One should not live under the impression that American designs on Iraq are
entirely benign. Their stated goal is to establish a viable democracy in the
once-Baathist regime. To use the neo-conservative lingo; Iraq would be a bastion
of transparent and equitable government in a sea of Arab despots. God willing,
and this is Bush ruminating, Iraq would expose the error of the despots, and
force a popular movement supporting democracy out into the open.
In the meantime, American forces cannot withdraw from the country they helped
ravage from the ground up. Just last month, the Democrats mischievously added a
caveat to Bush’s call for more funds to be released to the American Project in
Iraq. A timetable stipulating a deadline for troops to withdraw from Iraq was
appended to the bill. As was expected, Bush wielded his Presidential veto to
shoot down the bill. There was outrage all round the neo-conservative table. How
could the Americans pull out now? Would that not hand victory over to the Iraqi
insurgents who had been calling for Americans to leave the country in the first
place?
Putting such childish reasons aside, I do agree that pulling the troops out now
would lead to disaster. Sectarian hatred, once such a rare thing in Iraq, has
been stoked to boiling point, chiefly because of the entry of Salafist-inspired
al-Qaeda into the theater of war. Salafists consider all Shia Muslims, which is
the dominant group in Iraq, apostates- eminently suited for slaying. Their
stance is so extreme that some of the domestic militants, ostensibly Sunni
Arabs, have sought to
distance themselves from them. While the rabid sectarianism can be laid
directly at the door of the Salafist extremists, their entry into Iraq cannot.
From the outset, the Bush Administration must have known that a fractured Iraq occupied
by American troops would be a tantalizing magnet for such groups, whose members
originate from all over the Middle East but chiefly from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
The logic was, better that the terrorists fight on the soil of the ‘ragheads’
than the hallowed soil of the homeland.
But there is another reason why America does not want to pull out anytime soon.
A sovereign and independent Iraq would spell disaster for American ambitions. The
government would not only be dominated by Shia Muslims, it would also be closely
connected with Iran, hitherto a pariah state as far as the Bush Administration
is concerned. Furthermore, a strong, viable Shia across Iran and Iraq would
surely provoke nationalist sentiments in the
already-repressed Shia population
in Saudi Arabia, which is a mainstay in America’s list of allies.
The solution thus far has been an unimaginative pounding together of disparate
individuals and parties into a government that can barely function outside the
Green Zone, an area heavily guarded by American and Iraqi troops. The latest
weapon brought to bear down on the incessant violence going on in the country is
a surge in troop levels and a more aggressive approach in the hunt for
terrorists suspects. Indeed, it is the Shia militias instead of the more deadly
Sunni militants that have borne the brunt of the American crackdown. This in
itself should be instructive. American policymakers fear the prospect of an
assertive Shia polity more than the suicide bombings (a tactic shunned by the
Shia clergy anyway) carried out by Sunni militants. Why bother, when Sunni
targets have almost been exclusively Shia Muslims, marketplaces, rituals and
shrines?
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
When will nations and their leaders learn that war is not the answer toany ambition. Its misery and death only worsens relations and causes the perpetrater to wish he had stayed home. This was seen in Vietnam, Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded, Chechneya, Israel in Lebanon, Serbia in Bosnia, and now Iraq. Wake up fools.
Ya Haqq!