The Irqi Quagmire

The Iraq Study Group (Baker - Hamliton) report on what course of action the US administration should follow in order to prevent Iraq from succumbing to sectarian forces consists of 79 steps to be followed to achieve the target. Though many of them are vague and very general statements, one thing is clearly mentioned in it. The vociferous demand of the anti-war groups in the US and elsewhere is the same – a pull out of the US forces from Iraq.

Iraq was ruled by the despotic Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, for more than three decades, until the invasion by the US led troop. His tenure had seen atrocities committed against the Iraqi people, often adding to the debilitating effect of the sanctions imposed by the west on the country and the oil embargo after the First Gulf war (this invasion being the second). The Shiites often found themselves in his wrong books. Though the Shiites constitutes around 60 percent of the Iraqi population, they were largely outnumbered by the Ba’athist Party members among the policy makers. The Shiites were supported by foreign powers like Iran and Syria (Iran having a majority Shia population and Syria having a Hezbollah stronghold) while the Sunni Muslims received financial and other help from countries like Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni countries (though this support was often covert in nature and not to the Saddam regime directly, because of the differences that had arisen after Saddam’s excursion in Kuwait). Under his rule these differences between the two sects did not find footing, since the Iraqis had an even bigger worry – how to feed themselves. These days the differences between these two sects (especially, and sometimes involving the Kurds) are more visible, and this situation has been worsened by the presence of foreign terrorist groups (many of them owing allegiance to the Al Qaeda).

This scenario has been altered drastically since the Iraqi invasion. As the Baker – Hamilton report suggests, solving the Israel – Palestinian conflict would provide the impetus to solve this crisis in Iraq. Most of hatred in Iraq (and the violence) has been aimed at the US led forces there. One of the main reasons the US forces are seen with so much animosity is that the US has been silent at the Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. There are thousands of Palestinians living in the neighbouring Arab countries, and these people as well as the host nations feel cheated by the Israelis. The unflinching support provided by the US to the Israelis adds fuel to the fire (this can be attributed to the very strong Israeli lobby in the US). We can not thus expect any stern action to be taken by the US against the Israeli aggression (for example what happened in Lebanon earlier this year). Putting it directly, finding a solution to the Isreali – Palestinian issue and using it as a pre-requisite for solving the Iraq crisis, is not a very good idea. One can only think of reducing the hostility of the Arabs in general (and the Iraqis in particular) towards the US (and the US led forces in Iraq).

It is this very antagonism against the US led forces, that has erupted into a full scale sectarian battle. The Shiites and Sunni Muslims wanted a means by which to try and impede the US progress. They found the answer – through the use of sectarian violence. Though this was initially to quell the US advancements, it has really turned out to be a very serious affair now. If the US led troops leave Iraq today, it will lead to a full scale civil war there. The leadership provided by the Iraqi Prime minister has not been able to consolidate every part of Iraq. Differences would rise (between the Sunni, Shiites and the Kurds), and these differences would possibly lead to the partition of the country (just like foreign invasions have done in many countries). In terms of the success rate (as spoken by the Bush-Blair duo), the Iraqi mission would be a failure, if such a division happens. There have been talks of partitioning Iraq on sectarian lines into three parts (one each for the Sunnis and the Shiites). Such a solution would not suffice because there would be a discrepancy regarding the equitable distribution of oil revenue.

The time, a peace process takes to come into effect in Palestine and the problems associated with partitioning Iraq, rules the previously mentioned schemes out of contention. So now what? One feasible initiative would be to gradually reduce American led troops in Iraq, with these troops being replaced by troops from the neighbouring countries like Syria, Iran, and the rest of the Gulf Corporation Council countries. This serves two purposes. One, the Arabs constituting this force would be in a position to relate better with the Iraqis. Moreover the Iraqi citizens would not see the Arab forces in the same light as the American led forces. ‘The Arabs can be trusted’, the Iraqis would say. The second, such a multi-national force, having an Iranian or Syrian majority, would also help ease the tension between Iran – Syria and the US. These countries could negotiate with the US for a reduction in the penalty that could be imposed on them by the US (sanctions in Iran regarding the nuclear weapons issue and the removal of the ruling family in Syria for the support it has provided to the Hezbollah). This way, we have a win-win situation for both the parties involved.

This scheme sounds good on paper. There are predicaments that could crop up in this schme of things too. Two things have to be understood, to prevent such problems from occurring - under no circumstances must these forces act as a puppet (controlled by the US), and neighouring countries (whose people form the multi-national force) should not play dirty games for their own political or religious leverage. Having a neutral force, with involvement from the UN and countries like India , which have had good relations in the past with the Iraqi people, would also be a good option (language and Indian politics may cause problems in this case). It is by doing such deeds; the Indian polity can speak of India truly being a world power to be reckoned. Just showing a GDP growth rate of more than eight percent is not good enough without such supplements.

For such a solution to be discussed, the US must first shed the gains it had planned to attain through this invasion. More importantly, the Bush – Blair duo must accept the mistakes committed and make amends too. If they fail to do so, any of their future rhetoric, would further loose credibility.