Peace.

This bill passed 79-14. I don’t know how so-called “fiscal conservatives” can put up with this. The truth is that while rural conservatives complain about the costs of welfare, farmers are receiving the largest welfare check of anyone in the nation. I have heard the arguments to keep ag subsidies and none hold water. Here are a few of the most common. We can’t depend on other nations for our food, what if we go to war? My answer: We already depend on other countries for nearly all of our products, if there was an international boycott against the U.S. we would already be screwed. More importantly, such a boycott would never happen. Money is still the most important incentive in the modern world and few countries could resist the gigantic market that is the U.S. Another argument is that without subsidies all of the family farms would be swallowed up by corporations. I personally would have no problem with this if it was the case; it has already happened with every other industry, why should agriculture be any different. But for those of you that believe that family farms are worth protecting, consider this: the top 10% of farms (meaning highest earning and therefore the “megafarms” and corporate farms we here about) receive 73% of subsidies. If anything, the elimination of these subsidies would allow family farms to better compete. The last argument I will discuss is that says subsidies are why we have such low food prices. I respond: and such high taxes. Simple economics will tell you that the subsidies you pay to keep an industry in business will always surpass the money you save buying its cheap products. Don’t let the ag lobby deceive you: ag subsidies are every bit of a drain on the economy as is every other kind of special interest project.

All of these good things that many may have felt about Medvedev were dissipated today with Medvedev’s announcement that, if president, he would name Putin prime minister. This confirms what many have been speculating: though Russia may have a new president in the spring, when Russia’s constitution forces Putin to step down, who is controlling the country will not. Putin, with Medvedev in his back pocket, will have many options to impose his will on the country. He could simply tell Medvedev what to do (the most likely scenario), he could, as prime minister, urge parliament to change the constitution and weaken the president while strengthening his own position, or he could ask Medvedev to step down from the presidency during his new term, leaving Putin as the constitutionally deemed successor. Whatever the outcome, do not expect a lot to change. We will have to deal with Russia as a real world power, and as a real threat to both the U.S. and democracy and human rights in its own country, for many years to come.

Ron Paul – Didn’t fair so well this debate. A lot of what he said had been heard already on the campaign trail and sounded very rehashed. Wasn’t given a lot of face time, and was asked unfair questions about “conspiracies” and running as an independent.

Grade: C

John McCain – A strong showing, reminding me of the McCain of years ago. Came out strong on torture topic, but got caught up in talking about Vietnam again.

Grade: B -

Fred Thompson: Was short and concise with most of his answer, but did tend to skip around questions a little bit. Reinforced his tough stance on immigration, while taking shots at Romney and Giuliani. His 30 second ad was just an attack ad and a little classless.

Grade: C +

Rudy Giuliani: Started off with a bang with immigration, but looked childish brining up illegal immigrants working at Romney’s house. Did better from there, and didn’t mention 9/11 as much as in the past. Was booed on Gun Control, but I thought his “reasonable restrictions” made sense. Also went with the “stay on the offensive” terrorist line. I still don’t think he understands foreign policy.

Grade: C -

Mike Huckabee: Established himself as a player in the upcoming elections. Even on issues I disagreed with him on, he offered up good explanations on why he feels the way he does, and that maybe he isn’t as bull-headed as other candidates. He stumbled on the Gays in the Military question by outlining how Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is bad, then supporting it anyway. Overall, he was the most personable and articulate of all the candidates.

Grade: B +

Mitt Romney: Stumbled on a BUNCH of topics, like torture, Gays in the military, and not directly answering the Bible question. Romney stumbled over words most of the debate, and when pressed with a tough question, couldn’t give a straight answer. He was caught flip flopping on numerous issues, and didn’t look like he could think of answers on the fly. Definitely the worst debate performance I’ve witnessed so far this election.

