Where now, Iraq?

2004.03.06— Government | War | Iraq | by Derek Jensen

President Bush has made a great deal of the importance of liberating Iraq, freeing its people from the iron-fisted rule of Saddam Hussein and giving them the gift of freedom and democracy. But will it make a difference? What what will they do now? And what will it mean for President Bush?

If a stable nation of any sort emerges and is too chummy with the US, it will likely become a pariah in the region, just as it did after the signing of the Baghdad Pact in 1956. Terrorists will continue to create havoc in the streets, destroying any chance for the Iraqi people to be happy and prosperous.

Not that they'd know what they were missing. The people of Iraq have never known democracy. They have lived under various dictators, kings, emperors, califs, and tribal chieftains since they first inscribed cuneiform in clay tablets eons ago when they were the cradle of civilization. Their model for democracy must obviously be America and Britain, the two democracies they know best, which work well, and who liberated them.

But those same countries also created Iraq originally, in the heady days of nation building after World War 1, when Britain, France, America, and the Netherlands were divvying up the Ottoman Empire. We have a long and mottled history with the Iraqi people, much of which—especially in the last decade—involved bombing the crap out of them. They have little inherent love for us and our ways.

The forces now vying for power in Iraq are largely the same as those elsewhere in the region—Sunni Muslim Kurds in the north, Shiite and Sunni Muslim Arabs elsewhere, a few scattered Christians and nomads. Can a democratic union, a representative republic, be forged out of this religion-driven collection of peoples? I don't think so. Not in any meaningful sense of the word "union."

Scenario one: We keep running the joint

What may happen is that terrorist insurgents continue to cause such difficulty that US troops never really go away. We could be there for many years, suffering a few scattered casualties at a time, until we find something that needs the urgent attention of those troops (like Iran). Any government could easily be little more than an administrative bandage doing the day to day work of the American or UN official who will continue calling the shots.

If that's the case—if we're still in Iraq in full force come November and still racking up casualties—George W Bush is likely to be booted out of office regardless of what the economy is like (especially if Bin Laden is still at large). Since Bush wants a chance at winning reelection more than he wants to ensure a lasting democracy in Iraq, this one is unlikely.

Scenario Two: The Weimar republic revisited

Another likely scenario puts some weak and fragile confederacy together and creates a kind of parliament with a feckless and ineffective chairman, along the lines of the UN. In this scenario, the US and Britain would pull out (mostly) by November, declare victory, and do a lot of hand-shaking. Meanwhile, for the next several years, the factions will skirmish and terrorize each other relentlessly while the central government wrings its hands and the Western powers look the other way. After that, it's anybody's game; one faction could win out and send a dictator to Baghdad, or the government could collapse, leaving a loose collection of mini-states headed by chieftains and religious leaders.

For the same reasons given above, this one is pretty likely. It might even work for Bush, especially if Osama Bin Laden shows up on a US POW video getting his beard checked for chiggers.

Scenario Three: A House of cards

Third, we could instead see the "Coalition of the Willing" (I just can't not put that in irony quotes) pull out in haste before the November election, and the whole house of cards could collapse in weeks or months. The various factions would split the country up in a greedy, messy civil war while we stood by on the sidelines, lobbing the occasional cruise missile into the fray whenever it looked like a particularly nasty warlord was gaining too much power or filling mass graves too quickly.

If you think this scenario is unlikely, keep in mind that Iraq is still chock full of the former members of the greedy, messy regime we just decapitated and many of them are practiced in the arts of torture and murder. If Iraq collapses before the election, Bush's chances for reelection will collapse with it.

Scenario Four: Butterflies and puppy dogs

Fourth, we can imagine a sunny world in which a true statesman emerges in Iraq, unites the various factions into a solid union, and fosters real democracy in the country.

We can dismiss this one. It absolutely cannot happen with a fragile confederacy that is not united by the vision of a single person or small group. There is no such person emerging from the rubble of Iraq today.

Scenario Five: History repeating

Last, let us imagine the reverse. A true demogog emerges in Iraq, unites various insurgent groups who hate America more than they hate each other, and amasses enough power to overwhelm any confederation that the US puts together. No civil war, but no democracy either. This person would become a new dictator, the strength and stability of whom would be very reassuring to the West—even if he was quietly killing off any dissent and raping the Iraqi people's natural resources for personal gain.

Sound familiar?

f e e d b a c k

s i d e b a r