A way out of the mess
Opportunities and pitfalls ahead in Iraq
April 15, 2004
iranian.com
I was in Doha, Qatar, as a visiting scholar, during
the fall 2003 semester. I went there expecting a socially and culturally
conservative
society, but modern in economic and political terms. Given our
soldiers are there in a strategically significant military base,
I expected some degree of affinity with America and Americans among
the masses. I was wrong in all my expectations. Even though it
is still true that people, as individuals, aspire to go to the
United States for obvious reasons, these aspirations are personal
and do not encompass admiration of America's political behavior
and alliances in the region.
In the eyes of people there, America is no longer
the land of the freedom, the trusted sanctuary of the oppressed
and persecuted,
and land of equal opportunity. The words of Mahathir Muhammad,
former Malaysian Prime Minister, are accepted, in effect, without
any argument, implying that the United States foreign policy is
run out of Israel and the war on terrorism is a war on Islam in
disguise. People there do not anymore believe that we all have
a stake in the war against scourge of terrorism in spite of the
fact that they have experienced it in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and
Egypt on much smaller scales.
Surprisingly, Qataris, within the circles that I
have come to be in contact with, unanimously mention something
to the effect that,
in the immediate post 911 periods America was considered a victim
of a barbarous attack by those who wished to destabilize the
region. Today, however, people regard the United States as the
aggressor.
They blame US for the miserable and wretched environment in the
region, even in those places that America has not had much to
do with, at least directly.
It seems that all of the goodwill and
sympathy that were created because of the horrific 911 attack
is lost along with the liberal image of our country. The United
States
has become the catch-all single name that is used to connote
all bad things in their social and political lives and as the main
culprit for all their ills even though most of their ills are
self-inflicted
and could be traced to their own cultural, social, and political
systems. Although the centerpiece of the malcontent has been
and remains to be Israeli-Palestinian tragedy, American occupation
of Iraq is a close second.
American Foreign Policy
As far back as one could remember the US foreign policy in this
region has been based on two principles: free flow of oil at
reasonable prices and unconditional security of Israel. Pursuit
of these principles
has had an un-welcomed byproduct; America's alignment with
the authoritarian governments of the region who have been violating
every human right of their peoples and have kept them in dark
ages, something that people have not forgotten and will not forget
easily,
especially if there is a time for reckoning.
Unconditional security of Israel at any price has
put us against the people of the region despite their governments'
tendencies
to be friendly and behave according to the needs of the West.
In pursuit of both principles America is perceived as the enemy,
lined
up against the people of the region. They are oppressed by their
governments in every possible ways that, to their citizens, means
they are kept under the yoke of the United States so that cheap
oil freely flows out of the region.
The Iron fist policies of Israel in fighting stone
throwers and suicide bombers, and now the operation iron hammer
in Iraq to disarm
the gorillas are seen in the same perspectives as Mahathir Mohammad's.
American operation iron hammer is seen as a page from Israeli's
iron fist operations in Palestine, which reinforces the idea
that America, under the current Administration, is not perusing
its
own national interest; rather, it is a proxy and is waging a
war on behest of Israel. Neither US policy toward Israeli-Palestinian
tragedy, nor occupation of Iraq helps America and American national
interests in either the short or long run.
The Current State of Affairs
What makes the current situation more difficult to assess is
the flight by night change of missions that the Administration
is proposing
ever since it took office. Initially, this Administration was
supposed to stay out of others' affairs as was evident during
the
first 8 months of its current term. After the 911 tragedy, it
has become an aggressive destabilizing force. It seems that the
definitions
terrorism, national security, national interests, what is acceptable,
and what is desired move around like the sand in the desert.
Also,
it seems that first we find an enemy and then define our interests,
which is very disconcerting. It seems the destabilization of
the regimes in the region, friends and foes alike, and redrawing
the
maps of the Middle East are becoming the centerpiece of American
foreign policy. We only could guess what today's flavor is
going to be and tomorrow's wind will bring it to us. This
flight by night policy could be due to either a lack of vision
or a hidden agenda.
