Thanks, Tamerlane. I think if we were to throw in the religious issues, then I would have a good starting point for understanding this. I’m never very clear on the whole Sunni / Shia’a thing. Not to mention the minority non-Muslim populations.
I remember this early sign that the Kurdish issues were not going to be simple. I remember vividly that we stabbed the Kurds and Shia’a in the back. Our troops actually begged Washington for permission to intervene against the Iraqis. So, I’m sure, the Kurds’ recollections are horrifying.
You mean in general? Or specifially as regards Iraq?
If in general I have a long expository post from a year or two ago I can dredge up that goes into the historical details about the nature of the split, if you’re curious.
In regard to Iraq, southern Iraq has always ( since there has been Shi’ites ) been the traditional center of Imami or Twelver Shi’ism, what you might call “mainstream” Shi’ism of the same general sort that is practiced in Iran. In fact the “clerics” that were imported to help convert the population of Persia/Iran in the 16th century mostly came from there. Currently they make up the majority of Iraq’s population ( ~ 60% ), are mostly ( not exclusively ) associated with southern Iraq and are overwhelmingly Arab ( this includes the culturally distinct Ma’dan, the so-called “Marsh Arabs”, whom Saddam has been accused of attempting to destroy by draining their marshland homes in retaliation for the '91 uprising ). They traditionally have been locked out of power, despite their numerical superiority. The Ottomans were Sunni, the Hashemite monarchy that was imposed on Iraq was Sunni and based itself ( logically enough ) on centrally located Baghdad, in an overwhelmingly Sunni region, and virtually all of the major Ba’athists in Iraq emerged from the same area ( one should note this has as much or more to do with regional politics as it does with religion ).
The connections between Iraqi and Iranian Shi’ites have probably been a bit overplayed - There are of course cultural and ethnic differences and Iraqi Shi’ites ( like most Iranian Shi’ites, actually ) aren’t particularly hyper-devout fundamentalists ( though they do exist in Iraq, those that survived Iraqi purges ). Also the Shi’a community for the most part didn’t particularly rally around the Iranians when they counter-attacked into S. Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War ( despite an anit-regime uprising in 1977 ). However relations with the Ba’athists worsened after the Iran-Iraq War and when there was that attempt to break away from a weakened central Iraq after the Gulf War, things got really bad. Saddam has traditionally played a carrot and stick game with the Shi’ites ( more carrot during the Iran-Iraq War, mostly stick before and afterwards ) to keep them under control.
The Sunni Arab minority ( Sunni Muslims make up another 30-odd % of Iraq’s population, but remember many are Kurds - also this includes another culturally distinct Arab group, the Bedouin ) is centrally located in Iraq and dominate Baghdad. As I said it is this group that the regime traditionally leans on for support - So from here comes government and military officers, the Republican Guard units, etc. Though of course it is a mistake to assume they are all loyal to Saddam. Again, many of these folks are quite secular. It is geo-political and tribal rivalries that dominate in Iraq, not so much religion per se.
Well, there are the Assyrians who are overwhelmingly Christian ( various rites ) - Estimates of numbers vary, but range up to 2,000,000 ( likely too high - other estimates put Christians at 5% of the population, which would be a little more than half that). Small number of Alevi ( Kurds and some Turkomen like the Shabaks near Mosul ) who are either a very heterodox Muslim sect or a separate religion. A small number of Yazidis of course ( Kurds, again ). A small Armenian enclave ( Christian ). A handful of Baha’i. A tiny number of Jews.
Apparently (heard from the news), under the Geneva convention, we are legally obligated, as an occupying country, to defend the welfare of the people we are occupying, including the Kurds. That means that, at least according to international law (which, admittedly, is not exactly our forte), we ARE required to defend the Kurds from the Turks if hostilities break out, no different than if Turkey invaded U.S. or British territory.
