|
Commentary
How critical is the
situation in Iraq? It depends on who you ask and when. Common sense tells us
that the situation there has always been critical. In fact, one could dare
claim that the country has been stricken with political and social upheaval
since the early 1990s, when the US led its �coalition of the willing� to
liberate Kuwait. Unfortunately,
since American intent was hardly freedom for Kuwait for its own sake, the
violent episode didn�t end right there and then. The war established a
completely different mood in the region where a permanent American military
presence and subsequent build-ups threatened a second, and much larger war. Unlike the dominant
narrative, however, the 1990-91 war never brought peace or tranquility to the
region; rather, it agitated internal strife within Iraq, positioning the entire
region through the barrel of a gun. Over the next decade, US-led UN economic
sanctions wrought untold destruction to the very fabric of Iraqi society, as
hundreds of thousands perished because of lack of medicine and food. The US
government calculated that a weary Iraq could not withstand a future military
action, and that ravished Iraqis would welcome the toppling of the Iraqi
dictator. Much of that came
to fruition in March 2003. Although the televised statue-toppling near the
Palestine Hotel was at best cheesy military propaganda. In truth, many Iraqis
were indeed content to see the end of the Saddam era, while some felt utterly
uneasy about replacing an Iraqi dictator with an American one; literally. But there was no
honeymoon to speak of, even during those early stages of occupation. The fact
that Shia areas initially welcomed the Americans and largely Sunni population
centers fought them, tells us more about the sectarianism of Iraqi society than
a particular event that served as a turning point in the anti-occupation
struggle. Sectarianism in Iraq is deep-rooted indeed, but it was even further
infuriated by a determined US policy that sought an alliance with Shias and
Kurds to achieve what it termed �de-Baathification of Iraq,� similar to the
�de-Nazification of Europe� decades earlier. This policy was founded on the
misguided hypothesis that the Baath party was largely an �anti-Shia and Kurd,�
exclusively Sunni club. The process entailed the dismantling of the Iraqi army
-- an icon of stability and order in Iraq -- and replacing it with an army that
consisted largely of Kurdish militias in the north and Shia militias everywhere
else; both groups had vengeful and murderous intents. Like always, the
situation was critical then, as it continues to be so, but Iraq, nonetheless,
was losing its appeal as a primary news item, for those who were being killed
were simply members of the crowd most hostile to the occupation, even if
civilians. Only when al Qaeda militants capitalized on the Sunni communities�
feeling of betrayal, vulnerability, ceaseless demonization and eventually being
factored out of the political equation altogether, did the Iraq story regain
its sense of urgency. It�s much easier to sell the American public a fight
against al Qaeda than one against disfranchised Iraqi Sunnis, for obvious
reasons. The Bush
administration, its faithful strategists and PR managers have done their utmost
to carry out the president�s vision for a new Iraq that would serve as an icon
of democracy for a new Middle East, and have worked tirelessly to sell the
�achievements� of the administration to an unimpressed public, who slowly but
determinately realized that that the Iraq war was a colossal mistake. I do remember the
days when I predicted similar scenarios to what is taking place today, only to
be shouted out by right wing radio show hosts, for my apparent lack of
patriotism. Now the president himself, accompanied by leading army generals and
senators, is saying more or less what progressive writers and intellectuals
have contended for years: Bush is finally seeing some similarities between Iraq
and Vietnam, and top American officials are candidly talking of Iraq as a
��problem� and a �very difficult� one at that. (A similar storm was unleashed
in Britain when General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, said
in a newspaper interview that the presence of foreign troops might be
"exacerbating" the situation in Iraq.) But why did it take
the Bush administration all this time to reach such a simple conclusion, which
was deduced by almost three quarters of the US population before it was
inferred by the administration itself? Did 650,000 Iraqi and nearly 2,800
American lives have to be wasted in order for the president to summon General
John Abizaid, overall US commander for the Middle East, and General George
Casey, in command of the American troops in Iraq, to discuss the country�s
other options for getting out of the quagmire? The bipartisan Iraq
Study Group, appointed by the US Congress and co-chaired by former Secretary of
State James Baker to examine alternative solutions to the growing Iraqi
nightmare, will not reveal its findings and recommendations until next January.
Leaks made to the media predict that the very gloomy report could make
extraordinary recommendations, including phased withdrawal, diplomatically
engaging Iran and Syria, among other options. But even with such a dramatic
shift in approach, Baker warns �there�s no magic bullet for the situation in
Iraq. It�s very, very difficult.� President Bush
meanwhile continues to wow his ardent followers with tired speeches of wars
that must be won, democracies that must be achieved and is still industriously
infusing his preverbal �cut and run� mantras, knowing deep inside that his
dream of a clean Iraq victory is long gone. At the time of the
drafting of this article, Al Sadr militants seem to be controlling the streets
in Amara, south of Baghdad, ready to �liberate� other cities, while British
forces are preparing a grim return to a city they victoriously handed over to
the Iraqi police. America�s allies, the militias and their deaths squads, are
increasingly determined to fight the �occupiers�; as if the Iraq nightmare
could possibly get any more frightening. But I am still not
sure why the situation is critical now, as opposed to last March, for example.
Is it a last resort change of strategy prior to the US legislative mid-term
elections? The Republicans are trailing in the polls and a deciding factor in
that is their botched Iraq strategy; maybe a more pragmatic president who
appreciates the intensity of the crisis and is doing his outmost to face it is
the best image that Bush�s advisors can conjure up at such short notice. It�s
anything but one of Karl Rove�s other �genius� ideas, but is certainly worth
the effort. On November 7, however, only the American voter has the power to
decide: whether to reward failure or to gracefully search for a way out.  (Pluto Press, London) is available on Amazon.com.
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal Email Online Journal Editor |