Iraq: Bloody Anarchy, Rather than Democratic Order, Looms
Praful Bidwai
Inter Press Service, 9 April 2003
NEW DELHI - As lawlessness, chaos and looting break
out in Basra and the predominantly Shia "Saddam City" district
of eastern Baghdad, the end of the US-British coalition's war
on Iraq seems to be nearing.
The spectre of violence and even civil war looms as central
authority is breaking down in much of the Iraqi capital.
However, what is equally striking is that the Iraqi
resistance (from regular forces, 'fedayeen' militias, various
guerrilla groups, and citizens) has lasted so long despite the
United States' incomparably superior firepower vis-a-vis a
sanctions-battered, half-demilitarised and impoverished Iraq, a
Third World state with no air force worth the name.
Evidently, the Pentagon miscalculated the quality and degree
of popular Iraqi resistance, which could become a model for many
Arabs to emulate.
Pentagon planners had calculated that Hussein's Baathist
Party regime would collapse as soon as the war coalition
launched its attacks on Mar. 20. However, the 'Washington Post'
says the Baathist Party apparatus still has "at least 90 percent"
control of most of the cities that lie in US and British
troops' route from Kuwait border to Baghdad.
The final outcome of the war, favouring the US-British
coalition, was never in doubt. But its duration has made a
difference. Precisely because it has lasted this long, the
resistance is likely to leave a political impact on the Arab
world.
Three other factors now in play are important.
First, the invading forces have so far failed to locate and
destroy with pinpoint accuracy Iraq's top leadership, including
Saddam Hussein. Second, there is no credible report yet of any
weapons of mass destruction having been found in Iraq. And third, the
invading forces seem more interested in leaving behind mayhem and
anarchy, along with a puppet regime, rather than a
legitimate, broad-based, democratic government.
All three factors serve to further undermine the legitimacy
of this unjust and illegal war waged in violation of the charter
of the United Nations.
As of now, the formal termination of the war could come
about through one of three routes. First, top Iraqi leaders are
killed or captured, or they surrender. Second, the US-British
forces go into the streets and re-establish order, so as to
create an alternative to the chaos and the vacuum that the
collapse of the Baathist apparatus is likely to create. This will at
least stop the mayhem and looting.
And third, the US-British coalition simply allows the
situation to drift and then suddenly announces the creation of
an interim military government under Gen Jay Garner, under whose
umbrella functions an "Iraqi civilian" regime.
The first course is not materialising. There have been too
many misses, including one last Monday, near the same location
where Saddam Hussein (now admitted to be "authentic" by British
intelligence) was seen last week on Iraqi television, mixing with a
civilian crowd and picking up babies.
The second course means that the US-British troops leave
the safety of tanks and air cover and rub shoulders with Iraqi
civilians. This is certainly risking guerrilla attacks, and
worse, being drawn into urban warfare, which would mean high
casualties. The United States and Britain, in particular the
Americans, have shown themselves reluctant to take any such risks.
The war coalition is gravitating toward the third option,
although that means complete breakdown of authority, plunder,
danger to civilian life and likely loss of valuable documents
which would be relevant to establishing the repressive nature of the
Baathist regime and the true status of its weapons of mass
destruction programme and work of the UN inspectors.
Clearly, the war coalition is much less bothered about
finding Iraq's "hidden" weapons of mass destruction than about
"regime change" and more.
Yet, the war's legitimacy, already in crisis in global
public opinion, will be completely destroyed if no weapons of
mass destruction are actually found - and certified to have been so
discovered by a highly credible third agency, and unless it is further
shown that UN inspections could not have disarmed them.
However unjust, the last alternative will strongly favour
the installation of a puppet regime in Iraq, which can help the
United States quickly establish monopoly control over Iraq's oil and its
reconstruction programme.
There is little doubt that the United States is embarked on
just such a plan, with a puppet regime headed by Iraqi National
Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, long known to be a favourite of
Pentagon hardliners.
On Apr. 7, US military forces airlifted Chalabi to a
location near Nasiriyah, along with 500 Iraqi exiles,
grandiloquently named 'Free Iraq's Forces', presumably after the French
liberation forces during the Nazi occupation.
This violates the solemn promise made last week by US
Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that Washington would
not impose a government on Iraq, although it plans to secure the entire
country over six months through an interim administration headed by Gen
Jay Garner:
"The goal is not to install some particular group as the new
leaders of Iraq. That absolutely contradicts the whole notion of
democracy", said Wolfowitz.
The 'Free Iraqi Forces' creation and insinuation into
southern Iraq is seen by the US friends and foes alike as the
Pentagon's bid to enhance Chalabi's standing as the seed of a new
government. The Forces are trained and guided by US Col Ted
Steel, a Vietnam veteran.
State Department and even Central Intelligence Agency
officials oppose the "promote-Chalabi" move.
Their reasons are simple. Chalabi was born in a wealthy
banking family, and left Iraq in 1958 when he was 13. He has not
returned except for a short period in the mid-1990s, when he
tried to organise an unsuccessful "popular uprising" from the
Kurdish north.
The entire INC leadership lacks a base in Iraq. It largely
consists of millionaires and compromised or disaffected
intellectuals. Chalabi is notorious for his involvement in
financial embezzlement. A Jordanian court has sentenced him to 22 years'
hard labour for a bank fraud.
It is on Chalabi's advice that the Pentagon relied while
planning the invasion of Iraq which, he promised, would
instantly precipitate a popular uprising. INC "sources" too gave the
United States that tip-off about Iraq's topmost leaders being present in
a particular building in Baghdad on Mar. 20, which led to the failed
"decapitating" strike.
The US blunder in sponsoring Chalabi would be immeasurably
graver than in appointing Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan.
The Iraqi situation is even more volatile than post-war
Afghanistan's. The Iraqi people are likely to be even more
allergic to a US-sponsored puppet regime. The result could well be
more chaos.
Copyright 2003 Inter Press Service
|