Grade: D -

Who won? Huckabee
Who lost? Romney

The Iraqi Ethnic System

“The morgue in central Baghdad cannot deal with the volume of bodies. Whereas before the war it had to deal with three or four deaths a month, now the numbers are more than fifty per day. In the old Iraq, the doctors painstakingly conducted elaborate post-mortem examinations to the same level as European hospitals. Today the death certificate is issued after only a cursory examination. Such is the volume of corpses that the temporary refrigerated trailers are full at all times. The identity of most of the victims is difficult to establish. Most are buried in anonymous mass graves without ceremony. Across the country it is reasonable to speculate more than 100 people per day died violently during the summer of 2006.”[1]

To those who have been following the chaos in Iraq since the American invasion in 2003, the above quote should come as no surprise. However, that does not mean that observers have no questions concerning the violence. For most of the casualties in Iraq are not Coalition troops killed by an organized resistance movement. Instead, the overwhelming majority of the deaths in Iraq are Iraqis killed by other Iraqis[2]. Conflict between (and sometimes within) the three major identity groups has been non-stop and has come in the worst, and most brutal, form. Methods of killing include beheadings, assassinations, shootings, and the most blatant expression of unconstrained hate, suicide bombings. Civilians, rather than armed militants, have taken the brunt of the attacks. Women and children are not only included among the dead, but are often even targeted.

Why, many ask, do Iraqis choose to kill each other rather than uniting against a common enemy, represented by the Americans? Where is the Iraqi sense of nationalism and brotherhood? Why does it seem Iraq cannot exist without the presence of a strong man? A study of Iraqi history and power politics and ethnic systems helps to provide answers to these questions. Though Iraq can be considered a perennial state, its discontinuous status, along with regular colonial sponsorship of a minority group, has prevented the creation of a national mythomoteur and the sense national belonging necessary to create a unified state.

Classification of Iraq as a State

Trying to classify Iraq into one of the three primary designations (Perennial, Modern Racist, or Post-Colonial) is a very difficult task for the simple reason that Iraq does not qualify as a pure representation of any of these forms. Iraq is most certainly not a Modern Racist State as it lacks the defining qualities of a domestically created constitution, population increase through mass migration, and recent (within the last 300 years) creation. The question is then left to be decided: Is Iraq a perennial state or a post-colonial state? A strong argument can be made for both.

Its post-colonial qualities cannot be denied. Iraq has been colonized by many peoples, most decidedly by the Ottomans and the British[3], and many are claiming now the Americans are trying to establish themselves as colonizers[4]. Iraq’s present-day borders were defined by the League of Nations and the British through its mandate in 1924[5]. It is nearly impossible to find an aspect of Iraqi existence that has not been influenced its colonizers. Iraq’s original government, its high society, and even the development of its ethnic system were very much defined by the influence of the British colonizers[6].

Despite the evidence of Iraq being a post-colonial state, I would designate Iraq as a perennial state, though a discontinuous one. Several qualities of modern Iraqi culture among the populace find their roots from two of the earliest civilizations established in the region. What is known as the “Great Man Complex” (looking to powerful, charismatic leaders rather than the will of the people for guidance) can be seen all the way back to the Sumerian civilization, which originated in 3000 B.C.[7]. The Iraqi historical tendency to adhere to rigid codes of conduct finds its roots in the Babylonian Empire and the famous Hammurabi Code[8]. In addition to its cultural roots, the ancestors of modern day Iraqis can in large part be found in the ancient Akkadians, who emerged as a significant political force in 2400 B.C.[9].

The dominant force in modern-day Iraqi culture, Islam, also arrived before any of the groups that we would qualify as “colonizers”. However, influence between Islam and pre-existing Iraqi culture was not one-way. Just as Islam influenced Iraqi culture, Iraqi culture influenced Islam, especially on its organization. It had a particularly strong effect on the Shia sect of Islam which was influenced considerably by the religion of the Babylonians and Zoroastrianism[10].

As I mentioned earlier, though I consider Iraq to be a perennial state, it is certainly a discontinuous one. Iraq has been regularly invaded by several peoples during its history. Invading groups include the Assyrians, Persians, Parthians, Turks, Mongols, Ottomans, and the British, just to name a few. Some, such as the Persians and the and the Ottomans, significantly influenced Iraqi culture. Others, most notably the Assyrians and the Mongols, tried to destroy Iraqi culture[11].

Iraqi Acquisition of Territory and Peoples

The two primary methods of population and territory increase for Iraq were natural increase and various forms of migration.

