"We are against Saddam and the coalition should prove they came to liberate us, not to occupy us." -- Imam Husham Al-Husainy, Iraqi-American religious leader.
DETROIT -- The battle of Baghdad and the endgame for ousting Saddam bring to the forefront thoughts about the forces that will shape a post-war Iraq. As in any political struggle or vacuum, the personalities involved are often more determining than the policies and principles at stake.
While all sides will bow to the lofty rhetoric of establishing democratic institutions and giving all the freed Iraqi people full participation in a democracy, actually doing that will be troubling at best.
Various groups of Iraqis in exile have long ago planned their strategies and now are plotting their moves to best position their interests and themselves in a post-Saddam Iraq.
But before the various factions even get a chance to test the waters of democracy, they must first be content to wade in a strange political swamp where the U.S. military will essentially run the government and do that, in large measure, through a bureaucracy dominated by Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority and old hands from, of all places, Saddam Hussein's Baath party. That would be essentially the same crowd that provided the political apparatus that supported Saddam's brutal rule, which left no room for dissension of any kind.
The military planners behind this, inspired by the nation-building crowd at the Pentagon, envision at least one year of military rule to put things in order, before even considering opening the flood gates for democratic rule.
Field Marshall Rumsfeld will take on the additional title of Viceroy of Iraq and direct the political life of a war-weary, ethnically and religiously divided people from his throne in Washington. A formidable job, but don't worry, Rummy can do anything. Just ask him.
But left wondering about this whole untested experiment -- war, conquest, regime change, military rule, democracy and democracy-fever spreading through the Middle East -- are the Iraqi Shiite Muslims.
They represent 60 percent of the Iraqi population, but were never part of Saddam's Sunni Muslim elite that has dominated the Baath Party and ruled Iraq, excluding and persecuting the Shiites along the way.
Tens of thousands of Shiites were slaughtered or driven into exile following Gulf War I. That's when George Bush the Elder urged them to take up arms and rebel against Saddam's regime. They did just that and paid a terrible price for their rebellion.
The first President Bush broke his promise, withdrew any support for the Shiites and allowed Saddam do use his military unchecked to brutally repress the uprising.
The Saudis, always lurching around such treachery, urged Bush to leave the Shiites hanging, which he dutifully did for his cronies from the House of Saud.
The Saudis despise the Shiites and the small number living there are treated only marginally better than Jews or Christians. The wacko Wahhabi sect, bin Laden's own, dominates Saudi Arabia, and they consider the Shiites to be personally and religiously filthy.
In Gulf War I and following the rebellion, Shiite refugees fled into neighboring Saudi Arabia, where they were essentially placed in concentration camps. They would have been better received in Israel.
Now, at long last, Iraqi Shiites living in Diaspora and dreaming of returning to their homeland, see an opportunity. "We are waiting to go back to Iraq, liberate our land, have a democracy, elections and freedom. We are so thirsty to go back to Iraq." Imam Husham Al-Husainy spoke those words with his eyes radiating enthusiasm.
He is one of those rare souls whose ebullience and optimism immediately capture those around them. That's certainly the way I felt in a recent visit with the imam at the Karbalaa Islamic Center in Dearborn, Mich., where he serves as director.
After noon prayers, the imam, who fled Iraq to save his life 20 years ago, spoke of his hopes for the future. His life was on the line in Iraq because of his loyalty to Ayatollah Sayed Mohammad Baqir Al-Hakim, the man many Shiites will support to lead a democratic Iraq.
Ayatollah Al-Hakim lives in exile in Iran, where he leads a religious-political base that is, in effect, the would-be civil government for Iraq. The title ayatollah makes many westerners nervous, after the experiences with the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Literally, it means sign from God and is a designation for highly regarded Shiite religious leaders.
Al-Hakim has fought Saddam since he took power and it has cost him dearly. The Iraqi dictator has killed 27 members of Al-Hakim's family and Saddam has tried to assassinate him eight times.
That record, coupled with his charisma and vision for a new Iraq where Shiites get a fair share of the political leadership, makes Al-Hakim a force to be reckoned with and one the Bush administration is reluctant to embrace.
Al-Hakim also has some military clout: The Iranian-based Badr Corps. It's composed of Iraqi refugees and is funded by Iran's conservative clerical leaders. The Badr Corps joined with veterans of the Shiite uprising would be a significant military presence in southern Iraq and they are itching to join the fray.
But Defense Secretary Rumsfeld wants no part of the Iraqi people joining in their own liberation. If they try anything, he threatens to treat them as "combatants."
"How do you expect us to have freedom and democracy and you don't want us to fight for our land? That's what I don't understand," Al-Husainy laments.
He's in daily contact with his mentor Al-Hakim and will play a significant role should the Shiites take control. The imam is practical and argues that the people need someone they trust, like his friend Al-Hakim, to unite the nation. "The smart bomb, no matter how smart, does not speak Arabic. You need a leader, the key to society, to rise them up."
This is going to be a very sticky situation for the Bush administration. How do you "liberate" a people, promise a democracy and then tell the majority of the population to sit still and do as they're told?
This is the type of situation where broad international support is invaluable, but National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice is making sure the world understands the political restructuring of Iraq will be a project made in the United States and nowhere else.
That approach is petty, unwise and shortsighted. Even as Secretary of State Colin Powell works to mend fences in Europe and agrees to an important role for the United Nations in rebuilding Iraq, others in the Bush administration cut his legs out from under him.
The Russians, Iraq's main trading partner, and the French and the Germans, also with significant economic interests in the region, all see the need for a major role for the UN.
It's childish to say, "They opposed the war and therefore they should have no part in the peace." But that's exactly what's happening. Rice said bluntly, "It would be only natural to expect that, after having participated and having liberated Iraq, coalition forces would have a leading role."
Coalition really means the United States and Great Britain. But to limit shaping Iraq's future only to the nations which participated in its military conquest will do nothing to help transform the trauma of war into something that the world will respect as a quest for democracy.
Going it alone also means dumping the United States' only serious ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He's courageously risking his political hide in the war with Iraq and was much better at articulating the arguments for military action than his American counterpart.
Blair says the UN and Europe are vital to rebuilding Iraq, and while he may have Colin Powell's ear, Rummy and Condi are apparently calling the shots on this one.
The defense secretary, in his usual ham-handed fashion, says he sees no role for the UN in his plans for Iraq, calling the international body "irrelevant."
The United States is on a perilous course with such haughty talk and post-war Iraq could require the commitment of tens of thousands of American troops indefinitely, as the population may become increasingly alienated from its "liberators."
The situation might resemble the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. More Americans died after the war, trying to suppress a democratic uprising, than in the battles with the Spanish. It was a mess that required decades to repair.
The handling of post-war Iraq also points to questions of U.S. sincerity in forging a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The majority on the West Bank should have their nation and independence. But will they?
Al-Husainy remains upbeat and determined to see democracy in Iraq. He hopes for a revolutionary era of political and religious tolerance in the Middle East. He says, "We need people with the touch, the light in their hearts, to build the bridge of peace, understanding and love. We don't want to convert each other. We need to love each other."
The Shiites deserve justice in Iraq, and the promise of liberation long denied.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | April 8 2003 |