Middle East-Iraqi Mosaic
in Pandora's Box

Whenever post Saddam Hussein Iraq is discussed in USA and elsewhere, not enough serious thought is given to ethnic, religious and other differences of its constituents and their tortuous history, which go to make Iraq a delicate mosaic.

In a population of nearly 23 million, its Shia Arabs form nearly 70% of 78 to 80% of Iraq's Arab population while less than 20% are Kurds, mostly Sunnis and concentrated in the north. The rest are Turcomen (1 to 2% ), Assyrians, Yezidis and others. But the Shia Arabs, a majority with 55% of the total population have been traditionally kept out of power, a legacy of the Ottoman, who were Sunnis and in conflict with its Shia Safavid neighbour, Iran. But the Ottomans allowed Shia clerics to flourish in almost autonomous enclaves of Najaf and Kerbala in its Basra Vilayat. When the Ottoman empire collapsed after the first world war and the Arabs took over Iraq with British help, the power remained in Sunni Arab hands (over 20 %), which is a reality even today. The major languages are Arabic, Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian.

But such things are not unusual in the region. Across in Syria, under another branch of Ba'athists' secular Arab nationalists, Shia Alawites,12% of Syria's population, constitute the ruling elite. Except that they came into power in 1960s. After independence in 1946, while Syrian Sunni majority concentrated on trade, industry and politics, while the downtrodden Alawites became foot soldiers, slowly progressed through the ranks to become middle-level and senior military officers. Soon there were enough and, led by General Hafiz Assad, they took over Syria in 1960s, which they continue to rule. In the mid-1980s, when Sunnis killed nearly 100 Alawite officers in Hama, Assad's half-brother butchered more than 30,000 Sunnis there. A new Hama Rule was coined: "Rule or die". In Saudi Arabia, the ruling elite is a curious amalgam of two opposites; pristine puritan Wahabis and an oligarchy of Saudi princes' whose life style, according to Wahabi believers, is totally at variance with their percepts of Islam. So if western style democracy with elections and votes were to be introduced in Iraq, would the Shias get power!

Take another example, Pakistan in 1971. Remember what happened when Bengalis of east Pakistan got a clear majority in the parliament after the elections; massacres and genocide and breakup of Pakistan. And the role of Nixon -Kissinger administration! Or the break up of European Communist Yugoslavia and the religious and ethnic cleansing and the wars, not only between Kosovo and Serbia only but Croatia and Serbia, both Christian states and among others. It is so easy to shatter an ethnic, religious and cultural mosaic from the outside. This recent history is too well known but is it remembered by those with pretensions of ushering in stability and democracy in Iraq and the region. That too based and backed by not very credible dossiers of Tony Blair.

Apart from ethnic and other differences, religious divisions in Islam itself are deep rooted. The seeds of disunity (schism) in the embryonic Muslim Ummah were sown as soon Prophet Mohammed lay dead. While his cousin and son in law Ali and family were preparing the body for the burial, another clan of the Qurayesh tribe elected Abubakr as the first Caliph. (according to Shias, Prophet Mohammed had given enough indications for Ali to be his successor ).The schism (Shiite) was complete when Muvayya clan fought with Ali. Shias do not recognize the first three caliphs and in many places even abuse them. The two Caliphs, Omar and Othman, after Abubakr's natural death, died of violence, as did Ali, the first rightful Caliph and Imam according to Shias. Ali's son Imam Hussein and almost his entire entourage were martyred by the soldiers of Umayyad Sunni Caliph Yazid at Karbala in 680, now commemorated every year as Moharram. He remains the most revered Imam for his sacrifice for a cause. Almost all early Imams were maltreated and persecuted by the Sunnis. So Sunni–Shia differences and violence are deep rooted in Islamic history and psyche. But Christians believing in Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest ' i.e. use of force, should not forget the Arab saying of brother uniting with brother against outsiders. Certainly at the level of the common man.

For Sunnis, Imam is only a prayer leader and could be any one. But for the Shias, he is a spiritual leader with the divine spark and juris-consult (Vilayet-el-Faqih). The sacred Islamic law Sharia enacted under different situations and times has many schools among Sunnis, who unlike the Shias have closed ijtihad i.e. independent reasoning in Islamic Law to meet new situations. The Aryan Shia Iranians created the office of Imam as only an Arab could become a Caliph and normally a Turk, the Sultan.

After the first dynastic Umayyad caliphate based in Damascus was replaced by another branch of Qurayesh tribe, Abbasids and shifted to Iraq in 750, a number of local dynasties started appearing as the empire expanded. Far away in the West an Ummayed prince established an independent kingdom in Cordova, Spain. But all these kingdoms recognized the supremacy of Abbasid Caliph. The unity under the Sunni Caliph was finally broken when Shia Fatimids anointed their own Caliph first in Tunisia, then in Egypt in 10th century. Then even the Ummayed prince in Cordova declared himself a Caliph.

