A united Iraq - an impossible dream

Rosen’s statement that “in fact, the army was the most nationalist institution in the country ...” is a deception. Bremer was correct when he said the Shiites hated the Iraqi army. Nor was it only Shiites who hated it. So did the majority of the Kurdish people and some Arab Sunnis. The former Iraqi army was controlled by Sunnis and Ba’athites, despite the many Shiite officers of lower rank.

If the Americans want to stabilise Iraq, it is essential to give the Iraqi people the opportunity, if they so wish, to create their own unified nation. This is, however, an unlikely event. A united Iraq does not take into account that Shiite and Sunnis have been killing each other for 1,300 years. Their mutual antagonism has not arisen since the US occupation. Reconciliation between these two factions would be a long and arduous process, and it is certainly not a viable proposition at this stage.

How can further deaths among American troops be avoided? How can the cost of a united Iraq be prevented from escalating into billions of dollars? The solution is to have Shiite and Sunnis settled in different areas and ruling themselves. Federalism at this stage is the best solution. If Baghdad is a problem there are plenty of alternatives, including dividing the city into two major parts, which, in fact, is what is occurring anyway.

Rosen’s statement that “there is no evidence that Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis” is flawed. Mr Rosen has obviously never heard of the genocide campaign (Anfal) against civilian Kurds which cost of about 200,000 lives, mostly women and children. Their remains have been discovered in mass graves in the deserts of Iraq. Has he also counted the Shiite casualties during the period of tyranny? Mr Rosen has failed to pay attention to the reality of the lives of the majority of Shiites and Kurds.

There are two rational alternatives; one is democratic and morally humanitarian. It is to divide Iraq into three parts, each ruling itself independently with some assistance from the international community. This alternative may eventually move towards full independence. The Kurds are the most likely to adopt this alternative: they claimed independence after including Kirkuk city in the Kurdistan region. The city had suffered from Arabisation under Saddam’s regime.. This situation may be repeated in the south of Iraq which also desires independence.

The second alternative is the return of the Ba’athists to power through a military coup d'état: this would suppress all the Iraqi people again. This alternative is naturally unacceptable to the Iraqi majority. However, it would be acceptable to Ba’athists, terrorist groups and possibly even Mr Rosen, because they share an aim of stabilising Iraq at any human cost.

Reconciliation for Ba’athists means a return to power and implies a military coup to take control of all areas of Iraq and create a national identity and a nationalist army.

The real story and the real progress on the ground are there for the world community to see. Iraq must divide into three parts, as did former Yugoslavia. Iraq as a united country is an impossible dream. Unofficial referendums, particularly among Kurds, tell us that Iraq will divide sooner or later, and the myth of “Iraq” will fade into the past.