10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A history from 1920, and then, the prospects, October 22, 2004
This review is from: The Future of Iraq: Dictatorship, Democracy or Division? (Hardcover)
This is an excellent book for those who want to know more about how the ethnically artificial Iraqi state was created by the colonial powers, mainly the British, in the 1920s, and why; and how it "progressed" toward the Ba'athist dictatorship under Saddam Hussein with attendant intrigues and atrocities. The first chapter covers the period from 1920 to1958 under the Hashemite Monarchy; the second from 1958 to 1968; the third from 1968 to1988; the fourth begins with the end of the Iraq-Iran War and ends in 2003. Then there are three chapters devoted to the three main ethnic groups, the Shi'a, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. There is an epilogue and an index.
I came away from my reading with the sense that no matter what is done, Iraq is headed for massive bloodshed resulting eventually in a new Sunni dictatorship or a Shi'a theocracy--neither of which is what the Bush Administration had in mind. Clearly the authors--Liam Anderson, a political science professor at Wayne State University, and Gareth Stansfield, an expert on Iraqi and especially Kurdish affairs--do not think it likely that democracy will arise out of the ashes. They give three likely scenarios in terms of options for the United States in Chapter Eight, "The Democracy Dilemma" (which is where the time-strapped reader might begin reading).
The first option they call "Democracy Lite" in which there is a "short-term occupation" with an attempt "to establish a functioning democratic system," and then a pullout. (p. 191) The authors argue rather convincingly that this will never work mainly because the various political divisions within Iraq will prevent it, the Sunnis because they fear the Shi'a majority, the Shi'a because they don't really believe in democracy, and the Kurds because they want their own autonomous state.
The next option is a long-term occupation (a minimum of ten years). Here the prospects for democracy are better, but such an occupation is likely to unify the dissident elements of Iraq in an insurgency effort against a foreign power, as has happened in the past. Indeed, the attacks against Coalition forces and those Iraqis who support the Coalition have increased substantially since this book was finished a year ago. So the real question then becomes, how long will the American people put up with the cost in dollars and bloodshed before pulling out?
The third option is the installation of a puppet regime and the quick withdrawal of US troops. The authors call this the "default option" (p. 209) and condemn it as spelling "disaster for Iraq" and "seriously detrimental to U.S. interests." (p. 211)
Instead of these three options, the authors opt for a fourth possibility which they call "The Managed Partition of Iraq." The idea here is to give autonomy to the Kurds in the north, and to give the rest of the country to the Sunnis and the Shi'a, or to have that territory divided between them, with the Shi'a controlling the southern portion in a kind of "state of Basra" with "a mixed Sunni/Shi'a state of Baghdad in the center." (p. 222)
There are enormous problems with each of these options, as the authors painstakingly point out, and enormous uncertainties. Clearly the Bush Administration does not agree with--or was unaware of--such obstacles when it embarked on its foolhardy invasion of Iraq. Certainly, Bush's father knew enough of the history of Iraq and the region to realize that leaving Saddam Hussein in power was the best way to further American interests in the area since we had good control over the weakened dictator. Bush the Second has ignored the lessons of history (and reality) for his "faith-based" scenario, which, according to the authors of this tightly argued and finely detailed book, can only lead to a nightmare since the prospect of a democracy any time soon is close to nil.
Bottom line: This book can be read in two ways: from the beginning straight through for those of you who want the background information and history of the Iraqi state, or beginning with Chapter Eight where the authors give their take on the prospects for Iraq. One can also, as in a textbook, read just the "Conclusion" sections at the end of each chapter, and then read Chapter Eight and the Epilogue. Since I am not an expert, I found reading the book from cover to cover informative and definitely worth my time. The presentation is clear, balanced and sharply realistic.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
concise and well written, read this book, August 28, 2005
This review is from: The Future of Iraq: Dictatorship, Democracy or Division? (Hardcover)
Anderson and Stansfield have written one of the best books on Iraq currently on the market. This book would be a wonderful place to start for those who have taken an increased interest in Iraq as of late.
I was skeptical about this book at first because the chapters on Iraqi history are very brief and quickly skip over a lot of details. However, I've read quite a bit about Iraq and am used to more detail. I realized that this is the type of book someone should start out with and then work your way up to someone like Charles Tripp. Even though the authors breeze through a lot of detail, they point out a lot of important information that usually gets left out of other Iraqi history books (particularly when it comes to the role of the U.S. in Iraq).
Once you've finished the history section of the book, you'll find three very informative chapters about Iraq's three main ethnic groups. These chapters are quite accurate and provide the reader with a solid foundation of information.
The last two chapters are the most helpful and the most informative. The authors discuss the problems facing Iraq and how they should be dealt with. Quite a bit of time is spent on democratization theory and its application to Iraq. The authors use all of this to come to the conclusion that perhaps a managed partition of Iraq is the best course of action. You may not agree with this, but the authors make a very convincing argument.
That being said, this is probably one the best books about the future of Iraq and I'm glad I finally got around to reading it. Anderson and Stansfield have produced a very well written history/analytical book that really tries to answer the important questions about Iraq. Anyone interested in Iraq should read this book as soon as possible.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Future history of Iraq, July 1, 2006
This review is from: The Future of Iraq: Dictatorship, Democracy or Division? (Hardcover)
This book is structured in a very simple manner, following the history of this country:
First, the monarchy from 1920-1958;
Second, the revolution from 1958-1968;
Third, the Ba'ath Regime from 1968-1988;
Fourth, the wreck of Iraq from 1988-2003.
These chapters recount the history of Iraq from its beginnings after World War I--when the British created a country where none has existed before--with three parties holding very different views--Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds.
Each of these three groups is examined as the basis for speculation as to what is to come in the future. The authors wonder if Iraq might end up splintering into three distinct countries--Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. Questions emerge from this scenario: Is this desirable? Would the needs of all three groups be optimized in this manner? Will this encourage additional "ethnic cleansing"? Even beyond what we have seen? Would such a solution mark success--or failure--of the American intervention?
The future? America's role in that future? We cannot say at this point. However, it does appear that the American intervention never really understood the historical and cultural context. We can only hope that the Iraqi incursion turns out well. But it is also clear that Americans sadly misunderstood the context into which they entered. . . .
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
