorities are the cultural reverse of this region by which the region rose in the last century with the Arab nation renaissance to get rid of Ottoman rule, thus the world has a moral obligation to save these indigenous groups and the genuine diverse culture of the region.

Finally, what will happen in Iraq will influence the whole region for sure-;- it will turn into a declared regional war, as it is a proxy war now between two different agendas, the Iranian and Saudi one, using the religion to wage it. This had happened before during the Ottoman- Safavid war (1623-1639). Even the same expressions are used now to describe the Shiite people.

The causes of Iraqi dilemma

In 2003, Sunnis fall in the mistake that Shiite had fallen in 1921-;- in 1921 Shiite clerics refused to elect´-or-support the new king as well as joining the army, thus Iraq was ruled by Sunnis for a long time. In 2003 Sunni clerics prohibited the participation in elections, as well as the attacks by terrorist groups on election points, thus they were not represented well in the government, then the constitution was written, Shiite were forced to accept the Kurdish conditions so as to pass it, then Sunni leaders were asked to pass it with oaths to revise their objections. Thus was how the whole matter started.

The constitution was not agreed upon, with external influence for sure, and the government looked at Sunnis as Saddam followers. The decision to solve the former Iraqi army, uprooting Baath members from all governmental positions deepens the hole between Iraqi people and creates many new enemies who were possibly easy to get their support.

Many external forces were funding terrorism so as to avoid a possible American invasion, namely Syria, thus violence escalated in Iraq against civilians and alliance troops, supported by global Jihadist groups. This violence deepens the chasm between the major Iraqi sects. The army was their target and thus Sunnis were either unable to join it for fears´-or-even unwilling.

The government continues to behave as if it had taken its long lost rights, thus others feel marginalized, despite they have many positions and this is why Shiite says Sunni have more than their real percent accusing them of being part of the government but working against it, and that they will not accept but ruling Iraq again. The fears of new dictatorship are felt even by Iraqi secular parties and this might be the main cause behind the current crisis, especially when Al-Maliki was not accepting to step out the cabinet to another person despite Ayad Allawi had got the highest number of seats in 2010 elections.

Army behaviors are among the main problems, as they raise sectarian slogans and flags, curse certain religious figures glorified by Sunnis, this might deepen the chasm between the army and certain sects, not to forget the radical groups which is trying to fight the government whatever they do. Terrorists were attacking Iraqi army, police and civilians since 2004. Theocracy is the main cause behind what is going on in Iraq.

Sunni-Shiite misunderstanding in Iraq

It is a religious misunderstanding dates back to the early Islamic era, but its roots rose in Iraq after the Iraqi-Iranian war when the government talked badly on Iran – which is ruled by a theocratic regime since 1979 – this might make the devoted Shiite angry and this was when the Iraqi opposition formed abroad. The problem worsens after 1991 when the holy Shiite cities were hit and southern governorates were severely punished.

In 1990s, the religious tendency started to rise in Iraq due to the economic sanctions, the events of 1991 and the trials of Saddam to revive religion which was known as “the religious campaign” to increase the religious practice among the formerly modern secular Iraqi society.

Saddam was trying to prevent Shiite practicing their pilgrimages freely as they are doing after 2003 as well as taking many of their mosques after they have refused to put them under the supervision of the ministry of religious affairs.
The seeds of that saw the sunlight after 2003, when the sectarian based regime and violence increased these feelings among Iraqis, as well as the external influence and the foreign fighters who were spreading to Iraq since the war in 2003. Those fighters attacked Shiite and Christians clearly and that leads to the formation of Shiite militias, both of them swamped the country in a bloody war in 2006, when people were unable to move freely by cars in the same city and many from different sects were killed based on their names.

This war is dangerous for many reasons, first of all its strong possibility to involve the entire Middle east and even further, as Shiite and Sunnis coexist in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries. We can see many conflicts in this region including Turkey, Alevis in Turkey are supporting Bashar Assad, who’s an Alawite, now, despite the major differences between Alevis, Alwaite and Twelver Shiite. The whole conflicts are taking a sectarian form since now. This major conflict might add millions of emigrants who would add a huge economic, social and cultural burden on Europe and USA. The world is already facing daily catastrophes, illegal immigration, sinking ships-;- Europe will get the heaviest burden of that, the big Muslim communities in Europe might cause many problems too, if they start to transport their wars to there.

