|
|
|
The
US and UK governments are calling for more troops to be
sent to Iraq. |
The
ability to recognize the probable future that lies ahead for
Iraq depends on an understanding of the patterns of social
forces, stresses and interactions that are developing at this
crucial juncture in the country and within its region – events
that will shape global history.
The
recent bombings and the emergence of a viable resistance against
the occupation point to a developing scenario that is very
different from what is envisaged by the leadership of the
occupying forces in Iraq. The death of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer
Al-Hakim and the possible polarization of the country along
religious lines have made it difficult to anticipate what the
future may hold.
A
further element to consider is the sudden scramble by the US to
try to lend international legitimacy to the occupation by
persuading other countries to take part in a multinational force
in Iraq. Also, another factor that needs to be taken into account is
the formation of the new Iraqi cabinet and the question of its
legitimacy.
Besides
many variables and possible scenarios, the future of Iraq
depends largely on underlining political moods, intentions and
interactions that constitute the real movement beneath the
surface of events. Emotional responses to the future of Iraq
range from expressions of despair at the
possibility of social dissolution to expressions of optimism and
a strong sense of national pride and determination.
The
future of Iraq certainly lies with the vision and determination
of Iraqis themselves. One dominant trend that comes through in
conversations with Iraqis - both at home and abroad - is a
strong sense of resolution and a belief in the ability of Iraqis
to govern themselves and create a new country. There is also a
determination that the future of Iraq will be one without the
presence of occupying forces; and there is a pervasive
resistance to the prospect of Iraq becoming, as one Iraqi put
it, another American state.
The
United States is playing a very dirty game in Iraq… but
we’re not willing to accept US occupation to solve our
problems. We Iraqis must be empowered to solve our problems and
given the opportunity to rebuild our country. After all, we have
the experience and all the resources available… We refuse to
be the 51st state of the United States.
Another
possible and more ominous future is suggested by an Iraqi
expatriate: If self–determination is withheld for too long,
this will “lead to the biggest blunder in the US foreign policy
yet; this could even be worse than Vietnam.”
The
future of Iraq obviously cannot be separated from future
developments in the entire region. Many are of the opinion that
the neo-conservative elements in the US have as their basic plan
to secularize and democratize the Middle East, with Iraq as the
test case. To say that things are not going well would be an
understatement. The deterioration in the situation has resulted
in a turnabout in the US attitude; and the recent attempts to
internationalize the situation are signs that the Bush
administration is starting to realize the folly of their
actions.
The
belief that the Middle East can be re-made or re-shaped as a
secular society, which would reflect and be more amenable to the
world view of the West, is one of the central underlying
forces that will determine Iraq’s future.
The
recent invasion and occupation of Iraq has changed the balance
in the area and engendered new forces and tensions. William O.
Beeman, Director of Middle East Studies at Brown University, has
this analysis of the situation:
That
was the intent of the neocon faction in the White House and the
Department of Defense. After the First Gulf War, the doctrine
began to emerge that the destruction of Saddam would be easy,
that it would undermine Syria to have Iraq destroyed, and that
[it] would eventually aid Israel by reducing support for Hamas
and other anti-Israeli groups. It would break up the solid line
of anti-Israeli states and introduce a Western presence in the
heart of the Middle East. This was outlined in a memo to the
then prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. In 1998 the
neocons again called for the destruction of Iraq in a series of
letters to President Clinton and [the] Speaker of the House of
Representatives, Trent Lott. These were the same actors who are
now in power - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. They are
inspired by a doctrine of “creative destruction” which has
sometimes been identified with the Trotskyite movement in the
early days of the Soviet Union. Destabilization was their aim,
and their hopes for the process were that democratic
institutions would naturally emerge from the ashes of
destruction. This sounds crazy, but it’s true. The work of
Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute The War
Against the Terror Masters serves as a kind of bible for these
folks.
In
estimating the possible futures for Iraq, one has to take into
account
these motivations and forces.
Civil
War
One
of the alarming prospects that may now develop in Iraq is a civil
conflict between the various dominant groups. This has become
even more of a reality with the assassination of Ayatollah
Mohammad Baqer Al-Hakim.
Anai
Rhoads, a political researcher, states that “civil unrest will
without a doubt surface as tensions rise in Iraq.” Other
commentators like Professor Beeman also tend to agree that civil
war is becoming a looming possibility in Iraq.
In
an article published recently entitled Killing
of Ayatollah Is Start of Iraqi Civil War, Beeman states that
“The bombing of one of Islam’s holiest shrines not only
killed an important Shiite leader, it also signals the first
shot in an Iraqi civil war that Middle East experts warned would
ensue if Saddam were removed without careful planning.” He
emphasizes that inadequate planning on the part of the Bush
administration has resulted in the possibility of civil war.
“One of the most consistent and ominous prewar warnings to the
Bush administration by Middle East experts was that removal of
Saddam Hussein without the most careful political and social
engineering would result in the breaking apart of Iraq into
warring factions that would battle each other for decades.”
But, as he states, there were those in the administration who
simply turned a blind eye to the possible results of their
invasion of Iraq. “The hawks in the White House would not
listen. They were so wedded to the fantasy scenario that the
removal of Saddam in an act of ‘creative destruction’ would
result in the automatic emergence of democracy. They brushed
aside all warnings.” He goes on to predict that this lack of
foresight and planning will result in the most awesome of
consequences for Iraq in the future.