Jihadis, Assassins and Terrorists :

Perhaps , the earliest Jihadis were Kharijites (Seceders- Arabic), who first supported Imam Ali. But when he agreed to arbitration with the supporters of murdered third caliph, 'Uthman', after the indecisive battle of Siffin (July 657), many left him. They believed that "judgment belongs to God alone" (Qur`an 6:57) and arbitration would be a repudiation of the holy book "If one party rebels against the other, fight against that which rebels" (49:9) Many others left him when arbitration proved disastrous to Ali. He was later murdered.

Kharijites, mostly from north Iraqi tribes believed that the judgment of God could only be expressed through the free choice of the entire Muslim community. Known for their puritanism and fanaticism they forbade luxury, music, games, and concubines. Any one, even a black slave, could be elected Caliph if he possessed the necessary qualifications, chiefly religious piety and moral purity, but could be deposed for any major sin. Any Muslim who committed a major sin became an apostate and could be killed. They, therefore, opposed the legitimist claims of the tribe of Qurayesh (among the Sunnites) and of Ali's descendants (among the Shias) for the post of Caliph. The doctrine of justification by faith without works was rejected, and a literal interpretation of the Qur`an was insisted upon.

As with other faiths and ideologies, it was a natural phenomenon that the latter generations got corrupted. The desert Arabs who conquered Byzantine Syria took over the luxuries of Damascus, lock, stock and barrel. Saudis and rulers of many Gulf kingdoms fall in this category according to Wahabis and were so described by Iranians after the 1979 revolution. Current Jihadis, barring power seeking opportunists and the disgruntled are inspired by the Kharijite principles along with Imam Hussein's sacrifice for his ideals even in a hopeless position. Therefore, Iraq remains the sacred soil for Shias which also has their 6 major religious shrines including Najaf and Kerbala. The Kharijites were a source of serious disruptions for Uthman, Ali and Umayyad and Abbassid rulers. They were defeated many times but they persisted. The moderate Ibadiya Kharijites now have nearly half a million followers in north Africa, Oman, and Zanzibar. Early 2nd millennium Jihadis known as Assassins terrorized for centuries Arab Caliphs, Turkish Sultans and their high officials, killing many of them. Operating from their mountain hideouts in Persia and later Syria, these Nazari Ismaili Shia Assassins struck fear even in far off Karakorum, in the Mongol heart land. Finally Mongols and Baybars destroyed them and their fortresses in Persia and Syria. Agha Khans, the descendents of Assassin chiefs, now do philanthropic work all over the world, vacation on the sunny Riviera and breed race horses. Mohammed Atta and other 11 September executioners, like other Al Qaida cadres and its mutations are the 3rd millennium successors of Kharijites and Assassins.

Iraq-Iran Relations

When Shah of Iran expelled Ayatollah Khomeini from Iran to Turkey in 1964, he was granted asylum in Iraq. Khomeini soon acquired a large following because of his theological erudition and idealism in Najaf, a centre of Shia Islamic learning. Iraq's secular Ba'ath Socialist party captured power in 1960s but after Saddam Hussein became all powerful, he even promoted Shia Arabs to junior positions. But the conflict between secular Ba'athists and the radical Shia clerics was bound to erupt sooner or later. It began with Imam Hussein's celebrations in February 1977, and police interference. There were massive anti-government demonstrations in Najaf and Kerbala. Many thousand Shias were arrested, 8 Shia leaders including clerics were executed after a trial.

It made world headlines when Saddam Hussein and the Shah shook hands at the Arab summit in Algiers in 1975 with Iraq agreeing to the middle of Shat al Sharq as the boundary between Iran and Iraq in this sector. In 1978, to quell Shia unrest and to fulfill the Shah's request, Baghdad expelled Ayatollah Khomeini, who found refuge in France. Deportations and suppression of the Shia clerics and the death under mysterious circumstances of Shia leader Imam Musa as Sadr led to the deterioration of relations between Ba'athist Iraq and Islamic Iran. Ayatollah Ali Khameini had blamed Saddam Hussein for Al-Sader's slaying, saying "the strangulation of Shia Muslims in that country has reached a climax." In 1974 nearly 60,000 and after the 1979 Iranian revolution, another 35,000 Shias of Iranian origin were expelled from Iraq to Iran.

From 1980 Iran promoted anti-Iraq Islamic organizations, like Ad Dawah al Islamiyah and the Organization of Islamic Action. Based in Tehran, they are under its political, religious and financial influence. On November 1982, Iran helped set up the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI), headed by Iraqi cleric Hujjat al Islam Muhammad Baqir al Hakim, to control rivalries and infighting among the different groups. In return, SAIRI acknowledged Khomeini's leadership as the supreme commander of the Islamic nation. Baqir al-Hakim himself commands respect as the son of a much-revered ayatollah. His large family is said to have lost over two dozen members to death squads and executioners. But he is not the undisputed spokesman of Iraq's Shias.

Most of the Iraqi opposition groups in exile based in London or elsewhere in the West have carried out few militant activities inside Iraq. But SAIRI has within it Islamic Action, the Awakening and other groups who have carried out armed attacks against Saddam's regime. In December 1996, the Awakening attacked Saddam's eldest son, Uday, who was crippled. In November 1998, unknown assailants made an unsuccessful attempt against Izzat Ibrahim, vice president of the Revolutionary Council and Saddam's second-in-command. Iraq's high profile spokesman and deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz is the senior most Christian aide of Saddam Hussein.