Iraq had an advantage in population increase over most other areas of the world in that it was one of the first regions (the “fertile crescent”) to develop food production, which occurred in around 6000 B.C.[12]. This development allowed for a switch from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a more sedentary one that revolved around agriculture. Irrigation, developed in 5000 B.C., allowed for amplified food production[13]. Large towns can be first seen in 4000 B.C., and rudimentary writing was fashioned around 3000 B.C.[14]. All of these factors permitted the creation of the first town with population over 50,000 in the world in 2500 B.C.[15].

Some of the first “migrations” of peoples into Iraq were the forced movements of slaves, which were mainly prisoners of war of the early civilizations[16]. Another significant factor in population increase was the assimilation into Iraqi culture of many of the ruling groups. The greatest rapid increase in Iraqi population resulted from the Arab invasions in 633 A.D.[17].

After the Arab invasions, Arab-Islamic culture became the dominant force in Iraq. The Arabs established themselves as the dominant group and any members of pre-Arab invasion groups that wanted to become part of the Arab community and benefit from inclusion needed to first become mawali. Mawali is the word for non-Arab converts to Islam. Though mawali were not immediately given the benefits of being “Arab”, over several generations (often hundreds of years) mawali were eventually accepted as “Arab” and included within the dominant culture[18]. Because, by definition, Mawali had to be Muslim, members of other religions (most notably Assyrian Christians) did not have this opportunity of social mobility.

Iraq’s Ethnic Groups

There are four significant ethnic groups that currently exist within Iraq. The largest one by far is the Arab group, which makes up approximately 80% of the people of Iraq[19]. However, this group is split by the dynamic of religion. Though nearly all Arabs in Iraq are Muslim, 25% belong to the Sunni sect, and 75% belong to the Shia sect[20]. The next largest ethnic group, the Kurds, make up approximately 15% of the population, with Turkmens and Assyrian Christians making up the rest of the population[21].

Rise of the Shia Sect

Though there had been a number of Shia Arabs in Iraq since the creation of the Shia sect in 661 A.D.[22], Sunnis was the dominant sect in Iraq until two significant events led to the rise of popularity of Shiism. The first of these was the Mongol invasions, first by Hulagu Khan in 1258 and then by Tamerlane in 1401. The massacres by the Mongols were significantly more devastating than the Black Plague in Europe. When recovering from these slaughters, many survivors found the mysticism of the Shia sect much more attractive than the decidedly unspiritual rationalism of the Sunni sect and converted in large numbers. The second event to bring about large numbers of conversions was the colonization of Iraq by the Ottomans. Finding Ottoman rule very oppressive, countless Iraqis converted to Shiism in an attempt to present a significant resistance the new rulers[23].

Impact of Ottoman Rule

The Ottomans took Iraq from the Persians from 1514 but conflict between the two empires in Iraq continued for more than a hundred more years. This had the effect of solidifying divisions between the Sunni (backed by the Ottomans) and Shia (backed by the Persians) sects. In an attempt to establish dominance in Iraq, the Ottoman rulers favored the Sunnis, giving them more economic and political power. This would be just the first step toward minority Sunni dominance in Iraq. Shiites fought this oppression by forming their own underground “governments” called marjiyah, which were led by religious leaders. To allow for greater taxation and Sunni dominance of Iraq, the Ottomans encouraged the transformation of semi-nomadic groups into landed farmers and merchants. As Sunnis owned most of the land in Iraq, Shiites often became de facto serfs, dependent on the Sunnis. This increased Shia resentment of the Sunni ruling class[24].

Influence of British Rule

With the onset of World War I in 1914, Great Britain invaded Iraq in an attempt to weaken the Ottoman Empire[25]. When the war ended and the Ottoman Empire effectively collapsed, the League of Nations, encouraged by the British, mandated Iraq to Great Britain with the orders to provide Iraq “with such advice and assistance as may be required” until Iraq would ready govern itself[26]. Recognizing that the Kurds were not a “natural” part of Iraq, the British considered granting them independence until oil was found in Kurdistan[27].

