KurdistanObserver.com

Chessboard of Iraq

By: Prof Goran Nowicki

Mar 24, 2005

Two years ago, at this time the first shots of war were fired in Kurdistan and the gulf war II which I referred to as the April's fool war started (incidentally a spy's codename for the operation was April's fool too).  The 3 main ethnic players, the Kurds and the Shiite and Sunni Arabs took different positions during the war. The US won the battle, but it is not clear who won the war, or who will win the peace. The US, Kurds or the Shiites?

KURDS AND OTHER IRAQI PLAYERS

There is no doubt that among the 3 ethnic players in Iraq, the Sunnis are the losers so far. The fall of Saddam  from power put an end to the dominance of Sunni Arabs in Iraq, but perhaps the main damage to Sunni Arabs was inflicted by themselves by not participating in the election and discouraging their fellows from participation in an election which shapes up the future constitution of Iraq.

Both Kurds and Shiites played their cards well and participated in huge numbers. The Kurdish united front displayed a very good hand in elections and despite the failure of many Faily Kurds to vote for Kurdish list, the Kurds manages to get 77 seats of the parliament. 

The Shiites were  divided into two camps and the division between secular Shiites and religious ones is a good thing for the future of Iraq. The recent attempts to bring the secular Shiites headed by Alawi, into the government is not a good thing for the future Iraq and Iraq needs an opposition in the parliament to ensure that the religious Shiites would not turn Iraq into another Islamic republic. 

The jockeying for power in Iraq has started and the Kurds and Shiites are going for the top posts. This tough bargaining game between the two camps reminds one of the Byzantine style bargaining in Kurdish carpet shops. Traditionally, the Shiites have been the merchants and they are well versed in the art of bargaining. The Kurds are recent players in this game and their best strength is fighting and since Saladin, the favorite game of Kurdish warriors has been chess.

KURDISH MOVE IN IRAQ CHESSBOARD

Bargaining, negotiation or  "give and take"  is a game. The players in this classical mini-max strategy game try to maximize their own gains and to minimize their opponent's gain while respecting the rules of the game. In the coalition building game of Iraq, the Kurds and Shiites are the main players who try to share the pieces of the game, to divide the posts and positions between themselves. There are many ways to divide the positions between the Kurds and Shiites and one should have a way to assess the total value of one against another.

In a game of chess, the  queen or vizier has a higher standing than a pawn. Similarly, in the chessboard of Iraq, the  post of prime minister has a higher value than the post of a minister.

The post of a president in Iraq can be compared with the king piece on chess. The two deputies in the presidential council don't have much value as the prime minister post and can be compared with the two pawns in front of the king and Vizier in a chess board, they can restrict their move or protect them.  What are the knights/horses and rooks or castles in this chessboard?

The Kurdish armies and the Iraqi armies can be compared with the horses/knights in the chess. While the parliament and the parliament speaker can be compared with a rook. For Kurds, the other castle of the game, the other rook, is Kirkuk. The ministerial posts can be compared with the pawns in the game and some of these are more central than others. One can also compare the very mobile foreign minister to a bishop on the chess and the other bishop can go to the Intelligence minister.

Having this simplified analogy will help us to assess which configuration has a higher value for Kurds than another configuration of distribution of power. This analogy is only valid if we assume that the Kurds and Shiites continue the coalition process. At a later stage, the Kurdish and Shiites pawns and pieces may turn their colors and become rival black and white players in the chessboard of Iraq. In that scenario, the black pieces of Shiites and Arabs can win the game against the white pieces of Kurds, if the Kurds give too much concessions to them at this stage and sacrifice their peshmerga knights or loose the Kirkuk castle. It is strange that the Shiites are not showing their sincerity by letting Kurds gain Kirkuk. What business they have in Kirkuk and Kurdish oil is not clear? 

One thing is certain that the  Kurds need to remain in power and do not shoot themselves in the foot, by sulking and leaving the process. The Sunnis did that and they lost a lot and Kurdish enemies will win in that scenario. Kurds used ballots as bullets, in the democratic election game, the Kurds can mobilize the ballot throwers once again and bring them into streets, if the Shiites abuse the authority of their clergies to put pressure on Kurdish side.

One should also remind Kurds, that for Kurds, the rule of Islam in Iraq should not be a big deal as long as it is not applied to the Kurdish regions. This could happen if the Shiites return the favor and let Kurdish cities of Kirkuk and  Khanaqin to be permanently re-incorporated into the Kurdish land. They and their allies should be reminded that the game in Baghdad is "dad u setad" (i.e. give and take).