Iraq Beyond Saddam
The problem in being a compromise choice for leader is that unless you are an extraordinary person capable of standing your ground (given that you have the genius to sift the mundane from the important), you will be pummeled from all directions and unable to satisfy the individual and/or collective demands of all your masters (or mistresses). Or worse, you could fall back on only protecting the vital interests of your prime sponsor and thus compromise good judgment and principles. While many Iraqis hated Saddam for what he was, a brutal murderer with no qualms about human life, and a fair amount of the population looked forward to his climbing the steps of the scaffold, the timing of his execution and the manner it was carried out was atrocious. Iraq’s PM Nur Maliki managed to sacrifice the parameters of good governance on which he had advertised his ascendancy to the PM’s post, he might as well have thrown national unity to the wolves. Displaying profound bad judgment, he proclaimed his allegiance, neither to Iraq nor to muslims, but only to Moqtada al Sadr’s so-called “Mahdi” army. It will have long-term repercussions for Iraq, for the region, and as a result for the world. That the US will dump him is only a matter of time, Nur Maliki will more likely pre-empt his dismissal by resigning, sooner rather than later.
No death is a cause for celebration, the taunting of any person when he (or she) is about to die (for whatever reason) is disgraceful. The US has categorically distanced themselves from the date of the execution saying they had recommended to the Nur Maliki government to postpone it for 2 weeks, they also said they had nothing to do with the conduct of the execution and deplored the way it was carried out. Maliki has managed to saddle muslims with Saddam Hussain as a martyr, at least for majority Sunnis! Since Nur Maliki cannot be that dumb so as to not have anticipated the consequences of violating the sanctity of Eid Day, why did he choose this day to go ahead with this deliberate provocation to the sensitivities of muslims? More importantly, why did he allow sympathisers of Moqtada al-Sadr to be included among Saddam’s executioners? And in the high security area, how did they manage to slip in mobile phones. Saddam was brutal with Shias (as well as all other Iraqis who did not give absolute allegiance to him) and it was to be expected that the Sadr-ites would not miss the opportunity of humiliating or brutalizing him before he met his fate at the gallows. Despite his many many sins, the Saddam’s execution was certainly going to be resented by his supporters, a vast majority of them Sunnis. The timing and taunting was adding fuel to the fire, deliberately meant to inflame passions.
The unauthorized (??) video-filming of the episode by two guards and its circulation by mobile phone was by itself a provocative act. With 3 million muslims in Saudi Arabia on the plains of Arafat doing Hajj, many of them on the way back to Mina, any small incident in reaction could have created a stampede, a tragedy of horrific proportion. The consequences would have been an unending Sunni-Shia strife. By refusing the black hood to cover his face before hanging, Saddam became the stuff of legend, Saddam Hussain refused to cringe like a coward and meeting death with as much dignity as anyone can muster when facing imminent demise. No wonder he is being eulogized in spontaneous demonstrations by Iraqis, mainly Sunnis, becoming much larger in death than he ever became in life. The stark contrast to his capture in a sorry state two years earlier, when he was cut down to size even in the eyes of his supporters, to that of his death, is glaring.
For all practical purposes, the Shia-Sunni divide in Iraq may have become too big to bridge, with virtually no chance of amity in the near future, the Kurds are already in a different orbit altogether. The execution puts another nail in the coffin of a once independent Iraq. However before one begins to surmise what form or shape a possible future Iraq will take, it is crucially necessary to restore law and order. The present situation borders on anarchy, just short of a full-fledged civil war. While the US has to exit someday from Iraq, a quick departure is impossible in the circumstances availing. As much as the US Congress may so desire, the political solution has to preceeded by a military one. The only way to contain further erosion of the law and order is to use the military operations option.
While insurgency proliferates in all areas of Iraq, the focus is in the so-called Sunni triangle, mostly in and around Baghdad. The major problem area a being the city of Baghdad, this must be de-militarized of all private militias. The killers running around in mufti are mostly criminal gangs indulging in extortion, kidnapping, torture, murder, etc, unless they are disarmed the situation will continue to become worse and worse. The prime mission must be to pacify the capital city. The present Iraqi Army is incapable of doing the job, and even if it could it would not be not advisable to test their unity (the Shia-Sunni divide) in this sensitive matter. They can at best be used in a supporting role and in protecting logistics lifelines. So that there is no chance of discrimination in hunting down the criminal gangs, the US Armed Forces must do the dirty work. Even they will have their work cut out from them, taking care in minimizing civilian casualties there is bound to be “collateral damage”.
The US military’s request for a “surge” in troops is absolutely correct in keeping with Clausewitz’s first principle of war “selection and maintenance of aim”. Pushed by Senator John McCain for nearly a year, the US Congress will do well not to oppose what President Bush is likely to request any day now. A quick US exit without pacifying and cleansing Baghdad will result in total mayhem, an open invitation for civil war as everyone and his uncle races in to fill the vacuum. By bringing in an additional 20000 troops (maybe 4/5 brigades) and re-allocating/adjusting troops from other areas, Baghdad can be cleared of insurgents. The adjustment in areas will mean some internal-border movement that will be disruption and chaos. There will be causalities but in the long run there will be far less blood then that spilt if there is a hasty exit of US forces.
Regretfully, Iraq is no longer capable of remaining a Federation, at best it can survive as a Confederation, even that will require sacrifice from all sides. Turkey will have to be satisfied that the Kurds do not have larger ambitions, the peripheral Arab States will apprehend that no Super-Shia State will emerge in conjunction with Iran. While the Kurds have a defined area, the Shia-Sunni divide has yet to be properly mapped out. The leaders of Iraq will have to bite a bitter bullet. As the western powers have discovered, Iraq is difficult to swallow, even with oil to lubricate the morsels.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment