http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC09Ak01.html
Mar 9, 2006
Blaming the victims as Iraq disintegrates
By Stephen Zunes
The sectarian violence which has swept across Iraq following last
month's terrorist bombing of the Shi'ite Golden Mosque in Samarra is
yet another example of the tragic consequences of the US invasion and
occupation of Iraq.
Until the 2003 US invasion and occupation, Iraq had maintained a
longstanding history of secularism and a strong national identity
among its Arab population despite its sectarian differences.
Not only has the United States failed to bring a functional democracy
to Iraq, neither US forces nor the US-backed Iraqi government in
Baghdad have been able to provide the Iraqi people with basic
security.
This has led many ordinary citizens to turn to extremist sectarian
groups for protection, further undermining the Bush administration's
insistence that US forces must remain in Iraq in order to prevent a
civil war.
Top analysts in the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department,
as well as large numbers of Middle East experts, warned that a US
invasion of Iraq could result in a violent ethnic and sectarian
conflict.
Even some of the war's intellectual architects acknowledged as much:
in a 1997 paper, prior to becoming major figures in the Bush foreign
policy team, David Wurmser, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith predicted
that a post-Saddam Iraq would likely be "ripped apart" by sectarianism
and other cleavages but called on the US to "expedite" such a collapse
anyway.
As a result, the tendency in the US to blame "sectarian conflict" and
"long-simmering hatreds" for the Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq is, in
effect, blaming the victim.
Fostering fragmentation
One of the longstanding goals of such neo-conservative intellectuals
has been to see the Middle East broken up into smaller ethnic or
sectarian mini-states, which would include not only large stateless
nationalities like the Kurds, but Maronite Christians, Druze, Arab
Shi'ites and others.
Such a policy comes not out of respect for the right of
self-determination - indeed, the neo-cons have been steadfast
opponents of the Palestinians' desire for statehood, even alongside a
secure Israel - but out of an imperial quest for divide-and-rule.
The division of the Middle East has long been seen as a means of
countering the threat of pan-Arab nationalism and, more recently,
pan-Islamist movements.
Given the mosaic of ethnicities and sects in the Middle East, with
various groupings having mixed together within both urban and rural
settings for many generations, the establishment of such ethnic or
sectarian mini-states would almost certainly result in forced
population transfers, ethnic cleansing and other human suffering.
The risk of Iraq breaking up into a Sunni Kurdish state, a Sunni Arab
state and a Shi'ite Arab state is now very real.
And, given the intermixing of these populations in Baghdad, Mosul,
Kirkuk and scores of other cities, the potential exists for the most
violent breakup of a country since the partition of India 60 years
ago.
Recent weeks have shown ominous signs of what may be yet to come on a
massive scale, as scores of Shi'ite families were forced to flee what
were once mixed neighborhoods in and around Baghdad.
Even barring a formal breakup of the country, the prospects of a
stable, unified country look bleak.
As the Los Angeles Times reported on February 26, "The outlines of a
future Iraq are emerging:
a nation where power is scattered among clerics turned warlords;
control over schools, hospitals, railroads, and roads is divided along
sectarian lines;
graft and corruption subvert good governance;
and foreign powers exert influence only over a weak central
government."
Much of Iraq's current divisions can be traced to the decision of US
occupation authorities immediately following the conquest to abolish
the Iraqi army and purge the government bureaucracy - both bastions of
secularism - thereby creating a vacuum which was soon filled by
sectarian parties and militias.
In addition, the US occupation authorities - in an apparent effort of
divide-and-rule - encouraged sectarianism by dividing up authority
based not on technical skills or ideological affiliation but ethnic
and religious identity.
As with Lebanon, however, such efforts have actually exacerbated
divisions, with virtually every political question debated not on its
merits, but on which group it potentially benefits or harms.
This has led to great instability, with political parties,
parliamentary blocs and government ministries breaking down along
sectarian lines.
Even army divisions are separated, with parts of western Baghdad being
patrolled by army units dominated by Sunnis while eastern Baghdad is
being patrolled by Shi'ite-dominated units.
Without unifying national institutions, the breakup of the country
remains a real possibility.
Sectarian conflicts
Theologically, there are fewer differences between Sunnis and Shi'ites
than there are between Catholics and Protestants.
In small Iraqi towns of mixed populations with only one mosque, Sunnis
and Shi'ites worship together. Intermarriage is not uncommon.
This harmony is now threatening to unravel.
Shi'ite Muslims, unlike the Sunni Muslims, have a clear hierarchy.
(Ayatollahs, for example, are essentially the equivalent of Catholic
cardinals.)
As a result, the already-existing clerical-based social structures in
the Shi'ite community were among the few organizations to survive
Saddam's totalitarian regime and were therefore more easily capable of
organizing themselves politically when US forces overthrew the
government in Baghdad in 2003.
Sunni and secular groupings, then, found themselves at a relative
disadvantage when they suddenly found themselves free to organize.
As a result, the US initially insisted on indefinite rule by Iraqis
picked directly or indirectly by Washington.
However, when hundreds of thousands of Shi'ites took to the streets in
January 2004 demanding the right to choose their country's leaders,
the Bush administration reluctantly agreed to hold direct elections.
Having been dominated by Sunnis under the Ba'athists, the Hashemites
and the Ottomans, the Shi'ite majority was eager to rule.
Not surprisingly, elections have brought Shi'ite religious parties to
power which have since marginalized other groups and imposed their
repressive and misogynist version of Islamic law in parts of Iraq
where they dominate, particularly in the south of the country.
Sunni opposition to Shi'ite dominance does not just stem from
resentment at losing their privileged position in Iraqi political life
under the former dictatorship.
Indeed, Saddam suppressed his fellow Sunni Arabs along with Sunni
Kurds and Shi'ite Arabs.
What US officials have failed to recognize is that Iraq's Sunni Arab
minority, regardless of its feelings about Saddam's regime, has long
identified with Arab nationalism.
Not surprisingly, the armed resistance which emerged following
Saddam's removal from power three years ago has come largely from the
Sunni Arab community.
The insurgency has also targeted the US-backed Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi
government, which came to power as a result of the US invasion and
which many see as being puppets of the US occupation.
They also fear that the Iraqi government may identify more with their
fellow Shi'ites of Iran than with other Arabs.
More radical Sunni chauvinists, many of whom are foreign Salafi
extremists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have engaged in widespread
terrorist attacks again Shi'ite civilians and their holy places.
Despite its dependence on the US and ties to Iran, however, the
Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government has its own agenda.
Culturally and linguistically, Iraq's Shi'ites are every bit as Arab
as the Sunnis.
Yet while the vast majority of the country's Shi'ite Arab majority has
no desire to be pawns of either Iran or the US, the response by the
Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government and Shi'ite militias has done
little to lessen Sunni fears and hostility.
Seeing their government faced with a growing insurgency and their
community falling victim to terrorist violence, the Shi'ites have
responded with aggressive counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist
operations against the Sunni community.
Human rights abuses by Shi'ites against the Sunni minority have
increased dramatically, polarizing the country still further.
Even before the latest upsurge in sectarian violence, the Baghdad
morgue was reporting that dozens of bodies of Sunni men with gunshot
wounds to the back of the head would arrive at the same time every
week, including scores of corpses with wrists bound by police
handcuffs.
________________________________________________________
Bush's destruction of this country and its millions of people is well
documented.
Harry
.
|
