There is no such thing as Iraq or Iraqis. They don't exist.

[Erika]

There were several tribes aligned with different religious factions who were carved into an "area" and a
people" by the Britons for political ease.

These people share little commonality. Hussein, in his own interests kept some control of the factions, but even he did not control northern "Iraq".

For W to hope they can gain some common purpose is insane. They are not one people and never were.

[liberalpragmatist]

1. Um.. an awful lot of Iraqis would disagree with you

The Kurds don't see themselves as Iraqis, for sure. But Arab Iraqis have never felt communal sentiments very strongly until the last year. The power vacuum has allowed religious fundamentalists (with different goals depending on whether they're Shia or Sunni and different views regarding relations with Iran) to become the only political forces in town. When that happens, people are forced to choose sides.

But I'd talk to some Iraqis or read some Iraqi blogs before dismissing the idea that Iraqis don't think of themselves as "Iraqis"

(Also, the regions that ARE Iraq, despite British meddling, were always historically under the same ruler - either the Persians or the Ottomans or before them various Caliphates. The name Iraq is an old one that even in Ottoman and Persian times referred to Lower Mesopotamia.)

[Erika]

2. If you choose to go that route "Iraq" had a seaport in Kuwait

But the boundaries were redrawn by the Britons.

[liberalpragmatist]

5. I know

I'm not doubting that the British drew the boundaries of Iraq in line with their own interest. The province and city of Mosul were historically tied to Syria, not "Iraq," but was included by the British in Iraq because of its oil.

And the creation of Kuwait had much to do with denying the Germans and the Ottomans an outlet at the sea in an attempt to stall their "Berlin-to-Baghdad" Railway from becoming "Berlin-to-Basra."

But as MANY historians and Iraqis themselves have pointed out, it's simply not true that Iraqis - Arab Iraqis at least - have no common identity. Mixed marriages are EXTREMELY common, there have never been violent communal tensions between Sunni and Shia and most Iraqi Arabs were very patriotic about being Iraqi.

That may be coming apart now, but it's difficult to tell whether this is what most Iraqis actually want. There is a climate of fear and violence and it's forcing the country in a direction that Iraqis would quite possibly not endorse were things more peaceful. Civil wars do divide society but they don't always reflect sentiments that always existed.

[Erika]

8. The whole MidEast has common identity

They come from the seed of Abraham. There is commonality in that respect.

[liberalpragmatist]

17. No, but there is commonality among IRAQIS since then

The country was patched together in 1920 or thereabouts. Everybody alive today in Iraq grew up as an "Iraqi." I take the word of those who lived and grew up there. There is such thing as an Iraqi identity and they would all disagree profoundly with your assertion that their national identity doesn't exist.

[JCMach1]

19. It has always been US Policy to keep Arab unity in check

i.e. the divide and control theory in practice... no one group can have a monopoly over the resources.

[upi402]

3. true, and Europe?

[Erika]

4. Share your knowledge. Thanks.

[upi402]

11. just wonder: to which point in history do we revert to square things up?

Seems like Europe is a good example, or SE Asia, of how complex it is to look at historic borders. Going back to antiquity is where Iraq would originate, as a point of reference.

I think you're very right, that we have failed to recognize ancient history in Iraq and their regions inside Iraq. Maybe partitioning is the way. Europe has lived with its current borders for a pretty long time.

[Ignacio Upton]

6. There is no such thing as Jordan, Syria, or Kuwait either

They were all just province of the Ottomon Empire 100 years ago.

[magellan]

7. What?

Have you ever read Riverbend's blog? http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

What you say was true decades ago. Now most Iraqis share a national identity and history. Intermarriage between tribes and sects is common...or was until Bush** opened the door to radical sectarian and ethnic division. (I think the only Iraqis who might not feel that way are the Kurds, but they've been isolated from the rest of Iraq for a long time.)

Please don't make the mistake of believing the radicals represent the majority of the Iraqi people. That's like saying the radical Right in the US typify the views of the average American.

[Erika]

9. I see no proof that an Iraqi or Iraq exists

The definitions are increasingly parsing when identifying Iraq or Iraqis.

[magellan]

10. Okay, whatever.

:eyes:

[Ms. Clio]

12. yes, I guess Riverbend and others who call themselves "Iraqis" are simply delusional

what the hell do they know about it? Obviously, Americans who live thousands of miles away are ever so much better equipped to make sweeping pronouncements about her nationality and citizenship.

:banghead:

[Erika]

13. I would love the shared knowledge

I just know documented history.

[Ms. Clio]

33. I know documented history, too

Riverbend, like all the rest of her people, grew up in a modern nation-state, and thinks of herself as possessing citizenship in that state.

