By Entifadh Qanbar
Modern Iraq which was incepted by the British colonial in 1921 is different from the ancient Iraq in history books. The British colonials assembled several regions to make up the modern Iraq, combined of non-homogeneous territories which historically were not part of the ancient Iraq.
The British colonials transformed Iraq from backwardness under ailing Othman Empire to a modernised state with three pillars of statehood, strong army and police, a semi functional democratic institution; a parliament and King Faisal I, who was from Hijaz and a government bureaucracy.
The political system was formed based on alliance between two main components, the Kurds, and the Sunni Arabs. Most politicians and first officers of the newly established Iraqi army were Sunnis and Kurds, a remanence of the Othman Empire army. The first Iraqi army Mousa Al-Kadhim battalion was commanded by Jaafar Al Askari, who was a Kurd in the Othman army and other important politicians were Sunnis former Othman Army officers such as Noori Al Saeed.
The Shia of Iraq were sidelined from political and the military a continuation from the Othman Empire army for many centuries, therefore, due to lack of Shia experience in politics or the army, and as practical fix, the British foresaw a nascent stable Iraq can only established under the Sunni-Kurds alliance, which became the main pillars of the political system. This Sunni-Kurdish alliance seemed to be working at the beginning, while King Faisal I of Iraq sought an exceptional role to outreach to the Shia majority and consolidate their support to his new state of Iraq. Other minorities such Jews and Christians were living with the rest of Iraqis and participated in this new state as bureaucrats.
However, many problems started to surface with political system some of which were due to structural deficiencies of the formation of Iraq and others due to change of the political dynamics in the middle east. As I said before, the addition of territories to what knew of ancient Iraq to make up the modern Iraq such as Mosul and Basra, but specifically Kurdistan, created early friction and aspirations, which was the beginning of the fracturing of this very critical balance.
The partnership or alliance between the Sunnis and the Kurds kept Iraq monolithic meanwhile Shia aspirations in politics have not materialized to a meaningful competition for power yet. The other fundamental problem is that he Iraqi army was established by the British simultaneously with the Iraqi state, not by or under the Iraqi state. Meaning, the Iraqi army officers whose loyalty was recently to the Othman Empire did not feel they were answerable to the Iraqi state and there was always a common feeling within the military establishment that the army is doing the Iraqi state a favor rather than obedience and duty, adding to this the complication that the King is not an Iraqi, but he is a coincidental King from Hijaz.
The new political matrix of Shia-Kurdish trio alliance and the US as a strategic partner, started to fall apart with encouragement of Iran and lack of understanding by the American bureaucrats in Baghdad and Washington. With Iranian incitement, the Shia started attacking the Americans, the very people who brought them to power and next step is driving a wedge between the Shia and the Kurds.
The political matrix, which the new system was built on, is crumbling. Balance of powers and accountabilities within the constitution were gradually diffused by the Iran and their proxies. The political system therefore became increasingly dysfunctional, and nothing is working. Democracy diminished to vote counting and meaningless elections, with no accountability or rule of law.
While the rest of Iraq was sinking in corruption, terrorism and political chaos, Kurdistan took advantage of its stability to thrive and advance, but the more Kurdistan advanced the more it was targeted by Iran proxies. The Shia quickly transformed, from allies of the Kurds, now officially became the enemies of the Kurds.
With the chauvinistic culture inherited from the Baath and decades of central ironfisted rule in Baghdad, the political Shia class has started working to deprive Kurdistan from its rights, interfering in the internal matters of the region and turning federalism to an obsolete order. For Iran, the threat of the Iraqi Constitution is not only about federalism and democracy spreading to their country but also the complicated system of the state and the separation of powers makes it more difficult to control Iraq.
The more authoritarian Baghdad is, and the more central Iraq is the easier for Iran to control and rule Iraq. Also, a thriving Kurdistan where the people have freedoms, Americans and westerners are welcomed represented a threat that Iranian Kurds within few hundred miles drive they can be exposed to transfer these values back to Iran.
The more Iran gets control of Iraq, the more their ambitions grow. President Masood Barzani historical ties with Iran and many of the Kurdish leadership spent decades of their lives in Iran but he stands an obstacle for a total control of Iraq by Iran. This is exactly why he became the target, not because he is anti-Iran, but he stands for his people independent of Iran.
This is the real story of why Iraq is falling apart and without federalism and the Kurds, Iraq may be no more.
About The Author
Entifadh Qanbar is the founder and president of two non-profit organizations, Future Foundation and Kurdish Protection Action Committee (KPAC). Entifadh Qanbar worked with the late Dr. Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress (INC). In 2005, he was nominated as the Deputy Military Attaché, Embassy of Iraq, Washington D.C. He worked to strengthen US-Iraqi military cooperation.