Hate to Say I Told You So

Before the invasion of Iraq, many people pointed out that one of the likely outcomes was an Iraqi civil war. We asked how America planned to avoid this possibility, and got vague answers. Or we were simply told that it wouldn't happen. That the people of Iraq would be so delighted to be rid of Hussein that they would join together to build a joyful, democratic country. On one occasion, I pointed out the different aspirations of the various groups within Iraq and was accused of racism. Yet it would be increasingly hard to argue that the events of the last week constitute anything other than the beginnings of the very civil war that I and others warned against eighteen months ago.

The roots of the problem the remarkably different aspirations of different groups within Iraq. Amongst the many contradictory aims found among those our leaders insist on referring to as "the Iraqi people" are democratic dominance (Shia moderates), autocratic dominance (Sunni), pure Islamist theocracy (Shia extremists), and self-determination (Kurds, Turkomans, and many others). Examine the issue in more depth, and the number of competing goals multiplies. Such a combination in a country used to political violence was always going to be a powder keg.

The fact that this powder keg is now exploding is, paradoxically, due to America's attempt to do the right thing. The simple answer to the Iraqi problem was to choose a group, place them in charge, and give them the support they needed to suppress their opponents. This solution is relatively easily implemented, requires minimal risk to western troops, and has a proven track history in the area. The only problem with it is that the last time America tried this in Iraq, the result was Saddam Hussein.

Bush and his advisers are to be congratulated for not going down this path, if for nothing else. Where they failed was in having absolutely no idea what they were going to do instead. Before entering Iraq, Bush should have had in hand a solid plan for handing power over. Unfortunately, over a year after the invasion, such a plan still has not emerged.

The current situation has been repeatedly described in terms that makes it seem that the violence is aimed at the American forces. "Insurgent", "outlaw". To understand the situation in Iraq, you must first understand the irrelevance of America to the problem. Most of this violence is not concerned with whether American troops are in Iraq or not, but with domination of the country. If you doubt that, ask yourself what would happen if America withdrew from Iraq today. Would these people celebrate their victory and go home? Or would the same groups currently attacking American targets instead fight amongst themselves for control of Iraq?

You don't need to wait for the answer. The various groups are already fighting amongst themselves. Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shia leader and cleric at the centre of one of the uprisings first came to attention following the murder of a moderate Shia cleric. While denials have been issued, there seems little doubt that even if he is innocent of this particular crime, he has been involved in similar ones. Our media isn't interested in Iraqi political violence unless it impacts western troops. We can only assume that the few reports we see are merely the tip of the iceberg.

The current fighting with western troops need to be viewed in the context of the wider political violence. America is being targeted not because it is an occupying force, but because it is currently a major political force in Iraq. Violence against America serves two purposes here - it may drive an opponent from the country, and it proves the strength of those committing the violence. The added complication in the case of al-Sadr is that the religious nature of his organisation means that they are happy to receive their rewards in the next world, leaving their deaths to inspire their followers to success in this world. Such people are difficult to deal with, as neither threats nor compromise have much effect on the core of the organisation. Instead, they need to be marginalised, and cut off from their potential supporters.

Bush now faces a massive quandary. The possibility of any sort of real hand over of power at the end of June is now pretty much impossible. American troops will need to remain in force for the foreseeable future, if Iraq is not to descend into civil war. Memories of Vietnam mean that the American public has limited patience for American deaths in foreign countries, especially where there is no end in sight. Bush must gamble that remaining in Iraq as, essentially, a peace-keeping force is so obviously necessary that no political rival - and most especially John Kerry - cannot commit to an alternative plan.

In the long term, a solution for Iraq does need to be found. The different aspirations of the various power groups means that any compromise is likely to be temporary. However strong a constitution is put in place, it seems to me that the only real chance for continual peace lies in dividing the country. Although a national council, probably with exceedingly limited powers, may be possible, I believe that only by dividing the country and allowing each group to dominate in the geographic area where they are already dominant can the moderates within each group be given strong enough arguments to marginalise the extremists on each side. This is the plan that the Bush administration has been resisting from the start - somewhat strangely given America's own federal system. Yet, I believe that only by allowing strong local governments with a weaker central council can further, and worsening, violence be avoided.

Graham Robinson. 7th April 2004.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.