Well, with the best of intentions - we go back to Iraq...

I was intending this week to post on a New Zealand topic - that of the state of the education system and the Year 13 examination system that has just this year totally flunked its first test. There has been much in the media on the subject, NZ anyway. There has been much comment. There has been political accusation and denial.

If you follow you will get as much as you need and more. The whole debate goes back as far mid January.

My favourite "quote" from the whole raruraru? The University that revealed that they had had complaints from some first time enrollees about being rejected because they did not have three specific "achievement levels". The three credits they were missing?

Essentially they were literacy, comprehension and numeracy.

No, what has grabbed my attention are the juxtapositions presented by three different blogs...

Free Iraq

Baghdad Burning

Glimpse of Iraq.

From the Guardian by way of "Free Iraq" comes this offering

"Sunday, February 20, 2005

Iraqi Oil Workers

"We lived through dark days under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. When the regime fell, people wanted a new life: a life without shackles and terror; a life where we could rebuild our country and enjoy its natural wealth. Instead, our communities have been attacked with chemicals and cluster bombs, and our people tortured, raped and killed in our homes.

Saddam's secret police used to creep over the roofs into our homes at night; occupation troops now break down our doors in broad daylight. The media do not show even a fraction of the devastation that has engulfed Iraq. Journalists who dare to report the truth of what is happening have been kidnapped by terrorists. This serves the agenda of the occupation, which aims to eliminate witnesses to its crimes.

Workers in Iraq's southern oilfields began organising soon after British occupying forces invaded Basra. We founded our union, the Southern Oil Company Union, just 11 days after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. When the occupation troops stood back and allowed Basra's hospitals, universities and public services to be burned and looted, while they defended only the oil ministry and oilfields, we knew we were dealing with a brutal force prepared to impose its will without regard for human suffering. From the beginning, we were left in no doubt that the US and its allies had come to take control of our oil resources.

The occupation authorities have maintained many of Saddam's repressive laws, including the 1987 order which robbed us of basic union rights, including the right to strike. Today, we still have no official recognition as a trade union, despite having 23,000 members in 10 oil and gas companies in Basra, Amara, Nassiriya, and up to Anbar province. However, we draw our legitimacy from the workers, not the government. We believe unions should operate regardless of the government's wishes, until the people are able finally to elect a genuinely accountable and independent Iraqi government, which represents our interests and not those of American imperialism.

OK, I accept that is a left wing organisation. Labour unions the world over are. I am more interested in the reasoning - what was "protected and secured", what was "left to be looted". Remember this when we get a bit further down as there is a direct connection to one of the future possibilities.

Then let's move on to the next - Baghdad Burning . Look for the heading "Groceries and Election Results"

The important parts from here -

"Did you hear about the election results?" E. asked Abu Ammar. Abu Ammar shook his head in the affirmative and squashed his cigarette with a slippered foot. "Well, we were expecting it." He shrugged his shoulders and continued, "Most Shia voted for list 169. They were blaring it out at the Husseiniya near our house the night of the elections. I was there for evening prayer." A Husseiniya is a sort of mosque for Shia. We had heard that many of them were campaigning for list 169- the Sistani-backed list.

I shook my head and sighed. "So do you still think the Americans want to turn Iraq into another America? You said last year that if we gave them a chance, Baghdad would look like New York." I said in reference to a conversation we had last year. E. gave me a wary look and tried to draw my attention to some onions, "Oh hey- look at the onions- do we have onions?"

Abu Ammar shook his head and sighed, "Well if we're New York or we're Baghdad or we're hell, it's not going to make a difference to me. I'll still sell my vegetables here."

I nodded and handed over the bags to be weighed. "Well… they're going to turn us into another Iran. You know list 169 means we might turn into Iran." Abu Ammar pondered this a moment as he put the bags on the old brass scale and adjusted the weights.

"And is Iran so bad?" He finally asked. Well no, Abu Ammar, I wanted to answer, it's not bad for *you* - you're a man… if anything your right to several temporary marriages, a few permanent ones and the right to subdue females will increase. Why should it be so bad? Instead I was silent. It's not a good thing to criticize Iran these days. I numbly reached for the bags he handed me, trying to rise out of that sinking feeling that overwhelmed me when the results were first made public.

It's not about a Sunni government or a Shia government- it's about the possibility of an Iranian-modeled Iraq. Many Shia are also appalled with the results of the elections. There's talk of Sunnis being marginalized by the elections but that isn't the situation. It's not just Sunnis- it's moderate Shia and secular people in general who have been marginalized.

The list is frightening- Da'awa, SCIRI, Chalabi, Hussein Shahristani and a whole collection of pro-Iran political figures and clerics. They are going to have a primary role in writing the new constitution. There's talk of Shari'a, or Islamic law, having a very primary role in the new constitution. The problem is, whose Shari'a? Shari'a for many Shia differs from that of Sunni Shari'a. And what about all the other religions? What about Christians and Mendiyeen?

