The fading hopes of Iraqi Nationalism
Middle East scholar Juan Cole provides some interesting discussion on the possibilities for Sunni-Shia co-operation in Iraq. Nationalism often trumps sectarian loyalties for many Iraqi groups and individuals, though that situation, like Iraqi society, appears fluid to say the least.
It seemed clear during 2004, as the Sunni and Shia insurgents co-operated in the way Juan describes, that the US was facing its ultimate nightmare in Iraq; a unified national resistance. Its doubtful that the US could've faced down such a movement even - especially - if peaceful tactics to end the occupation had been adopted. Such a national Iraqi coalition could well have been durable. National liberation movements tend to form a major part of the national mythology that can bind a country together through the years.
At the time, Sistani's role in ending the battle of Najaf seemed decisive in ending the hope of such a movement emerging. Understandably Sistani wanted to end the violence, especially since it was desecrating the holy city. But did he not also want to see the US occupation used as the vehicle to deliver maximum power to the Shia majority? Did he not fear, as many other Shia and Kurdish figures seem to, that if the US left a more favourable accomodation would have to be made with the Sunnis than would otherwise be the case? After all, isn't Sistani, like so many holy men, rather less withdrawn from the temptations of the material world than his office demands?
How much different might things be now if, at the time of the battle of Najaf in 2004, Sistani had made a statement to the effect that the US occupation was causing so much bloodshed as to be no longer tenable, that US troops should leave on a short timetable, and that a national unity government of all groups should be formed pending free elections to be held upon the departure of the last Western soldier? Could al-Qaeda have been sidelined? Would sectarianism have wilted in the face of a national political will?
This is not to wag the finger at irresponsible Iraqis, which would plainly be most hypocritical for any US/UK citizen (e.g as new US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi effectively did in her inaugration speech yesterday). It is to demonstrate the distorting, possibly fatal effect a foreign occupation has had on the politics of the new Iraq. Most countries have ambitious politicians and public figures. But not every country has some of those figures backed by an occupying army, thus hampering the nation's own ability to mediate and settle disputes in the public interest. Most countries have sectarian divisions, but not all have the socio-political-economic conditions to foster conflict instead of compromise. Those conditions in Iraq have been created by the occupation, not the natural tendency of the barbarians to slaughter each other in the absence of Western supervision.
At the time, Sistani's role in ending the battle of Najaf seemed decisive in ending the hope of such a movement emerging. Understandably Sistani wanted to end the violence, especially since it was desecrating the holy city. But did he not also want to see the US occupation used as the vehicle to deliver maximum power to the Shia majority? Did he not fear, as many other Shia and Kurdish figures seem to, that if the US left a more favourable accomodation would have to be made with the Sunnis than would otherwise be the case? After all, isn't Sistani, like so many holy men, rather less withdrawn from the temptations of the material world than his office demands?
How much different might things be now if, at the time of the battle of Najaf in 2004, Sistani had made a statement to the effect that the US occupation was causing so much bloodshed as to be no longer tenable, that US troops should leave on a short timetable, and that a national unity government of all groups should be formed pending free elections to be held upon the departure of the last Western soldier? Could al-Qaeda have been sidelined? Would sectarianism have wilted in the face of a national political will?
This is not to wag the finger at irresponsible Iraqis, which would plainly be most hypocritical for any US/UK citizen (e.g as new US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi effectively did in her inaugration speech yesterday). It is to demonstrate the distorting, possibly fatal effect a foreign occupation has had on the politics of the new Iraq. Most countries have ambitious politicians and public figures. But not every country has some of those figures backed by an occupying army, thus hampering the nation's own ability to mediate and settle disputes in the public interest. Most countries have sectarian divisions, but not all have the socio-political-economic conditions to foster conflict instead of compromise. Those conditions in Iraq have been created by the occupation, not the natural tendency of the barbarians to slaughter each other in the absence of Western supervision.
Labels: Iraq
posted by David Wearing at 2:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home