“Shiite
fury will be directed at the Sunnis to the north. It will also
be directed toward the [United States] as the occupying force
who… did nothing to prevent this tragedy, and further
continued the British doctrine of Sunni favoritism by insisting
that the Shiite religious leaders would never be allowed to come
to power. In any case, the forces of retribution are about to be
unleashed in a manner hitherto unseen in the region,” says
Beeman.
If
civil war somehow can be avoided, many Iraqis see the
alternative future to be a long drawn out guerilla-style
conflict against the occupying forces. The Bush administration,
it seems, is slowly beginning to wake up to these
realities.
What
About the UN?
Many
see the resolution to Iraq’s problems in an interim
administration of a new Iraq under the auspices of the United
Nations. This indeed is what many Iraqi groups are calling for.
While this scenario has the potential to create a conducive
climate for growth, the possibility of it becoming a reality is
at present forestalled by the US' insistence on final
control of any UN or international involvement. As many
commentators state, the US is unwilling to relinquish
independent military control to the UN. Beeman emphasizes that
“this is a dilemma for Washington. They want to control
everything, but the US is running out of money and out of
troops. International credibility is on the line for Washington,
and the UN would confer that, but again, the US does not want to
relinquish control.”
However,
even in the unlikely event that the US would cede total control
to a UN-led interim governance of the country, the problem of
perceptions would still have to be overcome. The recent bombing
of the UN may also point to perceptions that many Westerners are
nor aware of. The UN is seen by many in the Middle East and
elsewhere as the handmaiden to the US. Regardless of the truth
about the fairness of this perception, it is a real point of
view that has been fostered by the inability of the UN to do
anything about the years of crippling sanctions that caused so
much suffering among the Iraqi people, and by the very inability
of the UN to stop the Invasion of Iraq. These perceptions of the
UN are clearly stated by none other than Denis Halliday, former
UN Assistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator
in Iraq.
The
West sees the UN as a benign organization, but the sad reality
in much of the world is that the UN is not seen as benign. The
UN Security Council has been taken over and corrupted by the US
and UK, particularly with regard to Iraq, Palestine and Israel.
Halliday
also says that this is one of the central issues that will face
the UN as Powell and the Bush administration attempt to co-opt
the organization into saving the United States from an imminent
Vietnam-like situation. He warns that “further collaboration”
between the UN and the US and Britain “would be a disaster for the
United Nations as it would be sucked into supporting the illegal
occupation of Iraq.”1
Possibly,
the future of Iraq and the relationship between the West and the
East will finally be determined by a mutual
understanding of their different perceptions. Sadly, as many
commentators have pointed out, understanding the
perceptions of others is not among the features of the Bush
administration.
Iraqi
Democracy?
On
the other hand, there are alternative views about the future of
Iraq which have a more optimistic faith in the role of the
coalition. Mark Kouri, Media Advisor for the Iraqi Democracy
Project, states that, in fact, “the situation in Iraq is
improving.” His reasoning is that the old regime has been
removed and that while there has been “apparent chaos” the
major hostilities are now at an end; and “… stability is
slowly returning to Iraq. Infrastructure is being restored,
Iraqis are taking over responsibilities from the coalition, and
new Iraqi leadership is being chosen.”
The
view of the Iraqi Democracy Project is that “despite… recent
sabotage, attacks on US soldiers and the murders of Ayatollah
Muhammad Baqer Al-Hakim and at least 80 others, [this] is not
evidence of a devolving situation in Iraq but rather evidence of
the desperation of the enemies of peace. An overwhelming
majority of Iraqi people support US-led actions leading to the
ousting of Saddam and are not willing to trade their new freedom
for new oppression.”
However,
the signs of progress in Iraq are not looking good. Criticism of
the US administration is mounting with a daily barrage of
negative reportage from within the US itself. Recent moves by
the coalition to institute democratic governance in Iraq are
also receiving criticism. A report in The New York Times had the
following to say about the Iraqi Governing Council.
The
neocons hoped democracy in Iraq would spread like a fever in the
Mideast, even among our double-dealing friends like Saudi Arabia
and Pakistan. But after the majestic handoff of democracy to the
25-member Iraqi Governing Council, it seems the puppets (now
nervous about bodyguards) don't even want to work late, much
less govern. As one aide told The Times, “On the Council,
someone makes a suggestion, then it goes around the room, with
everyone talking about it, and then by that time, it’s late
afternoon and time to go home.2
Conclusion
The
coming weeks and months are crucial for Iraq. The interplay
between the different groups and forces and, particularly, the
role of the United States will influence Iraq’s future.
However, whatever the machinations of other powers are, it is
resolutely certain that the Iraqis are rigorously determined to
restore their country to its rightful place in the world.
Gary
Smith is a freelance journalist and researcher based in
South Africa. His special field of research is the situation in
Iraq.
1-
MacKay, Nail. “Former
UN Chief: Bomb was Payback for Collusion with US.” The
Sunday Herald (Scotland), August 24, 2003
2-
Dowd, Maureen. “Empire
of Novices.” The New York Times, September 3, 2003
|
