|
|
|
This brings us to yet another assertion, a statement that is
reiterated almost daily by American politicians on both sides of
the partisan divide … that the Iraqi government needs to take
responsibility for its own country, dismantle the militias and
cease reliance on the American forces. Whilst I do not disagree
with such assertion, I do find it overly optimistic. Let us take
this assertion and go as far back as March, 2004 when the US
occupation was in full control of Iraq under the guise of the
Coalition Provisional Authority. During that month, a band of
Iranian-backed Al-Sadr and Badr Militia fighters attacked and
razed a village in the South following an arrest of a woman on
moral charges and her trial in an illegal Sharia’a court set up
by Al-Sadr. The militia forces set the village on fire and then
bulldozed the remaining buildings to wipe out the whole village.
This incident occurred after many reports of Al-Sadr’s Mahdi
army taking control of Southern Iraq, seizing public buildings,
beating up university professors, taking over classrooms and
departments, forcing women to cover up, setting up illegal
Sharia’a courts and becoming a law unto themselves in a country
with a political and legal vacuum. The American forces at that
time were heavily engaged in fighting foreign Islamic extremists
and the insurgency in Fallujah in the North, thus rendering them
incapable of dealing with the problems in the South.
It was not only Sadr’s Mahdi army that was on the loose, and not
only were ethnic minorities or even Iraqis the target. In fact,
by that point, the whole Shi’ite South was strife with
well-armed extreme and brutal militias who formed a confusing
patch of loyalties and alliances, with Iran playing a
significant role. What all those groups had in common were ties
to one faction or another of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran
provided these various groups with money, arms and tactical
support. By backing several violent factions within Iraq, Iran
maximized its prospects of achieving its goals … in fact, in
that respect, Iran’s goals are no different to those of the
Wahabi rule and the insurgency, that is preventing the emergence
of democracy in Iraq, bringing about some form of Islamic rule
that is in line with their respective ideologies, and in the
case of Iran, assuming control of the Shi’ite holy cities and
eventually establishing a sphere of influence over all the
Shi’ites in the region. In other words, whilst the Shi’ite rule
of Iran is ideologically in opposition to that of Wahabi Islam,
the two players have very similar goals, destabilizing Iraq,
defeating the US and as a result becoming the prominent power in
the region.
With all this unfolding as way back as 2004, and with the
militias gaining power and control in the South, the most
violent of which was the Mahdi army, the US administration made
the choice not to deal with Al-Sadr, so as not to face
opposition from his supporters in the Shi’ite slums of Baghdad
(Al-Sadr city which constitutes one third of Baghdad). Al-Sadr
had succeeded in asserting his power and gaining loyalties in a
country where the vacuum created by the war ensured no other
viable alternatives. One of the major failures of the
occupation, I believe, was the choice to avoid a full
confrontation with Sadr, even though the US had warrants for his
arrest for the murder of a moderate Shi’ite cleric in the early
days of the war. Whilst the US army did eventually manage to
defeat the Mahdi army in June 2004, a decision was made not to
force Al-Sadr to surrender nor to dismantle his militia (bearing
in mind that this was shortly prior to the 2004 US elections).
It is this failure that has ensured the ever expanding power of
Sadr, with Iran’s support, to the extent that he is now deemed
the most powerful man in Iraq, with a far larger Mahdi army,
several seats in parliament and control of three ministries. I
would then ask you, why would the US expect a new Iraqi
government, with its own power struggles, shifting alliances and
pressures from neighboring countries, not to mention a fledging
army, to disband those same militias when the US administration
was unable or unwilling to do the job itself?
This of course brings us to the last, and most significant
assertion, that the US should instigate a phased withdrawal out
of Iraq, with some Democrats asserting that such withdrawal
should take place within 4 to 6 months. As an Iraqi, I am
astounded and offended by the lack of responsibility in such a
statement, for as I have attempted to demonstrate, the US has
played a significant role in the chaos that is Iraq today. I am
equally frustrated by statements of ‘staying the course’ which
of course implies that the ‘course’ to date has been successful,
which could not be further from the truth. Such extreme views
are not the solution to Iraq’s problems and the ramifications of
those problems on the region and the world at large. An
immediate withdrawal of US troops will only ensure the success
of the extremist Wahabi Muslims, the Bin-Ladens of this world,
and the Iranians. This will no doubt result in an all-out civil
war, a failed-state situation, with neighboring countries taking
sides to guarantee their respective power hold in the region.