Is anyone surprised that the same people who came along with the Americans - the same puppets who all had a go at the presidency last year - are the ones who came out on top in the elections? Jaffari, Talbani, Barazani, Hakim, Allawi, Chalabi… exiles, convicted criminals and war lords. Welcome to the new Iraq.

Ibraheim Al-Jaffari, the head of the pro-Iran Da'awa party gave an interview the other day. He tried very hard to pretend he was open-minded and that he wasn't going to turn the once-secular Iraq into a fundamentalist Shia state but the fact of the matter remains that he is the head of the Da'awa party. The same party that was responsible for some of the most infamous explosions and assassinations in Iraq during the last few decades. This is the same party that calls for an Islamic Republic modeled like Iran. Most of its members have spent a substantial amount of time in Iran.

Jaffari cannot separate himself from the ideology of his party.

Then there's Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). He got to be puppet president for the month of December and what was the first thing he did? He decided overburdened, indebted Iraq owed Iran 100 billion dollars. What was the second thing he did? He tried to have the "personal status" laws that protect individuals (and especially women) eradicated.

They try to give impressive interviews to western press but the situation is wholly different on the inside. Women feel it the most. There's an almost constant pressure in Baghdad from these parties for women to cover up what little they have showing. There's a pressure in many colleges for the segregation of males and females. There are the threats, and the printed and verbal warnings, and sometimes we hear of attacks or insults.

And her conclusion...

" We've also heard of several more abductions and now assassinations. They say Badir's Brigade have come out with a new list of 'wanted'… but dead, not alive. It's a list of mainly Sunni professors, former army generals, doctors, etc. Already there have been three assassinations in Saydiyeh, an area that is a mix of Sunnis and Shia. They say Badir's Brigade people broke into the house and gunned down the families. This assassination spree is, apparently, a celebration of the election results.

It's interesting to watch American politicians talk about how American troops are the one thing standing between Sunnis and Shia killing each other in the streets. It looks more and more these days like that's not true. Right now, during all these assassinations and abductions, the troops are just standing aside and letting Iraqis get at each other. Not only that, but the new army or the National Guard are just around to protect American troops and squelch any resistance.

There was hope of a secular Iraq, even after the occupation. That hope is fading fast

Finally, from Glimpse of Iraq. and look for "Sunni Shi'ite Iraq"

This is a very long and detailed discussion of the relationships and differences between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims.

The conclusion of his post is a brief, accurate (to my research) history of modern Iraq...

How did the Sunnis come to govern modern Iraq?

At the turn of the 20th century, Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks, who came to Iraq several centuries before as conquers from central Asia, were Sunnis. They alternated on invading Iraq with the Shiite Persians. This conflict was a major factor in the modern Shiite-Sunni polarization!

The Ottomans were Sunni and generally bigotry - they usually referred to Shiites as "The Rejectionists"! Naturally they relied on Sunnis for government positions and, towards the end of the 19th century, the military. Young men went to Istanbul to go into military colleges. Shiites were generally shunned.

When the British wanted the Arabs to help them against the Ottomans during WWI, they went to the most prominent figure at the time, Hussein, the Sherif of Mecca. They promised him to free the united Arab world under his leadership. He revolted against the Turks. His army had a number of senior Iraqi officers.

The British campaign succeeded but they couldn't honor their promise to the old man… the region was already divided between France and Britain in the Sykes-Picot Treaty. They put Iraq under direct rule. The Iraqis (both Sunnis and Shiites) revolted. The British then decided to install a "democratic" government. There was a National Congress in 1924 to agree on a Constitution. The Shiites, on the recommendation of senior clergy, boycotted it. [Now I hope you can understand Sistani's eagerness not to be bitten again!]

To pay part of their debt to the Sherif of Mecca, the British installed his son, Faisal I - a Sunni, on the throne of Iraq. The (mostly Sunni) Iraqi officers who assisted the British almost monopolized the top political and military positions for decades. The civil service had to rely on people willing to work with the British and who had the ability to get the job done. Again, Sunnis dominated the civil service.

That combination determined the Sunni face of government in Iraq for the next 80 years.

Shiites, from predominantly Shiite areas, were duly represented in Parliament. They were quite active in the political life of Iraq; there were quite a number of Shiite ministers and prime ministers But those other people had entrenched themselves in senior positions!

Given the tribal element in the Iraqi society and the strong social influence, nepotism and favoritism (and no doubt some bigotry) played a strong role in admission to senior government and military posts… and military colleges. The result was that three decades later, the top brass were mostly Sunnis.

In 1958 there was a military coup. The people involved were mostly Sunni. The strongman of the junta, Qassim, in fact came from a mixed area and there was no evidence whatsoever that he practiced any form of preferential treatment between Shiites and Sunnis. There were two other military coups that led to the final one in 1968 which ultimately brought the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein to power. Due to the reasons outlined above, all those coups were dominated by Sunni military officers.

***

The Baath party is secular in origin and basic doctrine. In the rank and file of the party (that claimed some 3 million members) there were more Shiites than Sunnis - reflecting the make-up of the country. There were many senior Shiite figures. There were also numerous Kurds and Christians! However, for the same reasons outlined above, the Baath Party's key positions were dominated by Sunnis. But the "Law Giver" was Saddam and he tightly held the reigns.

