"Iraq Does Not Exist Anymore": Journalist Nir Rosen on How the U.S. Invasion of Iraq Has Led to Ethn

[unhappycamper]

If you think things are bad in Iraq AND you haven't seen this segment from DemocracyNOW!, you don't know how bad things really are. Mr. Rosen is riveting in this interview.


"Iraq Does Not Exist Anymore": Journalist Nir Rosen on How the U.S. Invasion of Iraq Has Led to Ethnic Cleansing, a Worsening Refugee Crisis and the Destabilization of the Middle East
DemocracyNOW!

The above link has transcript, video and audio links to the segment.


Nir Rosen is an independent journalist and the author of "In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq." He is a fellow at the New America Foundation and has reported extensively from Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003.

Earlier this year Rosen wrote a cover story for the New York Time Sunday Magazine called "The Flight from Iraq." He estimated that up to 50,000 Iraqis were leaving their homes each month.

Nir Rosen, independent journalist and the author of "In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq." He is a fellow at the New America Foundation and has reported extensively from Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003.


Transscript starts

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk further about the refugee crisis? Again, lay out the numbers that we’re talking about inside Iraq and outside.
NIR ROSEN: Outside Iraq, we’re approaching three million refugees who have left since 2003. There were, of course, refugees who left before then, due to Saddam and other factors.

Inside, I think you have a similar number of internally displaced Iraqis fleeing their homes in mixed areas and going to more homogenous areas. Sunnis from Basra are heading to Sunni neighborhoods, Baghdad, or all the way up to Kurdistan. Shias from Diyala province are going to safer areas for Shias. Kurds from Mosul going up to Kurdistan, as well.

And a family like the one we just saw on the show is never going to go back to their home again, actually, it seems.

AMY GOODMAN: Why?
NIR ROSEN: Iraq has been changed irrevocably, I think. I don’t think Iraq even -- you can say it exists anymore. There has been a very effective, systematic ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad, of Shias --from areas that are now mostly Shia. But the Sunnis especially have been a target, as have mixed families like the one we just saw. With a name like Omar, he’s distinctly Sunni -- it’s a very Sunni name. You can be executed for having the name Omar alone. And Baghdad is now firmly in the hands of sectarian Shiite militias, and they’re never going to let it go.

rest of this segment

[kenny blankenship]

1. Let's arm both sides! Let's partition the country! That way we'll "HAVE TO" stay there forever

in order to keep Sunnis and Shia from trying to wipe other out. We can help the Sunnis secede in Anbar by arming them, and since the Shia majority will not likely consent to let Anbar depart (the province is shaped like a spear point aimed at the capital Baghdad which it touches on its outskirts) there will always be a threat of major violence breaking out with the Sunnis asserting themselves as the rulers of Anbar and the central government seeking to assert Iraq's territorial sovereignty over ALL of its provinces.

That way we can stay there forever to keep the sides separated and keep the bloodletting down to a dull roar--and meanwhile help ourselves to that sweet, sweet petroleum!
Hey! We're doing them a favor by keeping them from destroying themselves, so they OWE us the oil. What are they gonna do with it? Rebuild their country? Hahhahahahahaha. Oh man.

[Democrats_win]

2. Bush is so irresponsible for creating this mess. He has their blood on his hands.

[Selatius]

3. Iraq never existed, it is an artificial creation of the former colonial empire

Under the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis in modern day Iraq were administered in three separate zones. They had too much trouble treating them as one group because of ethnic/religious tensions.

When the British Empire captured the territory after the First World War and the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire by the Allied powers, they decided to carve out what would become modern day Iraq. They combined the three groups of people under one government, but they also felt that they needed to hold onto Iraq's extremely valuable port facilities for a longer period of time, so they installed a dictatorship in Kuwait city and declared Kuwait and the surrounding countryside an independent country after Iraq had already declared independence. Without a valuable port facility for trade and commerce, Iraq's prospects for becoming a greater economic power and thus a greater threat to the imperial balance in the region were reduced.

Bush deserves a fair lot of blame for what is happening in Iraq, but not all of the problems are because of Bush.

[unhappycamper]

4. A kick for the afternoon crowd.

:kick:

[necso]

5. A little more, relevant to replacing Maliki:

Amy Goodman: What do you think of Senator Levin calling for the Maliki and the whole government to disband?

Nir Rosen: Well, it's stupid for several reasons. First of all, the Iraqi government doesn't matter. It has no power. And it doesn't matter who you put in there. He's not going to have any power. Baghdad doesn't really matter, except for Baghdad. Baghdad used to be the most important city in Iraq, and whoever controlled Baghdad controlled Iraq. These days, you have a collection of city states: Mosul, Basra, Baghdad, Kirkuk, Irbil, Sulaymaniyah. Each one is virtually independent, and they have their own warlords and their own militias. And what happens in Baghdad makes no difference. So that's the first point.

(The second point is also notable.)

...

And it's rather worse than this: Baghdad with its large population (and therefore large need for services/resources) and its mixed population (although apparently less so than before the "war") is a liability. Specifically, faction fighting and supply problems (considered broadly) can probably be expected to continue: the former at least until the Sunnis are completely driven out -- and some Shia (sub)group establishes complete control; and the latter until whoever controls Baghdad also controls what it depends on (resources and "supply-lines")... no small thing.

Iraq is something of a "warring states" problem. But there's a tremendous complication in the intermingling of the various groups. And while there's apparently been considerable "cleansing" of Sunnis from Shia areas (and vice-versa to some degree), this process cannot be considered finished until enclaves are driven out, and large, more-or-less sustainable geographical areas are completely "cleansed".

But even in such "cleansed" areas, there will remain the problem of which (sub)group is in charge there.

Now, I suppose it's possible that some power-sharing arrangement between these (sub)groups is possible in places. But it's probably more likely that fighting will continue in many places until one (sub)group or another establishes control over large geographical areas -- especially those of value. (Indeed, this could continue on until Shia areas, at least, are under the control of one (sub)group -- one individual. Of course, other foreign intervention could change the particulars -- if not the overall dynamic -- as our intervention has.)

...

Replacing Maliki is about US politics -- and maintaining the illusion that there's any course we can take in Iraq that might acheive reasonable, attainable war-objectives.

But there isn't.

However, there are political objectives that the neocons might acheive by such political maneuvering ("war"-related, other) -- like vesting Democrats in a failed "war" and diminishing our chances in 2008 -- or setting the stage for continuing/further military misadventures.

And we're particularly vulnerable to such maneuvering when Congress isn't in session.

Domestically, it promises to be a long, ugly slog until 2009. And it promises to be an even uglier, longer slog for our soldiers, the Iraqis -- and their neighbors. (Eg, refugee problems aren't being adequately dealt with.)

...

This seems appropriate:

Jean Ritchie, "The Soldier":

They say that the war's nearly won,
And declare there's a change in the wind.
And my feet stumble on,
And the year's come and gone,
And they say that the war's nearly won.

Another day shall arise,
Another red morning sun,
My seasons are counted and marching away,
Still a soldier and far from my home.
Sweet peace when will you come again?
You turn like a far star alone.
Will I ever be blessed with your innocent breast,
And be free and be safe and be home?

Still, they say that the war's nearly won,
And declare there's a change in the wind.
And the years stumble on,
And a thousand years gone,
And they say that the war's nearly won.