|
|
|
Why the civil is inevitable |
|
|
|
| |
Outside View: Iraq's civil war waiting for U.S withdrawal
By Barry Rubin
UPI Outside View Commentator
Published April 3, 2006
JERUSALEM -- There's been a big scare about the possibility of civil war in Iraq after a bloody terrorist attack on a Shiite Muslim holy site. With relief, despite a wave of violence after this event, everyone concluded that no civil war was starting now.
Yet this immediate relief should be coupled with a realistic assessment: there will almost certainly be a civil war in the not-too-distant future. In fact, let me rephrase that, there is already a civil war going on, merely masked by the presence of Western forces.
Insurgents -- a blend of Saddam Hussein supporters, pro-Osama bin Laden Islamists, and Sunni communal nationalists -- claim to be fighting the foreign "occupation," but are actually battling fellow Iraqis, to ensure no lasting government led by the Shiite majority rules Iraq.
In what is still a relatively one-sided civil war, the aggressors are Sunni terrorist forces backed directly by Syria, hailed as heroes in media throughout the Arab world, and receiving both volunteers and funds from abroad, especially Saudi Arabia. They attack American troops, target the Iraqi government, and often kill Shiite civilians. Simultaneously, they try to intimidate other Sunnis to keep them from participating in the government or even voting. The insurgents attack when and where they choose.
On the other side are those relatively satisfied with the post-Saddam order. This includes the Kurds in the north and the Shiites of the center and south. These two forces came together to run the regime so far. Yet three long months after national elections no government has been formed due to maneuverings about who will lead it and how will offices be distributed among different individuals and parties. This is a remarkable failure.
An ongoing aspect of Iraqi political debates is how Sunni grievances might be addressed: how can they be given a bigger role in power or certain specific decisions they want (centralization rather than federalism being perhaps the critical one). It is easy to pretend that if the Sunni are only offered enough they will be satisfied and peace will reign supreme. But that is a rather thin illusion.
There are two problems with this hope that some negotiated formula will avoid or end civil war. The first is the idea that the Sunni goal is to feel themselves equal partner in the new Iraq. But what stirs Sunni passions is a belief that they are the natural ruling class, not a demand for equal treatment. Even if the Shiite politicians make concessions, there is a point beyond which they will not go, given their own desire for authority and its benefits.
The second misconception is that the elected Sunni politicians can speak for their community. Even if the majority of Sunni Iraqis want peace and conciliation, the armed militants will not let them compromise. Any Sunni politician can be assassinated on any given day, as they are well aware. And it isn't just intimidation, Sunni leaders themselves also have strong communalist feelings. On the Shiite side, even if leaders favor restraint there is still going to be enough violence and victimization of Sunni to stir continued friction. The continuing terrorist violence against Shiite is stirring up hatreds that will not soon dissipate.
Why has the civil war been largely one-sided to date? Because the Shiite leadership has been content to let the Americans and British bear the brunt of the fighting, despite the constant provocations of terrorism. Indeed, the Western forces have made it clear that they expect Shiite restraint, even demand it. For a while, the status quo suits both sides in Iraq but this situation is not going to last very long.
It is essential to understand that the two issues underlying a future civil war are not misunderstandings or easily negotiated differences of opinion but are absolutely fundamental: Who will rule and what kind of society Iraq will be. Nice as it is to hope that everyone can get along and share power, Iraq is not the kind of society where this is likely to happen. Either the Sunni or Shiite, most likely the latter, will have the upper hand. Iraq will either be a pluralist, Islamic-flavored, Shiite-led state with an elected government and a large element of Kurdish autonomy in the north (perhaps the best likely alternative), a radical Shiite Islamist republic with lots of Iranian influence, or a radical Sunni Islamist republic. Most Iraqis think these are distinctions worth fighting for.
As long as American forces are present, the civil war will probably be staved off but the insurgency will also continue. But the days are numbered for this situation. President George W. Bush maintains that the Iraqi government forces are gradually able to take on more of the fighting. It is widely hinted that by the second half of 2007 there will be far fewer Western troops and the number will head downward. Only when foreign forces have largely left is the real business of determining, at the barrel of a gun, post-Saddam Iraq's direction going to take place.
--
(Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university. His co-authored book, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, (Oxford University Press) is now available in paperback and in Hebrew. His latest book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, was published by Wiley in September.
Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at: gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.)
|
|
http://zfacts.com/p/296.html | 01/18/12 07:26 GMT
Modified: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 04:48:50 GMT
|
|
