Edmund Ghareeb’s The Kurdish Question In Iraq is a bit of an oddity. On the one hand it takes much of what the Baath government said about Arab nationalism and the Kurdish issue in the 1960s and 70s at face value. On the other hand it gives a very good criticism of Mulla Mustafa Barzani and his struggle against the Iraqi government. His thesis is that Barzani’s miscalculations and autocracy led to his downfall.
Ghareeb focuses upon Barzani because he was the pre-eminent Kurdish leader in Iraq from the 1930s until the 1970s. He called his rise an example of the “sheikhly establishment” as he gained popularity because of his brother Sheikh Ahmed Barzani’s standing as a religious leader. Mulla Mustafa followed a pattern of building tribal leadership, refusing to recognize the authority of the central government leading to armed conflict which would resulted in talks and then another round of conflict which started in the 1920s when Iraq was created.
Ghareeb’s major focus was upon the Baathist government after the 1968 coup and Barzani. In the 1970s the two sides agreed to an autonomy plan only for it to collapse. The author blames Barzani who admitted that if he didn’t have the military support of Iran, Israel and the U.S. he would have come to an agreement with Baghdad. The book goes on to note that Barzani didn’t understand that the U.S. and Iran had different interests than his, that the Baath had consolidated its control of the country and government, that he didn’t work with other opposition parties, that he never gained international support, that he alienated the Communists and USSR by fighting the government when they supported Kurdish demands, and that he was an autocrat who went after his opponents to centralize all power in Kurdistan. This differs from many other authors who blamed the 1975 Algiers Agreement between Iraq and Iran which cut support for Barzani for his failure. Ghareeb believed there were far more issues at play.
At the same time there are major problems with The Kurdish Question In Iraq because it believed what the Iraqi government said about the Kurdish issue. At the start the author said that the Baath were the only party to come up with a national identity that recognized ethnic minorities like the Kurds. He obviously did a lot of research into Iraq quoting government statements and newspapers. His issue was that he believed what Baghdad said without much criticism. For instance, he said that the Baath was serious about giving autonomy to the Kurds when it seems like it was only holding talks until it consolidated power. Despite that it doesn’t undermine the book’s critique of Barzani.
Another issue is that Ghareeb gets lost in the details in the negotiations between Baghdad and Barzani. He goes into minutia about the proposals made by each side for instance. That is one of the low points of the book.
Despite its faults The Kurdish Question In Iraq is still a worthwhile read because of its analysis of Barzani’s struggle against the Iraqi government. Barzani was able to assert his leadership over the Kurds despite the divisions within the community. He was able to take up armed struggle against Baghdad for decades. Ghareeb believes that Barzani’s mistakes finally led to his defeat in 1975 when he fled Iraq and went into exile in the U.S. where he died. Despite the problems in the writing with its embrace of the Baathist position and including far too many details it still gives a major history of Barzani which would seem to be a paradox but actually works.
Link to all of Musings On Iraq’s book reviews listed by topic
No comments:
Post a Comment