-
Recently Written
-
Blogroll
-
Reads
-
memeorandum
-
Admin
Search
the tyee
-
Feb
25
Civil War?
February 25, 2006 |
Lee Harris writing at TechCentralDaily is not optimistic about the situation:
Those who are predicting that Iraq is on the brink of civil war may well prove to be guilty of wishful thinking. What is unfolding in Iraq may turn to be something far more horrifying — not the relatively civil Civil War fought by Americans a century and a half ago, but kind of tribalist anarchy that swept over Rwanda within our own lifetimes, and that has been the baseline of most human existence from time immemorial.
techcentraldaily
In a sense the naivete fo the Bushies in failing to think through the consequences of victory are part of the problem here. But the deeper problem predates Bush fils and pere.
I have been writing for a long time that the underlying issue in Iraq is that there is no such place. Iraq was invented by the colonial powers after WWI and was drawn on a map by an American diplomat. No one with the least familiarity with the religious and ethnic diversity in the area within the long, straight borders he drew would have suggested putting Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurd cheek by jowl.
But there it is and, unfortunately, it is one of the grand conceits of modern diplomacy that if some chap in 1920 drew a border then that is the border pretty much until the stars grow dim. Maybe the reason for this absurd fixation on 100 year old lines on maps is the real secret behind Skull and Bones.
What looks to have been an AlQaeda anti-Shi’ite operation will potentially trigger the sort of communal violence which was seen when Pakistan was carved out of India; but with no results other than a continuation of the status quo.
Saddam’s great gift to Iraq was a wilingness to use despicable brutality at a retail level to avoid that same brutality at a communal level. He “kept the lid on”.
Removing Saddam was a neccessary and commendable first Act. The problem is that no one apparently thought of a second Act other than the actors milling around muttering rubarb and looking busy. And, of course, without a second act, there is no way to get to the third Act and the curtain. I suspect this lack of foresight had a lot to do with the fact no one knew if they wanted the play to be a comedy or a tragedy.
In theatre, a comedy is conventionally capped with a wedding, a tragedy with a murder or a death. The potential for tragedy was always implicit in the first act. The potential for a wedding requires much greater vision than has been shown.
If Iraq does descend into communal murder the only group which may benefit aree the Kurds. At some point they will simply seek recognition of the fact they have established a functioning state. In the process I suspect they will remove the last of Saddam’s transplanted Sunnis from Kirkut and generally straighten out their lines.
In the South and East the Shi’ites will consolidate their monoply on power. In the Sunni triangle , Sunnis will have to figure out how best to protect themselves against the rage of the people whom they tortured and murdered for three decades (and I know it was not all the Sunnis - but the Shi’ite militias are not likely to be particularily discriminating.) Ironically, the Sunnis best - and only - friends may well be the American military which they have been sporadically blowing up.
The real flash point will be where Sunni and Shi’ite are in significant contact which really means Bagdhad. How Bagdhad goes will determine whether the second Act is a bloody, horrific, Rwanda on the Euphrates or if the possibility of a long lasting peace between communities can be achieved.
I remain optimistic; but I would be much more optimistic if I had even the slightest sense that Bush and Co. were at least willing to consider the partition of Iraq.
Comments
2 Comments so far
The riddle is that althugh people in Iraq know that they are being manipulated, they can’t deny the truth behind the manipulation, which is, as you’ve pointed out, that they are a diverse multitude forceably glued together into one society by external forces. This reminds me of Yugoslavia. TIto held it together for 50 years using secret police and tyrany. After all that effort, when Tito died the balkans reasserted itself, and we know what came to be.
Militias are rearing their heads again, which means that outbreaks of violence are more likely.
Personally, I think that Iraq has been in a slow-motion civil war for many months now. This is just an escalation, or at least an attempt to stimulate one.
I agree that removing Sadam was a good idea, but, like the lesson in Julius Caesar, beware of what you wish for. The death of Caesar brought war and just another tyrant. We have yet to be sure as to what the removal of Sadam will bring.
The lesson here may very well be an old one: Social and political progress needs to come largely from within.
I also agree that removing Saddam was a commendable thing. But this look on things would have more weight if it showed more respect for Iraqis and less condescion to the American effort. After Saddam was toppled it was up to Iraqis to set their own course - they are not mere putty to be shaped according to American (or our) wishes.
Iraqis are now free to get on with their lives or to kill one another in earnest. It is not within the ability of outsiders to make that choice for them.