A decision that would have huge consequences in the future, the British created two Iraqi armies. The first was made up entirely of Assyrians and was used as a tool of the British throughout their rule. This increased Arab resentment of Assyrians and lead to their persecution with the independence of Iraq. The second army was made up of Arabs from both sects but its officer class was dominated by Sunnis. This helped make many Sunnis loyal to the British as they knew their continued dominance was due to the goodwill of the British[28]. In addition to this, the British also staffed the Iraqi government with Sunnis and installed a Sunni king[29]. This continued a trend stretching back from 1514 and continuing until 2003 of dominance of the country by a Sunni minority.

Ethnic System of Independent Iraq

British influence in Iraq continued until 1958, when the British installed king was overthrown by the Sunni-dominated military in 1958[30]. This was the start of a trend of military dominance of Iraq that would continue until the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by American-led coalition forces. The subsequent military governments had to face to problems of ruling the country as members of a minority group. They generally had two separate policies, one for the Kurds and one for the Shiite Arabs.

The Kurds presented a significant threat to Sunni rule, as most Kurds never considered themselves to be truly Iraqi. There had been a significant resistance movement by the Kurds since they were denied independence by the British. This resistance only gained strength with the 1958 revolution[31]. The military governments generally dealt with the Kurds by at times giving them significant autonomy, in an attempt to appease, and cracking down on the Kurds violently if they made a strong push for outright independence[32]. The policy of oppression peaked with the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds by Saddam Hussein in 1988[33].

More concerning to the Sunni-dominated government, however, was the Shia majority. Knowing that force alone would not allow them to control the Shiites, the government used very different policies concerning them. Their ultimate goal was to unite the Shiites and the Sunnis in such a way that the Shiites would accept Sunni rule. The first step they took was completely secularizing the state, thereby taking their main difference (religion) out of the equation. The government then played on alternating popular movements of Arab nationalism (driven by hate of Western powers and Israel) and Iraqi nationalism (driven by pride in Iraq’s ancient civilizations and suppressed movements by Shiites and Sunnis when they tried to assert their differences from each other[34].

Unfortunately for the Sunni minority, these policies were generally not successful. Since 1958, there have been almost constant Kurdish uprisings, and every time they have been put down, the Kurdish independence movement has grown stronger[35]. Continuing Sunni dominance has resulted in increased resentment by the Shiites, leading to stronger Shiite “nationalism”[36].

All of these tensions exploded after the American invasion in 2003. According to the Failed State Index, Iraq is now the second most unstable country in the world, after only Somalia. There has been very extensive sectarian violence resulting in at least 82,000 Iraqi deaths according to Iraq Body Count. The Kurds are increasingly demanding complete autonomy and because of fear of Shiite dominance of the new government, the Sunnis have pulled out of the government.

Existence of a Mythomoteur

So does a national mythomoteur exist for Iraq? Put very simply, no. There are two, interrelated, reasons for this. The first is a history of government suppressing the majority. This has suppressed the possibility of a popularly created mythomoteur. Related to this, constant conflict, whether violent or not, between the three main groups in Iraq has prevented any strong common identity (which is normally necessary for a significant national narrative) between the groups.

Conclusion

Unlike continuous perennial states such as Iran and China, Iraq, being a discontinuous state, has had significant problems in creating a significant national identity. Foreign intervention, especially colonial sponsorship of a minority group, has further suppressed any opportunity for a common mythomoteur to be created for Iraq. This has instead led to Sunni dominance of the country until the American invasion. The Sunnis chose to exclude the Kurds from Iraqi culture, further unconsciously persuading the Kurds to drive for independence. At the same time, Shiite identity was suppressed by the government but paradoxically strengthened. These policies have resulted in violence with the destruction of the Sunni government. This violence shows no sign of stopping, and until the Iraqi people can find some kind of common identity, it probably never will.

References

Downes, Richard. In Search of Iraq: Baghdad to Babylon. 2006. Dublin: New Island.

Baram, Amatzia. “A Case of Imported Identity: The Modernizing Secular Ruling Elites of Iraq

and the Concept of Mesopotamian-Inspired Territorial Nationalism, 1922-1992”.

