Iraq: Game Over
TomPaine.com - Iraq: Game Over
The last hope for peace in Iraq was stomped to death this week. The victory of the Shiite religious coalition in the December 15 election hands power for the next four years to a fanatical band of fundamentalist Shiite parties backed by Iran, above all to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Quietly backed by His Malevolence, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, sustained by a 20,000-strong paramilitary force called the Badr Brigade, and with both overt and covert support from Iran's intelligence service and its Revolutionary Guard corps, SCIRI will create a theocratic bastion state in its southern Iraqi fiefdom and use its power in Baghdad to rule what's left of the Iraqi state by force.
The consequences of SCIRI's victory are manifold. But there is no silver lining, no chance for peace talks among Iraq's factions, no chance for international mediation. There is no centrist force that can bridge the factional or sectarian divides. Next stop: civil war.
There isn't any point in looking for silver linings in the catastrophic Iraqi vote. The likely next prime minister, Adel Abdel Mahdi, is a smooth-talking SCIRI thug. His boss, Abdel Aziz Hakim of SCIRI, is the former commander of the Badr Brigade and a militant cleric who has issued bloodthirsty calls for a no-holds-barred military solution to the insurgency. The scores of secret torture prisons by the SCIRI-led Iraqi ministry of the interior will proliferate, and SCIRI-led death squads will start going down their lists of targets. The divisive, sectarian constitution that was rammed down Iraq's throat in October by the Shiite religious bloc will be preserved intact under the new, "permanent government" of Iraq led by SCIRI.
[snip]
The more perceptive among U.S. intelligence officials and Iraq experts know how to read the situation, and they mostly believe it is hopeless. "I hate to say, 'Game over,'" says Wayne White, who led the State Department's intelligence effort on Iraq until last spring. "But we've lost it." There is no mechanism for the Sunnis now to restore a modicum of balance in Iraq, and the Shiite religious parties have no incentive to make significant concessions either to the Sunnis or to the resistance, White says.
Comments
It's not that I disagree with this but it's a little late in coming up with this analysis. We've known since we first heard of al-Sistani that he controlled much of what happened with the Shia's. He refused to negotiate directly with the Occupation Authority and could curb Sadr. The writing was on the wall with the assassination of Abdul Majid al-Khoei. The civil war seems to have been going on since early this year if you've followed the Iraqi on Iraqi violence. If you ever had any hope of a motive for being in Iraq, apart from WMD, that was lost when the Mukhbarat was reconstituted under Paul Bremmer.
There was all that populist stuff from Colin Powell about "if you break it you own it". Well you might "own it" but you can't put it back together.
As the children sing in my country.."All the King's horses and all the King's men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again."
Iraq... to how many parts do you think Iraq will be broken down? Could it be one for the Sunni (Sunnikakystan), one for the Shia (Shiarqi), and one for the Kurds (Kurdhistan)? Iraq will have one of the toughest "civil" wars going on, it will be very similar to Kosovo, with genocides, thanks to the diverse differences in the country/area. It will not only a civil war of the social classes, but one influenced by faith. And we all know how fanatical people can be (not to say Muslims, just take a look at Pat Robertson), so to all the people of Iraq... brace yourselves, because US's occupation is just the interlude for harsher times.
Iraq is the new Yugoslavia!
Damn, I should have included Iraq in my list of The Top Ten Defeatists of 2005.
Oh come on, you really can't believe everything you read. The constitution they have obviously has some religious leanings. Hoping for a secular government in the Middle East is folly. And you can be assured that the members of the provisional government are doing everything they can to prevent civil war. Not one of them wants this state to decend into anarchy, in the worst-case scenario they would like the democratic state to maintain so they remain influential and in power. Iraqis in general want democracy. Sure, members would like things on their terms, but so do our senators, liberals and conservatives. Everyone works together. Is this article substantial or just general cynical naysaying?
'some religious leanings' That's the understatement of the century. If you listen to thoughtful Republicans and Democrats on the topic they are all extremely concerned over the fact that the 'religious' not the secular or the religious that want a secular society were the big losers in the election. I give it no more than a 10% chance that it will be anything like a western style democracy when it's over, and that's being generous. The problem now is that we are in the unenviable position of strengthening the religious side in the conflict. Just another reason to get out now and let them sort it out.
Norm there was never any chance of a "western" style democracy, since a democracy has to represent the people it stands for. With a very different culture and view on the place of religions in life that is going to be represented by the choices people make. Even asking for a straight seperation of church and state is a huge deal as even the American govenerment can't do that (They try but you can't get elected unless you say Jesus is your personal savior). There are however several ways to deal with it.
Get out, seems like a good idea since it reduces american losses...leads to that "Iraq is the new Yugoslavia!" And then you'll have others moving in to pick up the pieces. In the long run not really in americas favor.
Keep a large military presence to keep the peace and to keep the terrorists under control. This would lead to something like Northern Ireland...not a good idea at all. Ask the Brits about it sometime.
Kill the leader until it's a dictator that america can work with. Not a new solution for america but with Iraq on the world stage it would lead to even more bad press and more anti american feelings.
Of course this problem came about because of the idea that America was the only power with influence in Iraq. Ignoring a problem just means it comes back bigger and badder later.
um...anybody remember Baghdad Bob? Well, check out this statement from Crawford George.
by the way, 30,000 iraqi deaths is rediculous.
http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/05/300.html 100,000 mostly from american bombs. and that was last year.
We need to get out as soon as possible. Almost every aftermath scenario that might play out in Iraq after US forces withdraw is better than the options they will be stuck with if we stay. US forces have never made good peacekeepers, and a situation where we are occupying a sovereign nation is only going to aggravate that. There is never going to be a point when Iraq is 'stable enough' to pull out as long as we are there, no matter how many votes they have, noone trusts a government created under gunpoint.
You can't force people to be free, Vietnam taught us that, though it probably should have been self-evident before.