It is a lack of vision that is troublesome; because
any policy that depends on the direction of political wind and
not on the
long run national security and interests (any national interest-based
agenda, open or secret agenda does not matter much) confuses
those who are led as well as the allies who are supposed to be
the co-leaders
of world community.
It is not surprising that France, Germany,
Russia, and many other countries do not understand what the US
government is trying to do and have not gone along with the US
Middle East policies. As Zbigniew Brzezinski put it in a speech
on October 8, 2003, the lopsided votes in the UN General Assembly
on the subject of Middle East represent a very distressing and
disconcerting loss of credibility and isolation for the US, hardly
an enviable position for the only remaining superpower.
Iraq Is Not Another Vietnam, Yet
This time, it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, but it is
not a duck. Theoretically, there is at least one good and important
reason to dislodge the "Vietnam" syndrome. Iraqis want
the same thing that the US professes to want for them. Iraqis,
by and large, want to be free, to have a free press, to have
all equal rights under the law, for men and women alike. Iraqis
and
Americans, therefore, unlike the Vietnamese case, are moving
in the same direction.
In Vietnam, Americans were helping a puppet
regime in the south to subjugate its people and to fight a genuine
national insurgency in the north, which is not the case now.
However, this could easily become a Vietnam if America goes stray,
i.e.,
if America lost sight of the current stated mission of helping
Iraqis to learn the difficult concept of democracy, freedom,
and more importantly, establish institutions necessary for the
purpose.
Can US fail?
The answer to this question seems to be very simple and yet,
difficult. In theory, US cannot and should not fail. But it is
necessary to
define success and failure. All of those who desire a better
and more peaceful world, where people of all ethnic and religious
beliefs
could pursue their legitimate interests free of fear of foreign
and domestic threats, would agree that a Saddam-free world is
a better world. But replacing a domestic tyrant with a foreign
colonizer,
benevolent or otherwise, is not an acceptable tradeoff for the
free men and women of Iraq and of the free world. This is exactly
what should be on the minds of the policy wonks.
Military victory
does not translate and should not be considered a victory even
if the masses are completely subjugated. Peoples' submission
to military might is similar to the fire under the ashes. It
would take only a mild blow for the fire to show itself and burn
whomever
and whatever is there. The demise of the former Shah of Iran
must be vividly remembered while we are playing king makers in
Iraq
and other places. Victory must mean winning the hearts and minds
and the permanent goodwill of the people, not dissimilar to the
Post II World War appreciation of America by Germans, French,
Italians, and the rest of Europeans who were freed from their miseries
under
fascism.
Can Partition of Iraq Be On the Table?
There are voices of late that the better solution for Iraq is
to partition it into three autonomous regions, either under an
Iraqi
or under a Hashemite "umbrella." This option has both
good and bad potentials. It is a good idea if the intention is
to divide and conquer and increase destabilization threats and
pressures on the governments by hinting that other countries
like Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others with diverse ethnic
and
religious compositions could have, sooner or later, a similar
fate. Understandably, however, this advantage would be very un-welcomed
by any country regardless of their location.
Take Israel, for example,
if we assume that Shi'as and Sunnis, two close branches of
the same religion, could not coexist, why would anyone assume
that Muslims and Jews could coexist in Israel, wherever the borders
are eventually drawn? Would Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Azerbaijan,
and Iran remain silent or would they want to join their brethren
in the "new" Kurdistan? Would we have to separate eastern
Saudi Arabia, where a large Shi'a population lives, from
the rest?
On another level, the call for the partition of
Iraq ignores the concept of Iraqi nationalism altogether. Despite
the discrimination
that Kurds and Shi'as experienced under the previous authoritarian
regimes (monarchy, colonial, and the rest) over time, the Iraqi
identity has been very strong among main stream Iraqis. Separatists,
mostly in Kurdish areas, in most cases, have appealed to the
sense of political and economic injustice that they experienced
by the
central governments.