Nation-states are artificial creations. Using your logic, the U.S. should have been split into two (or possibly even three sections) instead of fighting the Civil War.

[shance]

14. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think your statement is pretty offensive Erika

and in a way it's dehumanizing.

You may not have meant for it to be, but what if someone were describing you and your family and your culture the way you are describing those who live in Iraq?

What if someone told others you don't exist?

What if someone claimed you weren't American?

Have you ever met any Sunnis? Have you ever lived without adequate water, electricity, shelter or food because it has been robbed from you because of constant war and chaos created primarily by many abusing their power in the USA?

Have you ever known desperation and hunger and abject fear and terror because your country has been invaded by armed soldiers who raid your houses at night, grab your husbands, your wives, your children and God knows what happens to them?

You know, the individuals who have had their lives forever damaged and totally destroyed are very much Iraqis, just like we consider ourselves very much American.

More importantly they are human. They laugh, bleed, cry and die just like you and I will and you and I do.

You may not know this, but before George Herbert Walker waltzed our troops into Iraq originally, Iraq had one of the highest levels of PhD leveled adults in its country. That is of course not the case now.

Iraq has been destroyed by the Bush I and II Administrations. Iraq once rivaled the USA in higher education adults per capita. That is how advanced and progressive Iraq was before the Neocons/Bush/Cheney factions destroyed it.

People aren't "tribes". Iraqis aren't factions.

They are individuals just like you and me - with dreams, hopes, families, ambitions.

All of which are being totally smashed and permanently damaged by the consciousless men holding our country and our government hostage.

Many individuals have learned use the term tribe as a way to paint people more as primative, suboordinate, than the human beings like we all are. It makes it easier for us to accept the cruelty and the inhumanity that is being inflicted on them when we convince ourselves we are somehow superior because we aren't being attacked like they are.

They are people. Individuals that live in different areas of the world.

That is their country just like this is our country. That is where they live and this is where we live.

[Erika]

15. So are you Iraqi?

I am horribly offended that we destroyed the infrastructure of the government there. I do not think of the word "tribe" as an offensive word, not at all. I'm surprised others would. Thank you for the discourse.

[magellan]

16. I'm afraid your notion that Iraq and Iraqis don't exist is, well, absurd

There are hundreds if not thousands of Iraqis living under the auspices of the British government (and several other countries) at this moment; political refugees who have nothing. I know this because of the work my husband and I do. It's OFFICIAL KNOWLEDGE. These people identify themselves as citizens of Iraq. They have the passports to prove it. When asked, they call themselves Iraqis.

What are you on about, please?

[Erika]

20. Iraq was defined by the Britons as an area for political purposes

I am saying that unity is not a national occurence. I am not being negative. Iraq is a political subdivision carved out for political purposes, and not by those in the region.

[magellan]

22. That's true

But it's far different than saying there is no such thing as Iraq or Iraqis.

The colonies that existed here before the Revolution were largely driven by economics and politics. You'll recall many loyalists were just fine with that. It took several decades before all the people who lived in the newly formed USA jointly identified themselves as Americans.

At some point, if things hang together, national unity takes hold. There's no rule that says it has to be permanent for it to be existent.

[Erika]

23. But these people have Never jointly agreed to be one

We did.

[magellan]

24. I think the fact they identify themselves as Iraqis

...means they agree that Iraq exists.

The borders of Germany were redrawn after WWII by the Allies. Do you think that invalidates present-day Germany in the minds of Germans?

Your argument would have stood 50 or so years ago. It has no weight now except among the Kurds and certain radical elements in Iraq. Most Iraqis grew up under a national identity and long to have that and their country back.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. And if you go further back in German history...

...you get into feudal, and then tribal organisation. And what of Britain? There's definitely a British identity, even though that state is comprised of three different nations, each with their own identity.

And let's not get started on Israel.

[Dorian Gray]

39. Maybe that was the purpose then...

but it's in existance now, and those people who were born and raised as Iraqis know no differently. I think your thinking is purely academic, anyhow. Perhaps there is no technical Iraqi ethnicity, but there certainly is an undeniable nationality, one in which is multi-cultural, much like China has a diverse culturalism within its borders.

Saying otherwise is short-sighted and... well... splitting hairs. I don't understand what your point is intended to prove in the discourse about the Iraqi War, actually.

[shance]

42. No Im not, but your points are prejudice in tone.

Or at least lacking true thought or insight as to those living in WHAT IS NOW Iraq. Call it whatever you want.

