Historical Myths of a Divided IraqJanuary 15, 2013 at 5:18 pm | Posted in Turkmens | Leave a comment
by Reidar Visser
Calls in US circles for a ‘soft partition’ of Iraq along ethno-sectarian lines
raise myriad ethical and practical questions, but there is a more fundamental
historical problem.1 One of the key arguments of those advocating
partition is that Iraq is an ‘artificial creation’, but there is little evidence that
the sectarian entities being considered are any less artificial, or that Iraqis
themselves have ever advocated ‘Shiistans’ and ‘Sunnistans’.
History (or what is seen as history) plays a formidable role in the competition
of ideas in US policymaking circles. In a recent interview, Leslie Gelb,
president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a key proponent
of soft partition, said
the British considered running the country more or less how the Ottomans had, with a
strong central government but with the country divided, in effect, into three
provinces: Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni, each having a different governor.2
None of these contentions are historically correct.
If such errors were eliminated from the partitionist argument, the debate on the question of dividing Iraq would change. Analysts would look with fresh eyes at events in Iraq
since the February 2006 Samarra bombing, and would be better able to distinguish
between genuine historical trends and violent, but short-lived, episodic outbursts.
PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW FOR ARTICLE IN PDF