Following 9/11, we now know that such problems in the Middle
East and the destruction of peoples and nations are no longer
mere regional concerns but rather global ones.
One would hope that with the resumption of a balance of power
within the US following the recent elections, a well-considered
Iraq policy, one that takes into account the complex politics of
the region, is adopted. A recent quote from the Economist
magazine summed it up: “America’s voters are entitled to punish
George Bush. They should not punish the people of Iraq”. I would
take this further to say that many lives have been lost, on the
American and Iraqi side, let not this loss be in vain. Whilst I
fully appreciate and sympathize with the frustrations of the
American public, a public that has lost many of its sons and
daughters to this war, I would assert that pulling out of Iraq
without first stabilizing it to some extent would only postpone
and magnify this threat. A destabilized Iraq, a breeding ground
for terrorism and infighting, would only achieve to destabilize
the whole region and empower countries like Iran.
When asked a year or two ago as to the solution for the ever
deteriorating situation in Iraq, my voice, alongside many
others, was advocating for more troops on the ground to secure
the lives of Iraqis and to enable them to rebuild their country.
Unfortunately, not only is it not feasible for the US to provide
such troops, I do not believe that such solution is sufficient
today considering the level of violence. However, I am of the
view that the success of Iraq is dependant on a solution that
involves other players. The EU and the UN need to set aside
their differences on the initiation of this war by the US, and
begin to deal with the realities on the ground. Iraq’s borders
still need to be secured, trouble spots still need to be dealt
with, and militias still need to be disbanded. This can only be
done with a joint political and military effort. On the military
front, NATO could play a role in securing these boarders from
Islamists’ infiltration. On the political front, a matter that
is currently being debated by the Baker-Hamilton Commission, the
US needs to include the region in its Iraq policy. It goes
without saying that a publicized policy (over the past 3 years)
of establishing democracy in Iraq to set an example for the rest
of the region was bound to unsettle such region and result in
retaliatory measures to ensure the failure of such policy.
It is therefore vital to attain the support of other Arab
countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where such support has
been seriously lacking. In fact, Egypt and the Arab League as a
whole refused to recognize the new Iraqi government until
recently. This only goes to prove the threat such nations feel
with the American presence in the region and the empowerment of
Shia’a rule. Nevertheless, Iraq cannot succeed without the
support, or at the very least the acquiescence, of neighboring
countries. Therefore, the US needs to initiate talks with the
players that have affected the situation on the ground,
specifically Iran and Syria, whilst ensuring such talks take
place with all major players. In other words the US should not
carry out talks with Saudi Arabia whilst refusing to talk to
Iran. Such action would disenfranchise Iran and embolden it to
continue its forays and meddling into Iraq to assure its power
base. This struggle for power in the region is not merely a
political stance but rather an ideological one, that is a
struggle between the Wahabi ideology and the Iranian-style
Shi’ite ideology. Whilst such talks are likely to be resisted by
the administration for the obvious political reasons (that is
linking any talks with Iran to the nuclear question), it would
be impossible to stop the low-level civil war taking place today
without engaging one of the major power brokers in the region,
that is Iran.
It has been said on many occasions that the people of Iraq need
to set aside their sectarian and ethnic differences, that
national unity and the desire for a peaceful, sovereign and
democratic Iraq should prevail. I would say that such goal
cannot be attained without first ensuring the security of people
on the ground, whereby Iraqis do not fear for their lives on a
daily basis thus rendering such fear the determinate of all
actions … whereby people are not insecure in their own homes,
for fear of kidnappings, in their workplace for fear of
assassinations or out on the street for fear of suicide
bombings. I would say that the onus is not only on the Iraqis
themselves, but at the least equally so on the world community
at large, for the Iraq we have today has been the creation of
many a player. Perhaps what Iraq needs is leadership, and
profound leadership at that, but in the absence of a Mandela or
a Gandhi, we Iraqis desperately need the joint leadership of the
world powers, we need to set aside our differences and work
towards a common goal of freedom and liberty for all.
© Farah KillidarGo to page
|
|
|
|
Copyright© 2007 Alaska World Affairs CouncilAlaska Web Design by
BlueDiamondWebs.com
|
