The premise that ethnic strife in Iraq should necessitate foreign military intervention is an absurd presumption. A democratic political process cannot be delivered on the back of a foreign battle tank. Iraq, a country of more than a hundred tribal groups, does not have a history of violence amongst its ethnic groups. Like elsewhere in the Middle East, tribal loyalties in Iraq are strong. But the logic of presuming future civil war or internal commotion in Iraq is an unfortunate misreading that recalls Lebanon and Vietnam in the 1970s, where American readings of the situation in both countries visibly failed in its Samuel Huntington-based logic. It is also an absurd interpretation of Germany circa WWII. Few recall that Hitler was elected by Germans after a massive economic meltdown of the Weimar Republic. Vietnam was a battle of contrasts and ideologies between two superpowers, whereas the case of Lebanon was a classic version of foreign interventions in a much invaded land that served as a theater for foreign disputes.
The Bush version of simplified facts challenged mostly foreign al-Qaeda jihadi extremists to a theater called Iraq so that Rumsfeld and Cheney could implement their stale personal views. When the challenge and invitation was accepted, the so-called War on Terror fell apart. Moreover, the supposed bad guy caveman character still remains unaccounted for.
The violence and insecurity in Iraq had nothing to do with Iraqi Shi’ite, Sunni, Kurds or Turkoman. These groups have always managed to work out their differences without the fanfare of skewed American press reports and hollow news shows produced by people that are eight to eleven time zones away from Iraq. These people intermarry, celebrate feasts and do business with each other. The Islamic Dawa Party and ISCI (formally called SCIRI) and the two main Kurdish parties in Iraq are frontrunners in adopting a civilized political process and the principles of democracy. The majority of Iraqis today understand both local and national affairs and respect the ballot box. They have been fielding candidates, adopting party platforms and attending lively debates in a parliamentary forum. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, probably the most influential man in Iraq, is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of this process and promotes settlement of disputes around a table. Even major Sunni regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt defy the United States and encourage Sunni groups to go back to their discussion table and refrain from violence.
The Baghdad Stock Exchange (BSE) is a market that has survived Saddam and an American invasion of Saddam’s Green Zone palace. Like its age old Souk counterpart, the BSE Index has gained a respectable 130% since the inauguration of Mr. Obama as president of the United States, half of which has been since last week when American withdrawal plans were announced. The Iraqi Dinar exchange rate against the U.S. dollar has gained some 12-17%. Admittedly, the capitalization and total trade volume of the stock exchange is a paltry sum compared to that of New York or London, but it is in line with other Middle Eastern economies. It signifies a great hope for the future of the country as it is funded by local money (as opposed to hot money from foreign hedge funds) and signals the homecoming of Iraqi exiles and a peaceful future.
The Middle East has changed. Like all others in the Middle East, Iraqis are simply tired of war, foreign interventions and skewed misinterpretations derived from poor, ill-informed thoughts of a few distant foreigners who are losing their reputation as the champion of the underdog. Iraqis simply wish to manage their own affairs without a formal, or de facto, oil for food program and will certainly remind the rest of the world that in the very least, Saddam’s declaration of the lack of WMD was in fact genuine. In all likelihood, Iraqis shall demand to be taken more seriously in the future.
But again, adventures in Lebanon and Vietnam, the rough Pakistan picnic currently in progress, and dare I say the failed War on Drugs all show a poorly calculated set of probabilities, bad estimates and unguided implementation on the part of the United States.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Email This Post to a Friend | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook | Email the Author
