|
|
|
Egyptians
demonstrating against the US-led war on Iraq
|
Those
who predicted chaos throughout the Middle East
in the case of an American war on Iraq were not the least mistaken. Their bleak prediction is coming to
life.
Unlike
any other region in the world, the Middle East
has managed to maintain a collective character, despite the
carving up of the area into many small countries. A war in one
country can quickly involve a few others, and chaos in one part
could lead to chaos elsewhere.
Of
course there are reasons for that. The Middle East
is predominantly Muslim. Those who don’t identify with Islamic
values find themselves part of another compelling force—that
of Arab nationalism (or other forms of nationalism, e.g.,
Kurdish, Persian, etc.). Even though there is no such collective
political character that embodies such forces, it is almost
innate in most Arabs and/or Muslims.
There
is no way on earth—despite the lack of cohesiveness of Arab leaders—that you can convince the average Egyptian, for
example, that the invasion of Iraq was not a violation of his
own space and values. While the understandable despising of
Saddam Hussein by many Iraqis explains the cheers of joyous
crowds upon his toppling, the Arab street elsewhere was
disheartened by the news. It was not simply the admiration of
Saddam that harbored such bitterness, but the indescribable
loathing of occupation.
Washington’s neo-conservatives were, and remain, well aware of this
truth. It is no wonder that their master design in the Middle East
doesn’t end in Baghdad, but, theoretically at least, spills into
Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. “Taming” the Muslims and Arabs, in their view, is not
confined to seemingly superficial borders that, while dividing
Arabs and Muslims in many ways, failed to divide them in spirit.
But there are other reasons, aside from the intangible, that
make the Iraqi experience equally an Arab and Muslim experience.
There are serious fears that Washington’s fanatics are adamant in their intent to take on other
countries, namely Syria (for its refusal to “compromise” on its territorial rights
violated by Israel), and Iran (for its oil wealth and strategic location between the oil-rich
Gulf and the gas-rich Caspian).
As a result, and it is no longer a secret, there are
unpublicized attempts by both Damascus and Tehran to maintain
the statue quo of disorder in Iraq, to ensure complete American
failure in stabilizing the country for the sole purpose of
controlling its wealth. A “clean break” in Iraq equals an invitation to Washington’s war advocates to tout for a regime change in other
“rogue” Middle East
capitals.
Furthermore, there is Turkey and Israel, now heavily involved in
Iraq, both lurking in the northern part of the country, each for its
own interests.
Turkey, a natural opponent of the Iraqi Kurds’ aspiration for any
form of independence or autonomy (for it shall empower the
Turkish Kurds’ demands for their long-denied rights by the
Turkish state), seeks to diffuse the Kurds’ political clout in Iraq, gained by the Kurds’ backing of the US war.
Israel, on the other hand, according to Seymour Hersh in the New
Yorker, wishes to counter the Iranian role in molding
Iraq’s future. “It’s Realpolitik. By aligning with the Kurds,
Israel gains eyes and ears in Iran, Iraq and Syria,” one former Israeli intelligence officer told Hersh.
Moreover, Israel’s long-sought economic interests in northern Iraq
(which were made public just days after the fall of
Baghdad) are enough reason for the Israeli intelligence’s dangerous
expeditions throughout the country.
But there is more to this Middle East
chaos theory than meets the eye. The invasion of Iraq has given rise to militancy on a regional level.
Not that violence is a stranger to the Middle East. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been grinding for
decades, but was somehow contained, at least in recent years,
within the borders of the Occupied Territory (unless Israel wishes otherwise).
Despite the open backing of Israel by the US, radical Palestinian
groups have been wise enough not to
retaliate against US interests. Despite the insanity of war, the
prudent decision of Palestinian factions was meant to deny a
pretext for American military intervention on behalf of Israel, which the latter has worked hard to attain (especially after
the attacks of 9/11).
However, while Palestinian factions have adhered to their
principles, the US invasion of Iraq has given rise to a regional form of militancy that is proven
costly to Islam, Muslims and US interests.
The US government’s claim of an Iraqi-Al-Qaeda link—now
proved a sheer fantasy according to the 9/11 committee
investigating the terrorist attacks on the US—was one of
several pretences laid out by the government and its
neo-conservative ilk for invading Iraq. While such a claim was
wrong then, the presence of groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda in Iraq is no longer
a government fib.
The
absence of Saddam has created a vacuum that many are offering to
fill, seeking to ensure that Iraq’s
future will not be shaped at their expense. Militants claiming
to represent the soul of Islam and its teachings are sharpening
their swords throughout the region. The end result is the
beheading of several people in Iraq
and Saudi
Arabia—gruesome
acts that are, unfortunately, being explained on the basis of
cultural and religious values.
While, in the opinion of many linear thinkers in the West, Islam
is to blame for fostering such militancy, many in the Muslim
world see the invasion of Iraq and the incomprehensible murder
of thousands (and, needless to say, the utter disregard of the
dignity of Arabs and Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and
elsewhere) can only be explained on similar grounds: religious
and cultural.
Those who warned of chaos in the region as a result of war soon
upgraded their warning to “hell will break loose” if the
voice of reason concedes to the neo-cons’ hawkish mentality
and Washington’s gun diplomacy.
Hell is indeed breaking loose and the
Iraq
inferno shall victimize not only the traditional Iraqi victims,
but whoever dares to get involved.
And since sanity is a causality of war, very few are those who
are analyzing the reasons behind the chaos and bringing those
responsible to account.
Neo-conservatives are still touting the same old tired dogmas of
an “uncivilized,” “Arab mind,” “primitive” and
“tribal,” which subsequently makes America’s
war on behalf of Western civilization and modernity.
Equally correct, the US war is giving rise to those who fail to see the strategic and
economic component of America’s
military venture, but fathom the latter on the basis of a
Christian crusade against Islam. The rise of militancy is of
course proven hurtful to Muslims than to any other group. Alas,
the “my God can beat your God” mantra, adopted by top
US
government officials, is hardly helping the gloomy situation.
Those who tortured Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib thinking “it
was funny” have more in common with those who beheaded Paul M.
Johnson, the former American hostage in Saudi
Arabia,
than both parties have with ordinary Arabs and Americans. Their
culture is neither Christian nor Islamic. It’s the culture of
war, espoused by the US in Iraq and earlier in Afghanistan.
As long as the culture of war prevails over that of reason and
sensibility, chaos and all that it entails shall define the
future of the Middle
East
for generations.
Ramzy
Baroud is
a veteran Arab-American journalist. A regular columnist in many
English and Arabic publications, he is editor-in-chief of
PalestineChronicle.com and head of Research & Studies
Department at Aljazeera.net English
|