Saddam and his inner circle (who were his relatives) were Sunni in name. The same social forces outlined above were also at play throughout his reign. Saddam's true religion was "Power"… his sect was "Brutal Oppression". Most people knew that if you as much as uttered something against him, you were gone. It didn't matter what your religion was.

***

As you can see, Shiite grievances are genuine but Sunni dominance of government was not through armed Sunni-Shiite conflict as has been repeatedly suggested. It was mostly foreign interference and influence first and then power and politics and power-politics throughout the past century of modern Iraqi history.

The connection that drew these three themes together was not "Iraq", that certainly is common to all three.

The connection is the political picture painted between the three people. We have, in order, -

The militant left wing labour union, secular and nationalistic.

The woman, outlining the cultural shift that she sees presaging the move from secular to theocratic State and the impact that will have on her life.

The impact of history and religious belief on the longer term future of Iraq.

The first group at first seems out of step with the other two, given that their hatred is at present focussed against the "invader". I submit, however, that will become the source of future internal strife rather than a core for the new "democracy". There is a unity of purpose - get rid of the invader - that crosses all social and religious boundaries. The problem that poses is the direction the hatred and anger will be directed as events unfold over the next few years. It is likely, in my view, that the feelings will turn inward to fuel the (by then) developing conflict between social and religious groups.

Add to that the fact that the present situation is one that Putin in particular will continue to foster. Whether that "support" will extend to the provision of arms and training is at present problematic, but I again submit is increasingly likely. There is a precedent - in Afghanistan. Oh! Not the Russian occupation. I was thinking more in terms of the US support for the insurgency by war lords and the Taleban.

The very big pity in all of this, and to some it was a totally foreseeable consequence of the US action against Iraq, is the fact that that poor country is going to be suffering for many years yet the consequences of this experiment in "imported democracy". There are parallels that can be drawn in between this instance and quite a few others in the Middle East - not as you might have expected me to say, with Vietnam.

The first parallel is with Israel/Palestine. The religious differences are less distinct, as are the racial and cultural differences. But in that is also the bigger problem. Because there is "less difference" between Shi'a and Sunni, there will be the tendancy that Riverbend referred to of marginalising the moderate Shi'a in order to strengthen the hold of the Shi'a state.

The second parallel is with Israel/Jordan back in the bad ol' days when that border was the hotbed of the conflict between Arab and Jew. It took the 1967 and Yom Kippur wars to solve that and create the buffer from the West Bank. A theocratic state of Iraq will not have that luxury. The danger, the conflict will not come from the east. Iran will be an implacable ally of the thecracy. The conflict will be fed from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in the west and south, and from Turkey in the north.

The third parallel is with Afghanistan, the genesis of which I have already discussed.

The last parallel I can see coming from this is the conflict between the US and militant Islam. I find it ironic that the primary focus of the "war against terror" has shifted from the terrorist groups spawned by AlQaeda to the "importation of democracy" to a Nation that was suffering under the heel of a tyrant but at the same time was - because of the players and the secular nature of the government - an implacable enemy of the supporters of Islamic theocracy in general and the leadership of AlQaeda in particular. The failure of the "experiment" in Iraq can only, if the US wants to maintain the control it has created, drag the US involvement out for a very long time to come. There is no question that this is no longer just a possibility as far as President Bush is concerned. His approach to the European Community this week is almost "cap in hand". Bush knows, as do Chirac and the other Euro leaders, that he has gotten the US into a considerable bind. He knows already, although he will never admit it, that his adventure in Iraq will never have the happy ending he promised during his last term in office.

That fact, that sequence of events, is also apparent to many in Iraq.

That is why the Sunni will continue to maintain their insurgency against a Shi'a dominated government.

That is why the Kurd factions will continue to support the Shi'a majority. The daily mounting debt to the Kurds will be repaid in oil or blood at some future time by the remainder of Iraq when the Kurds call for the establishment of their own nation claiming the south and east of Turkey as well as the oil-rich Kirkut region of Iraq.

That is the basis for the very real fear of the moderate Shi'a as expressed by Riverbend. Remember as you read her words that the election had some very fundamental flaws. The major of these was the fact that very few of the candidates were prepared to declare themselves for fear of reprisal from the losers - a scenario that is all too real at the present.

Late edit - from the BBC comes the news that Jaafari is the nominated candidate for the position of Prime Minister...

Ibraheim Al-Jaffari, the head of the pro-Iran Da'awa party gave an interview the other day. He tried very hard to pretend he was open-minded and that he wasn't going to turn the once-secular Iraq into a fundamentalist Shia state but the fact of the matter remains that he is the head of the Da'awa party. The same party that was responsible for some of the most infamous explosions and assassinations in Iraq during the last few decades. This is the same party that calls for an Islamic Republic modeled like Iran. Most of its members have spent a substantial amount of time in Iran.

Jaffari cannot separate himself from the ideology of his party.