Like so many other Americans, I have been immensely frustrated with the situation in Iraq. I’m frustrated by the Iraqi deaths and the American deaths. I’m frustrated at how the world hates Americans in light of our occupation. And I’m frustrated at how some conservative Christians so closely link support of the war with Christian pietism.
But even while I have been frustrated with the war, and at times downright angry about the war, I honestly didn’t have a clue what in the heck was going on over there. I heard about sectarian violence, but I didn’t know who the sects were. I knew a US exit strategy would be extremely difficult, but I didn’t know why.
Well, I suspect there are probably many other cynics out there like me who don’t have a clue what’s really going on in Iraq, and so I’d like to just give a quick overview. I’ve done some research these past few days, and my hope is that whether you’re a cynic or a supporter, that this overview will at least help you be less ignorant. I know I feel less ignorant now, and that’s a good thing.
Here’s the lowdown in elementary, and probably not fully accurate terms:
1. There are three main people groups in Iraq. The Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. Sunnis and Shiites are two different forms of Islam (think Protestant and Catholic), while Kurds are an ethnic people group (think Italians).
2. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, and when he was in power, his regime persecuted Shiites and Kurds.
3. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, our leaders were under the assumption that the Shiites and Kurds would view the Americans as liberators. After all, we were toppling Saddam’s Sunni regime that had oppressed them in the past.
4. However, this “liberator” mentality did not carry through. “Liberated” Shiites resented American occupation just as much “defeated” Sunnis resented American occupation. I don’t know all the reasons for this, but probably the easiest way to think of it is just to imagine the Iraqi army (or any other foreign army for that matter) occupying America. Would Americans welcome the foreign army, or resent it? What if the foreign army had laid seige to America in order to instigate the occupation? I think the widespread Iraqi resentment makes a lot more sense when we put ourselves in their shoes.
5. And so you now have a situation where the Sunnis resent the Americans, and the Shiites resent the Americans. And the Sunnis and the Shiites are at odds with each other too given the history of Saddam’s oppression and a myriad of other factors in their country. In fact, the Sunni/Shiite conflict is so strong, that it has erupted into heightened violence not only against the American soldiers, but even more significantly against each other. Sunni against Shiite and Shiite against Sunni. I just read a very helpful article in the latest Newsweek that explains the rise of Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite militant leader who is fighting both the Americans and the Sunnis.
6. And so basically, as the situation stands right now, the longer Americans stay in the country, the more the Sunnis and the Shiites grow to resent them. But were the Americans to pull out of the country like the Iraqis want, the fear is that the Sunni and Shiite animosity would erupt into outright civil war against each other. In recent weeks, tensions back and forth between the two Islamic sects culminated in al-Sadr’s militant Shiites burning many innocent Sunni civilians alive in a Mosque. Of course it goes both ways, because this attack was in response to a prior attack by Sunni militants on innocent Shiites. My understanding is that the main reason Americans are still in the country is to prevent this sectarian violence from erupting into outright civil war. And so if we leave, and war erupts, this is a terrible thing. But at the same time, the longer we stay, the deeper the animosity against us grows. Basically, we lose if we stay, and we lose if we leave. What in the heck are we supposed to do? After reading up on this, I really have no idea. I could just give a cop-out answer and say, “We never should have gone there in the first place,” but the reality is that we are there, and so that answer doesn’t solve anything. (Take note Democratic political candidates who complain about the fact that we’re there, but offer no solution about how to get out)
So there it is. I’m still frustrated with the war, but I at least understand a little better what’s going on now. I’m still frustrated we went there in the first place, but after reading the Newsweek article, I’m also frustrated that much of the good that American soldiers brought after the initial invasion (pouring millions of dollars into rebuilding schools, homes, etc.) has largely gone ignored and unnoticed.
In the end, what’s my consensus on this all? Well, I guess now that I understand the issues a little better, I’m not so quick to demonize Bush and Rumsfeld (take note Democratic political candidates). I now understand the dilemma of us being stuck there, and wouldn’t consider it outright stubbornness on Bush’s part that we’re still there. But at the same time, I am frustrated at the lack of foresight on this. I think it was wishful thinking to assume that the Iraqis would view a foreign invasion as liberation, and I don’t understand how we could have truly assumed that this would be the reaction. But hindsight is 20/20, and I probably would have seen things just as optimistically if I had been the one calling the shots in 2003.
But all the same, I still don’t understand why we invaded Iraq in the first place. The tie-back to bin Laden and 9/11 is a stretch at best, and it just does not make sense to me. Never has. Plus the international community was urging us not to invade, but we did anyway…
Well, there are my thoughts for what they’re worth…