To distract with semantics with silly technicalities is dishonorable to those who have been needlessly killed, inhumanely treated and abused and raped of what was their home and land.

[ConsAreLiars]

18. That same drivel can be argued

about the US or Switzerland or Afghanistan or India. Artificial borders are always, uh, artificial, and within them you will find all sorts of "tribes." Nonetheless, the common purpose is always the same. People want to live their lives. They want to eat, they want to be safe, they want to be free.

[Erika]

21. Do you see the states of the U.S. attacking other states?

Because of religious/sectarian differences? It certainly is not drivel.

Please check out www.icasualties.org

Thank you.

[magellan]

26. Bad analogy

You're comparing US states to Iraqi provinces, I assume? No province is attacking another. There are elements within provinces that have been allowed to take over vast areas of control and direct fighting from there, but that is still people vs people, not province vs province.

[ConsAreLiars]

28. No here-and-now comparison.

Just saying that internal differences can be turned into fratricide when sufficient pressure is applied.

[magellan]

32. I absolutely agree with you.

Yugoslavia is a good recent example of what can happen with internal differences under sufficient pressure. And it's still splitting.

I believe I get the gist of what Erika's saying, but I don't agree. It's not a foregone conclusion that any country formed out of the political desires of another country (or countries) is doomed to fail, or to say it never really existed. The borders of most nations are "unnatural" and not agreed upon by everyone on both sides of the fence at the time the lines are drawn. I dare say we could find some Canadians who believe the upper NW rightly belongs to them. And we know how the Mexicans feel about CA and the SW.

Heck, the Louisiana Purchase didn't lead to fracturing and that was basically forced on the people -- Hullo, you're Americans now! (Although I could certainly understand the desire of New Orleanians to secede from the Union at this point.)

These things are always in flux. Nothing's forever. The Iraqis should decide what becomes of their country, but sadly we've all but guaranteed it won't be a decision made by the will of its people.

[ConsAreLiars]

27. The Civil War?

Ireland? The slaughter of indigenous people. Learn history.

[Ms. Clio]

35. They don't attack each other NOW

because an incredibly bloody and bitter civil war was fought between two sections that loathed and feared each other and believed they could never reconcile their economic, political, and social differences.

[Dorian Gray]

40. It's happened...

The Civil War comes to mind.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. That's complete and total nonsense, sorry

You might as well say "Israel doesn't exist because there are opposing groups living in an artificial state carved out by the British (NB: NOT "Britons"; Britons refers to more than one PERSON from Britain. If referring to the actions of the government, it's "British") for political reasons."

Your entire line of reasoning is completely absurd and nonsensical.

[Odin2005]

29. The OP is right, to an extent.

All Iraqis are citizens of the same state but that state has many ethnic groups in it, there is no Iraqi ethnicity. The problem is that Western notions of nationalism have not permeated into Arab society much except for the partially Westernized middle class (as opposed to the Turks, Iranians, Kurds, and some Christian Arab communities; where nationalistic tendencies are obvious even among the average person); Arab social organization is tribal and religious-ecemenical, not national.

[Swamp Rat]

30. They're all freedom-hatin' insurgents.

Wipe 'em all out! ... men, women, children, babies, animals, trees, and ALL! :nuke:

All hail the Great Demon Lizard!



Praise Almighty Rumsferatu!

[WinkyDink]

31. Well, for sure Bush is insane.

[savemefromdumbya]

34. don't tell Bush he'll start building walls between the factions (at our expense)

[Ms. Clio]

36. This is actually a very important question, and you should read some of the lit on nationalism

You could start with this web page, about Benedict Anderson's seminal 1983 work, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.

"In fact, all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact (and perhaps even these) are imagined. Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined." <emphasis mine>

Yes, the nation-state of modern Iraq is an artificial creation. But so are they all -- there is nothing "organic" about the modern U.S.; certainly not from the Native Americans' perspective. It acquires its reality from the fact that there are millions of people who think and call themselves Americans, no matter what their race or ethnicity.

[951-Riverside]

37. Before they were iraqis they were mesopotamians n/t

[The2ndWheel]

38. This is the expansion of civilization

Civilization kills diversity. It doesn't like diversity, to say the least.

I'm not saying that if the world had 1 million smaller countries that there would be no conflict, or large scale organized war(depending on the foundation upon which things were built), but things would be more regionalized. Unless the winner of one war continued to expand, and that game of war and expansion continued until we end up exactly where we are today.

But the issues you bring up are the issues of growth and expansion. As long as Iraq, or 3 different 'stans, or whatever, are relatively the same, we won't have a problem. As soon as one group wants to exist differently, we'll have war to figure out which way wins.