There Has Never Been an 'Iraqi People'

How many times have you heard the phrase "Iraqi people" employed in language like "free the Iraqi people from oppression" and "we must help the Iraqi people achieve democracy"?

Those on the left and right can argue all day and, apparently, for years about what lies were told or not told leading up to the war in Iraq. But nobody has talked about the one misconception about the entire ordeal.

Okay... the biggest and most important "lie" that's been told by those who want to bring "freedom to the Iraqi people" - the fact that there has never been an "Iraqi people" at all.

The fact is that Iraq itself is not really a country. It's just an area in Greater Arabia where lines were drawn in the sand by the British after WWI.

The British have done something similarly stupid with many other "countries."

In fact, the British have always been experts in dividing and conquering (mostly dividing) other countries in the name of "bringing civilization to the world." The "civilizing" has always mostly been "exploiting" and the Brits have always - ALWAYS - left disaster in their wake.

It was the British who "civilized" India. When their influence was waning they decided to divide the Hindus and Muslims. There are now three countries where India used to be. Pakistan and India have been at war or on the verge of war ever since.

Instead of an "Ireland" we now have a Northern Ireland and an Ireland - on the same island - thanks to the Brits.

The list is endless but it is also thanks to the Brits that we have an "Iraqi people." In the case of Iraq, the Brits did a reverse and threw together three diverse and historically violent cultures into a conglomerated "Iraq," obtusely neglecting the obvious - that the three had not that much besides logistics in common.

The White House would have us believe that there is but one "Iraq" only in need of liberation from the evil Saddam Hussein. They refuse to accept (or admit) that "insurgents" from outside Iraq are culturally and ethnically the same as those indigenous to "Iraq" (i.e., Arab). They would also have us believe that there are only the "oppressed" and the "insurgents" in Iraq; "black and white," "wrong and right" and "left or right."

Just the way the American electorate likes to think about things.

How convenient.

What they have never explained or addressed (and likely never will) is the fact that we are dealing with an area of Arab Sunni Muslims, culturally linked to most Arabs in some of the surrounding countries, a Shia Muslim population, culturally linked to Iran, which is Persian, and the Kurds, who are not culturally linked to either.

If anybody needed to be "rescued" it was the Kurds, who have been brutalized by Turkey, Iran and Saddam Hussein over the years. Each has claimed a share of what was once Kurdistan. The Turks and Iran would each go to war to prevent the rise of the Kurds. So would just about any installed Iraqi regime.

In fact, it was Turkey's distrust of American-Kurdish motives that was behind their refusal to aid the US in the invasion of Iraq.

Given the absence of a dictator to run the "country" of Iraq, over the years, these three diverse cultures have and continue to kill each other. But, even Saddam's brutal regime was not able to completely control all three.

Therein lies the prospects for the "civil war" we've heard was possible. It's not between "insurgents" and the "Iraqi people"... it's the three distinct cultures and the interests and influence of the surrounding countries that will make this an eventuality.

The questions remain: Is Bush aware of this history? And, if not, why not? How could he and his war hawks have been so stupid as to ignore these cultural differences? Did they delude themselves into believing there was an "Iraqi people"? Or, did they simply deceive the American people into believing this hogwash?

"Steadfast" is one thing in the face of a war and the reasons for going to war. "Stubborn," "stupid" and historically "ignorant" is quite another.

The American people usually trust their leadership. America has always come to the rescue of a "people." That's what the American people believed they were doing when we invaded Iraq. That is... after we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction."

President Bush and his administration has promoted constantly the idea that we are protecting America by invading Iraq. And he has been consistent in his support for the "Iraqi people," even though there has never really been any such thing.

President Bush has used every reason and excuse to invade and stay in Iraq. It is to benefit the "Iraqi people" that we are still there, according to Bush.

It's become clear that Bush even believes some of the rhetoric he promotes. But how the cultural diversity and history got past him is still unclear. Or, did he simply get them past the American people?

Yes, we can always count on the British to get things backwards when it comes to dealing with other cultures - divide, conquer, and consolidate problems. And, historically, it is the British who are behind the Iraq calamity.

And it will not end well - or with McDonald's, Wal-Mart and Home Depot establishing business in this horrid place.

Saddam Hussein warned America not to stick its hand in Iraq. Most Americans interpreted that remark as a threat about his capabilities in fighting against an invasion. In hindsight, it may have been a threat of the diversity America would face in the aftermath of an invasion.

Saddam sure would have known about that problem.

If there is a coming civil war - and likely a wider war - it will come even sooner because of our attempt to establish a "democracy" among three culturally-diverse peoples in a region that has never known or accepted anything other than brutal regimes.

And Bush keeps promoting the idea that we are there to aid "the Iraqi people." And our hand is getting bloody.

Regards "Iraq," the truth is that Bush is so historically ignorant and obtuse...

He could probably be elected British Prime Minister.