On a more mundane level, a major obstacle in the
partition scenario is the distribution of wealth among would be
emerging nations.
Plenty of oil and gas exist in the Kurdish and Shi'a areas
and very little in the Sunni-dominated areas such as Karkuk.
Would Sunnis agree to the partition even though they are going
to be
another pan-handling country on the same level as Jordan, Syria,
or Egypt? Finally and arguably most importantly, the advocates
of partition assume some level of incurable ignorance, intolerance,
and fanaticism by Iraqis, which borders bigotry, if not outright
contempt for the people of Iraq.
Arab Governments and Current US Foreign Policy
The Arab leaders will not approve of destabilization policy,
which would make their lives much more difficult, even if they
acquiesce
to the free flow of oil, as they have been doing it for decades,
and tacitly to the occupation of Iraq. At the very least, these
regimes would lose confidence in the sincerity and friendship
of the US, which would make American position in the region,
if not
in the world, more tenuous. No country, poor or rich, large or
small, could rely on a government whose policy is based on destabilization
of its allies. If this policy becomes the centerpiece of American
foreign policy, the first thing that might happen is further
isolation of the United States and gravitation of the rest of
the world toward
Europe or other centers and that does not bode well for the US
in the short or long run.
A Way Out
It seems the rushed and seemingly arrogant policy of the United
States to take
it upon itself to do the "right thing" has cornered and isolated
America in the world community. Goodwill and sympathy that have been accumulated
over decades and especially after the 911 horrendous losses have been unnecessarily
squandered.
Whether the policy undertakings were mistakes driven
by neoconservative zealots, a result of an honest miscalculation
by cool headed policy wonks,
a result of misinformation received from the expatriate Iraqis,
or driven by the
Jewish-Christian fundamentalist coalition do not matter now, except they
need to be acknowledged for the history and future decision makers.
What we need
now is to get ourselves out of this nightmarish situation.
We need to know that time, at least politically,
may not be an ally. We might be able to crush Iraqis physically
or even crush their will, something that is
highly doubtful, but that will not win their hearts and minds and their loyalty
in the future. It is not very wise to look for or wait until a "Hamid Karzai"
is found. Given the fact that the central government in Afghanistan does not
control
much beyond Kabul, a government under Iraq's "Karzai" will
not be any different. They will follow their own agenda rather than the national
interests of Iraq. Iraq, under a "Karzai" will be a chaotic mess
and its disintegration will be guaranteed.
The Iraqi rank and files, the United Nations and
NATO are all itching to become significant players in the game.
Therefore, it is better to start a multi-pronged
policy of inclusion, transfer, and disengagement. Here are a few potentially
fast and costless steps that would open the gates for the US to get out and
would buy back much of the lost goodwill around the world. None
of these steps requires
giving up a controlling role for the US.
-- Let Iraqis in every city, town, and village start a constitutional debate
around a basic democratic set of principles. This will get Iraqis involved and
also
gives them a view of the end of the tunnel and, may be, they will help contain
the gorillas. This process could also lead to discovery of a "Karzai" type
ruler.
-- The current Board does not have the support of
the people. They are powerless and useless in the eyes of Iraqi
rank and file and, therefore, it should
be disbanded.
They are to be replaced with tribal and moderate religious leaders who have
people's confidence and support.
-- This would reassure Iraqis that they are going
to be in charge of their own lives and would allay the fears of
many in the world, especially those
of Europeans
and Muslims. This could also help replacing our troops with those of Egypt,
Jordan, Pakistan, India, and, particularly, the NATO.
-- Finally, the meritocracy should be given a chance.
UN has proven record of nation building around the world. UN knows
how to establish the institutions
that are
needed for a democratic society. Author
Hamid Zangeneh, Ph.D., is
Professor of Economics at Widener University in Chester, Pennsylvania and Editor of Journal
of Iranian Research and Analysis.
.................... Say
goodbye to spam! *
*
|
