by A. C. Kleinheider

Victory is being declared way too early by the War Party. All I hear from Talk Radio, FoxNews, etc. is how the Administration has been proved right and the “cheese-eating surrender monkey” antiwar crowd has been proven wrong. They assert emphatically that the quick and painless victory being achieved in the shooting war proves the righteousness of their cause beyond a shadow of a doubt. This “victory” proves nothing. The actual “war” part of intervening in Iraq was always going to be a lay-up. Grenade-launchers, a couple of scuds, and an ancient MIG does not a formidable adversary make. It was the aftermath and consequences of intervention that was and continues to be worrisome.

The War Party points to the numerous Iraqis taking to the streets in celebration of Saddam’s collapse as proof that their cause was righteous. No one ever questioned that Saddam was a vicious and ruthless gangster who has killed and tortured his enemies. These enemies are now rejoicing, that proves what exactly? Just because Saddam deserved to be overthrown doesn’t mean it was our responsibility to do so because in taking on that responsibility we take on an additional responsibility – Iraq’s future regime. Whatever happens, now, it is on us.

Iraq is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state drawn up by the British Empire. It is lines on a map. It is not a natural nation. It was imposed by a foreign power and when that power was gone it fell to a monarchy and then a series of dictators to keep it together. From this history and at gunpoint we are to cobble together a democracy? Not a piece a cake. If you like the looting going on now just wait until they start with the ethnic violence because that’s next. There are no less than three distinct “little n” nations inside Iraq: the Shiites of the south, the Kurds in the North, and the Sunni center.

Can the Shiites rule a “democratic” Iraq? Remember the Ayatollah? Not really a bunch of pro-Western type fellas. The Kurds are a minority and it is in their relatively autonomous region that Al-Quaida camps have operated. Troubling to say the least. What about the Sunnis? They are also a minority and the only way they could rule would be through force and coercion. Well, they have done it before – under Saddam Hussein. Saddam’s Baathist party virtually co-opted the Sunni population. None of these groups will quietly submit to the others and no matter how you split the pie few will see it as equal. The Kurds see an independent Kurdistan as their destiny. The Shiites are a numerical majority. The Sunnis have the burden of a high rate of participation and prosperity during the repressive Baath regime. It is hard to see how this equation balances.

This “democratic Iraq” is a pipe dream. Democracy in Iraq leads to more extremism and instability, not less. The most effective way to deal with the situation we now find ourselves in is to install a pro-Western dictator and give him the latitude to solidify his power. Or, simply allow Iraq to breakup, let the chips fall where they may and try to develop good relationships with the, at least three, resulting entities. Neither of these options are likely. The Bush administration will insist on both maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq while fostering “democracy”. Either one would be tough but both at the same time would be impossible. This is not a military, but a political, quagmire we have bought ourselves into and it is a situation that is going to need an overseer for a long time. An end to this thing or anything amounting to a true victory is very far away indeed.

April 13, 2003

Copyright © 2003 A. C. Kleinheider