Poetics Today. Vol. 15, No. 2 (Summer 1994) pgs. 279-319

Evans, Luther Harris. “The Emancipation of Iraq from the Mandates System”. The American

Political Science Review. Vol. 26, No. 6 (Dec. 1932) pgs. 1024-1049

Mathews, Jessica. “Now for the Hard Part”. Foreign Policy. No. 137 (July-Aug. 2003) pg. 51

Polk, William R. Understanding Iraq. 2005. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Sidahmed, Abdel Salam. “Islamism, Nationalism, and Sectarianism”. In Iraq: Preventing A New

Generation of Conflict. Edited by Markus E. Bouillon, David M. Malone, and Ben

Roswell. London and Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Slugett, Marion and Peter Slugett. “The Historiography of Modern Iraq”. The American Historical

Review. Vol. 96, No. 5 (Dec. 1991) pgs. 1408-1421

Stansfield, Gareth. Iraq. 2007. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Yildiz, Kerim. The Kurds in Iraq: Past, Present, and Future. 2007. London and Ann Arbor, MI:

Pluto Press.

[1] Downes, pg 251-252

[2] Iraqbodycount.com

[3] Evans, 1024-1025

[4] Mathews, 51

[5] Evans, 1024

[6] Polk, 88-93

[7] Polk, 20-21

[8] Stansfield, 15

[9] Polk, 26-28

[10] Polk, 46-47

[11] Polk, 28-75

[12] Polk, 14

[13] Stansfield, 12

[14] Polk, 18-19

[15] Polk, 22

[16] Stansfield, 13

[17] Polk, 41

[18] Polk, 44-45

[19] Slugett, 1413

[20] CIA World Factbook

[21] Slugett, 1413

[22] Stansfield, 20

[23] Polk, 58-62

[24] Polk, 59-62

[25] Stansfield, 33

[26] Evans, 1024-1025

[27] Polk, 82

[28] Polk, 84-85

[29] Sidahmed, 71

[30] Polk, 110

[31] Yildiz, 11-16

[32] Yildiz, 10-24

[33] Yildiz, 28-29

[34] Baram, 290-310

[35] Yildiz, 34-48

[36] Polk, 123-142

So we raided an insurgent camp in the Sinjar province of western Iraq, near the Syrian border. This camp’s main responsibility seems to be to smuggle foreign fighters into Iraq to join the insurgency. Included in the documents at the camp were 700 of the foreign fighters’ birthplaces, which included some surprises:

-305 or 41% were from Saudi Arabia. 137 or 18% were from Libya. Both of these countries have oppressive governments that we consider allies in the “war on terror”. Many speculate (I believe rightly) that the presence of these oppressive government helps breed this extremism and hatred of the West. So what do we do? The more liberal among us would have us stop backing these governments and demand that they hold the same free and fair elections that we requested of Saddam before we invaded Iraq. In the long run, yes, I think this would yield good results. The problem is that it will take at least a generation for this extremism, which is not limited just to those who fight in Iraq, to die down. I fear, as Chris Dodd does, that if free and fair elections were held in these countries today, extremist groups like Islamic Jihad and Muslim Brotherhood would win 85% of the vote (similar to what we have seen in Palestine with the election of a Hamas-led government). This transition is going to take time and it needs to begin with the easing of civil rights restrictions and the allowance of low-level free elections to give the people some voice, without providing them with the amount of power that could be abused and turned against the U.S. and their fellow citizens.

-When looking into the impact that Iran seems to have had in terms of supplying fighters, the New York Times was underwhelmed. It seems that out of the 25,000 prisoners we hold in Iraq, only 11 are from Iran. This means one of three things: that Iran is not as involved as we thought they were, that they are providing only arms and training and not actual soldiers, or that they are very sneaky.

-Something that seems clear is that by and large the insurgents are Iraqi and Sunni (Iran is Shia). The NYT claims that 4/5ths of those detained by the U.S. are Sunni Arab, even though Sunni Arabs make up only 1/5th of Iraq’s population. This could be a (keep in mind this is relative) good thing. If these claims are true, then it does not seem that Iraq is the all out civil war that many of us supposed. We may be fighting (primarily) one minority group who fears losing power in Iraq.

-It also seems that as a result of our cracking down on foreign fighters, whom American military officials believe are committing 90% of the suicide bombings, such bombings have been cut in half since the summer months.

Keep in mind that I am not terribly pro-war. However, it is nice to see some progress (if we can call this that) in Iraq when all we hear of is destruction, devastation, and death.

 And guess who’s catching Romney in Iowa?