IRAG'S HELL - WILL IT END AND IF SO, WHEN AND HOW? DOES IRAQ NEEDS A DICTATOR? PT.2

The people of Iraq needs to build a unity bridge, but first, they need a reputable architect. 

It has now been 11 days since the forces of destruction which have been on leashed on the people of Iraq, by the American and coalition forces, set of devastating bombs on the citizens of Baghdad. These Iraqis were unaware of the inferno which was about to engulf them and take the lives of at least 300 of them, with  many more being badly injured and disfigured.


This insanity; this madness, just like that perpetuated by the Tunisian-French citizen on the innocent people of Nice, is what Daesh/IS propagates as the 'victories' and 'successes' of their spineless and devilish fighters. Now, if achievements mean anything, it should be that are things and ideas which advance the progress of humans, so, by what kind of perversion does IS/Daesh considers the the destruction of the innocents as 'victories' and 'successes', unless it is the intention to effect the devolution of anywhere which they infected - yes, infected, because IS/Daesh is a virulent disease - back into the primitive stone age period which they aspire toward?


As I have already noted in the first part of this post, I hold the Americans and the British and their coalition allies who invaded Iraq, responsible for setting in motion the train of events which has led to the calamitous situation which Iraq and some of her neighbours, such as Syria and Yemen, find themselves in at present.  At the same time, it is clear that, now that the 'genie' is out of the bottle, there is little positive that can come from spending too much time having a post mortem, unless it is likely that it could lead to the invading countries acknowledging their culpability for what has happened, and paying the Iraqis just compensation for the harm which has befallen them.

That, as we well know, and as the outcome of the Chilcot Report has underlined, is not going to happen. America and Britain and their allies are not going to hold their hands up and declare that they had been wrong to invade Iraq, or that their intention was to secure their own, and not the self-interests of the Iraqis. That far from being motivated to bestow 'democracy' on the people of Iraq, their calculation was that, they would have gone ahead with the war, even if they had figured that it would have resulted in the destruction which it has continued to give rise to, and at the cost of so many Iraqi lives. 

The bottom line is that Iraqi lives are not worth as much as European and American lives. Indeed, the west might have been complacent enough to leave the people of the Middle East to suffer, unaided, in the cauldron it has created for them, had IS/Daesh not decided to expand their destructive reach to Europe and America

One of the consequences of the catastrophic wars on Iraq, has been the fact that, it has sifted the power balance from the Sunni minority, to the Shia majority.  It is this lost power which the extremists amongst the Sunnis are deadly unhappy about, and are, apparently with the coersion of Daesh/IS, trying to regain. 

It seems to me that, the late Saddam Hussein was partly able to maintain control over the Iraqi people because he was, yes, a dictator, and a ruthless one at that. The Shias have now gotten more power in Iraq, but their government is hamstrung with the imposition of 'democracy' on the country, which has ensured that the country remains in a state of political uncertainty, insecurity and instability. In other words, the Americans have given or contrived for the Iraqi people to have a dysfunctional 'democracy' and the dysfunctional government which it has given rise to.

Unfortunately, Daesh/IS is not an entity which any government or people can reason with, as it is devoid of human attributes.

And so it seems to me that, the question for the people of Iraq is that of them making a choice between having a 'dysfunctional democracy', now, with an equally, if not more dysfunctional and ineffective government, or whether they have a dictatorship, now, which is capable of providing them with the security and stability the country needs to have, before it can progress to having a more 'democratic' system of government and society.

The difference between this kind of model and the one which was practice by Saddam Hussein is that this one will be a predominantly Shai dictatorship.  When a country is being destroyed by subhumans like Daesh/IS, such a scale of destruction cannot be combated by adopting the 'democratic' method.


If a country cannot provide its citizens with safety, security, stability and peace, then the value of any 'democracy' it is able to provide them  with,is very debatable. I would not be surprised if most of Iraq' 37 million population would agree with that sentiment, whether they belong to 60 plus percent of Shais, or the 30 plus percent of Sunnis making it up.


As well as having a dictator and/or military rule to get them through this critical stage of their development - that of gaining the peace, security and stability which is crucial for nation building -  the people of Iraq need to bridge the religious gap which is holding them back, and which is being exploited by Daesh/IS, and probably other factionalists.  They need to prioritise their loyalty to their country; above religion and ethnic affiliations.

Of course, in order for them to do so, they need to be able to rely on the state, 'their country', to provide them with the sense of security, protection and peace which ordinary people need to get on with their lives, and help to build their country.

Being able to live in peace should also be a 'human right', but peace and security has to be won and secured.