Revolutionists´-or-terrorists

Arab Media is depicting the fighters as “tribal revolutionists” in a way to help them getting more support, the channels try to say that ISIL fighters are few in number, but this is not true for many reasons, as their black banners are everywhere, they have transported Iraqi vehicles and weapons to Syria – namely to Raqqa – the tribal leaders these channels are talking about are in Erbil and not able to go to these territories. The savage acts done by the terrorists against Iraqi culture and Iraqis from other sects and religions do emphasize that ISIL is the only faction working in the occupied cities. All these questions might the name of revolutionist´-or-rebels from these fighters. People welcomed them because they were not happy with the Iraqi army and this happened in Aleppo before they have discovered their real intentions. It is due to the Arab mentality “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.”

Global Danger

Apart from the possible regional ethnic and sectarian war, due to the influence of Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and the dangers of millions of emigrants, the danger of the strength of terrorism is a huge one. Those terrorists are getting stronger now, might train more supporters,´-or-get new allies from all over the world, they have 425 millions -$-, territory and an airport now. This makes fighting ISIL more difficult as time passes. They imposed their radical view of Islam on people-;- this will create another Afghanistan in the heart of the world, in a rich strategic area close to Europe. Their name includes Levant which might a possible danger threatening Israel. The foreign fighters are the majority and some carry European documents-;- this will make it easy for them to commit global terrorist attacks due to their easy travel without the need for visas. The most dangerous is to give them the chance to spread their ideology in the region, provided that everything mixed with the name of God is easily accepted in the Middle East.

Why the division is not the solution?

First of all, the division is just like to solve a domestic quarrel by divorce with all its social burdens, besides that the political division will not take place in an easy peaceful way. It will shed countless bloods.

Many wars will rise on disputed and mixed areas-;- the borders will be a long term problem, besides the possible division of many other regional problems and divisions. A Kurdish state for example will not be accepted by Iran´-or-Turkey. This might cause many regional conflicts within these states.

If the division took place, there will be future wars on water, southern Iraq got its water from rivers passing through the Sunni areas, if they were not peaceful neighbors, a major crisis might happen. The export of oil is another dilemma, apart from Kurdish oil, the Shiite will have problems exporting oil though the Sunni areas to Turkey, if they will abolish that choice, the export will be exclusively through the Persian gulf, this means a decrease in the global available oil and affects the prices of energy throughout the world besides the current Ukrainian crisis.

Who will rule these new states?

Iraq will be weak and Iran will take the southern part of Iraq with all its wealth while the middle Sunni area might turn into a poor retarded area where violence and radical Jihadists might flourish, especially that the former Arab nationalist leaders are losing day by day their former control, the idea of Arab nationalism is dying now and replaced by a more dangerous one, eager to conquer the world. The world should think well of who will rule these new states. If the Kurdish national dream comes true, the Islamic tendency will rise there, provided that it is already there.

The indigenous Iraqi and Syrian minorities will have no place and this means a big irreparable cultural loss.

Christians, Yazidis and Shabak are concentrated in Nineveh, which is now captured by ISIL, this endanger the rich Assyrian heritage as well the Christian existence in Middle East.

What to Do?

First of all eradicating ISIL, both in Iraq and Syria, Then keeping Iraq united by providing a secular regime - after eradicating ISIL from the region - that believes in multicultural Iraq, respects all its population, forget the past, can forgive and accept those who hadn’t killed people, punishes the terrorists, finds a political reform including the constitution, revises the old behaviors of Iraqi army, builds good balanced relations with all Iraq neighbors – putting into consideration their way dealing with Iraq. This can’t be achieved unless we find a secular leader. Theocracy is the way to destroy this country-;- religious parties can’t accept all people. Iraqi people are emotional, you might find a sectarian atheist, and still it is not difficult to find a real secular leader.

Many intellectual people are calling for secularism now, if this possible all these dangers will disappear by themselves.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1