Iraq: Occupation or Civil War?
Its often asserted that whatever you think about the invasion of Iraq in 2003, to withdraw western troops now would be to abandon that country to the horrors of civil war. As the Prime Minister said in his speech to the Foreign Policy centre in March of this year:
"Iraq is facing a crucial moment in its history: to unify and progress, under a government elected by its people for the first time in half a century; or to descend into sectarian strife, bringing a return to certain misery for millions......the fact is that now, whatever the rights and wrongs of how and why Saddam [was] removed, there is an obvious, clear and overwhelming reason for supporting the people of [Iraq] in their desire for democracy."
I've covered the cynical fraud that is Blair's idea of Iraqi democracy many times, so lets put that to one side and focus on the question of whether the occupiers really are all that stands between Iraq and a sectarian bloodbath.
The obvious answer is that it was precisely the chaos created by the US-UK invasion that set the current civil conflict in motion, and that's correct to a certain degree. But the point needs to be developed further. Middle East expert Gilbert Achcar of the University of Paris-VIII (who, as a Lebanese, knows a little about civil war) spells out the exact relationship between the occupation and the sectarian bloodshed:
"...the slide of Iraq toward the worst-case scenario for its population does not necessarily represent the worst-case scenario for Washington. Actually, most of what has happened in recent months in Iraq, except for the publicity surrounding U.S. troops' criminal behavior, has suited Washington's designs. The sharp increase in sectarian tensions as well as the defeat of Muqtada al-Sadr's [pan-Iraqi national resistance] project played blatantly into Washington's hands. Along with many others, I have warned for quite a long time that, when all is said and done, Washington's only trump card in Iraq is going to be the sectarian and ethnic divisions among Iraqis, which the Bush administration is exploiting in the most cynical way according to the most classical of all imperial recipes: 'Divide and rule'."
"The occupation fuels the insurgency, which stirs up the sectarian tension that Washington's proconsul [Ambassador Khalilzad] strives to fan by political means, which in turn is used to justify the continuing occupation. The latest major way in which U.S. occupation authorities are throwing oil on the Iraqi fire, according to Shiite sources, is by helping the Islamic Party -- the Iraqi Arab Sunni group closest to Washington and to the Saudis -- build an armed wing that is already taking part in the sectarian feud."
"There is no way out of this burning circle but one: Only by announcing immediately the total and unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops can a decisive step be taken toward putting out the fire. This would cool down the Sunni insurgency that the Association of Muslim Scholars has repeatedly pledged to call to a halt as soon as a timetable for the withdrawal of occupation troops is announced. It would dampen as well the sectarian tension, as Iraqis will then look squarely at their future and feel compelled to reach a way to coexist peacefully. And if ever they came to the conclusion that they needed a foreign presence for a while to help them restore order and start real reconstruction, it should definitely not be one composed of troops from countries that harbor hegemonic ambitions over Iraq, but one that is welcomed by all segments of the Iraqi people as friendly and disinterested help."
Read the rest here, where Achcar describes the dynamics at work in more detail.
Achcar raises the question of a "friendly and disinterested...foreign presence... that is welcomed by all segments of the Iraqi people ....to help them restore order". I wrote about just such a solution in October 2005, as did Middle East scholar Juan Cole earlier that year. That course of action needs to be implemented now more than ever. But it would also mean Washington abandoning its imperialist project, which apart from anything else would be a disaster for its credibility as a global hegemon. The occupation will only end, therefore, as a result of irresistable popular pressure forcing the hand of government. And that's where we come in.
"Iraq is facing a crucial moment in its history: to unify and progress, under a government elected by its people for the first time in half a century; or to descend into sectarian strife, bringing a return to certain misery for millions......the fact is that now, whatever the rights and wrongs of how and why Saddam [was] removed, there is an obvious, clear and overwhelming reason for supporting the people of [Iraq] in their desire for democracy."
I've covered the cynical fraud that is Blair's idea of Iraqi democracy many times, so lets put that to one side and focus on the question of whether the occupiers really are all that stands between Iraq and a sectarian bloodbath.
The obvious answer is that it was precisely the chaos created by the US-UK invasion that set the current civil conflict in motion, and that's correct to a certain degree. But the point needs to be developed further. Middle East expert Gilbert Achcar of the University of Paris-VIII (who, as a Lebanese, knows a little about civil war) spells out the exact relationship between the occupation and the sectarian bloodshed:
"...the slide of Iraq toward the worst-case scenario for its population does not necessarily represent the worst-case scenario for Washington. Actually, most of what has happened in recent months in Iraq, except for the publicity surrounding U.S. troops' criminal behavior, has suited Washington's designs. The sharp increase in sectarian tensions as well as the defeat of Muqtada al-Sadr's [pan-Iraqi national resistance] project played blatantly into Washington's hands. Along with many others, I have warned for quite a long time that, when all is said and done, Washington's only trump card in Iraq is going to be the sectarian and ethnic divisions among Iraqis, which the Bush administration is exploiting in the most cynical way according to the most classical of all imperial recipes: 'Divide and rule'."
"The occupation fuels the insurgency, which stirs up the sectarian tension that Washington's proconsul [Ambassador Khalilzad] strives to fan by political means, which in turn is used to justify the continuing occupation. The latest major way in which U.S. occupation authorities are throwing oil on the Iraqi fire, according to Shiite sources, is by helping the Islamic Party -- the Iraqi Arab Sunni group closest to Washington and to the Saudis -- build an armed wing that is already taking part in the sectarian feud."
"There is no way out of this burning circle but one: Only by announcing immediately the total and unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops can a decisive step be taken toward putting out the fire. This would cool down the Sunni insurgency that the Association of Muslim Scholars has repeatedly pledged to call to a halt as soon as a timetable for the withdrawal of occupation troops is announced. It would dampen as well the sectarian tension, as Iraqis will then look squarely at their future and feel compelled to reach a way to coexist peacefully. And if ever they came to the conclusion that they needed a foreign presence for a while to help them restore order and start real reconstruction, it should definitely not be one composed of troops from countries that harbor hegemonic ambitions over Iraq, but one that is welcomed by all segments of the Iraqi people as friendly and disinterested help."
Read the rest here, where Achcar describes the dynamics at work in more detail.
Achcar raises the question of a "friendly and disinterested...foreign presence... that is welcomed by all segments of the Iraqi people ....to help them restore order". I wrote about just such a solution in October 2005, as did Middle East scholar Juan Cole earlier that year. That course of action needs to be implemented now more than ever. But it would also mean Washington abandoning its imperialist project, which apart from anything else would be a disaster for its credibility as a global hegemon. The occupation will only end, therefore, as a result of irresistable popular pressure forcing the hand of government. And that's where we come in.
posted by David Wearing at 11:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home