Since the 1979 revolution, Qom in Iran has become the home of religious political activism now at the heart of Iran's theocratic regime. In Qom, one can get into serious trouble if one declares opposition to the clerical rule, or to the theology that underpins it. However, many Shias feel that the faith's spiritual home is across the border, in Najaf and Kerbala, which are more important shrines and have more illustrious history. If Saddam Hussein were ousted, not only would there be an exodus of Iraqi seminarians from Qom, but many Iranian clerics might also be lured by the prestige of Iraq's holy places, and the promise of a freer political environment where they would be free to criticize the theology that sustains the Iranian regime. The debate could then spread to Iran.

Recently when Iran, after 5 years of house arrest, released a very senior and respected Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri- Najafabadi, a critic of Iran's Guardians Council's method of supervising elections i.e. rejecting potential candidates and overturning election results, said : "Do not abandon your obligations because the country belongs to the people. The Guardians Council has to accept this. If people have freedom to take part in elections, they will most definitely elect good people. The people would naturally refrain from electing wrong or irreligious people."

Majority of Iraq's Shia clerics remain opposed to Iran's theocracy supervised by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an unelected supreme leader with almost draconian powers and have no desire for a similar system for Iraqi Shias. SAIRI, at least in theory, has joined the other opposition groups in signing up to western-style democracy. Even the 'Islamist Shias' Iraqis who are opposed to the country's secularism, and form around a third of the population are also said to be opposed to Iranian style of clerical rule.

In the Iraq-Iran war, they defended their southern part of the country when Iran invaded it. Many of them were angry when SAIRI's forces teamed up with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in 1991. Iran had tried to turn the rebellion into an Islamic revolution. They disapproved as much of Iran's interference as of US president George Bush Sr.'s irresponsible utterances.

As majority of Iraqi officer cadre is composed of Sunni Arabs, it is the majority Shia soldiers who become the canon fodder. They suffered heavily both in 8 year Iraq-Iran war and the 1991 Gulf War . While most of Iraqi Shia leaders have been expelled or left or been cowed down, but even those in exile under Iranian control or outside hate USA as much as they hate Saddam Hussein. The majority of Iraqi Shias have remained loyal to Iraq.

1991 Gulf War

At the end of 1991 Gulf war , when Bush Sr asked Iraqis to overthrow their ruler, in southern Iraq, where Shia are concentrated, the clerics declared an intifada, sparking a month-long insurrection which also spread into the Kurdish areas. Some of these reports filtered down to Amman where this writer was then posted. Also of gory killings and later revenges and the crushing of the rebellion, when Iraqi forces used helicopters gun ships, tanks and rocket launchers. Tens of thousands were killed in fighting, many thousand later in the jails where they were incarcerated. What did the US forces do, whose commander in chief had made most irresponsible utterances asking Shias in south and Kurds in north to revolt ! They merely watched the decimation of insurgents through satellites. So what do you expect Iraqi Shias to do now? They also understand that open western support to Saddam to fight a war against Iran was to neutralize the then irresistible Khomeini led revolution, which was threatening US client Arab states like Kuwait ,Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and others with Shia populations. After more than a millennia of oppression, Shias all over the world, from India to Lebanon had felt elated, proud and confident after the 1979 revolution.

Kurds

The Kurds are an Iranian-related people totaling over 25 million who inhabit mostly the contiguous mountainous regions of Turkey (14 million), Iran (8 million) and Iraq (4 million ) with nearly half a million each in Syria and former USSR (the Caucasus and Central Asia ). They have been caught up in ethnic upheavals and the intermingling of Aryan, Turkic and Semitic races for many millennia. Descending from Medes, they were first mentioned as the Kurduchoi, who harassed Xenephon and his Ten Thousand during the epic retreat from Mesopotamia to the Black Sea in 401 BC. They are ethnically related to the Iranians but not to Turks who started moving into Anatolia only after the Byzantines were defeated by Seljuk Turks at Manzikert in 1071 AD.

But barring petty dynasties and some principalities in the region, the Kurds, now mostly Sunni Muslims, have failed to establish a lasting kingdom. Salahaddin remains their greatest medieval hero. They have been kept divided and exploited as pawns by the ruling Persian, Turkish and Arab empires, and later by colonial powers, enjoying autonomy only when the empires were week. Sunni Ottomans used them to guard the frontiers against the Shia Safavids of Iran. Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria might have adversary relations with each other, but when it comes to Kurds, they close ranks. But throughout history, whenever suppressed, the Kurds become outlaws and take to the mountains.

Belonging to the Iranian-language family, Kurdish is spoken in five dialects and many sub-dialects, but the divisions among Kurds are reflected not only in the dialects or the countries they inhabit. Differences among them have persisted throughout history. In north Iraq, the Kurds are split among the Kurdish Democratic Movement (KDM) of Masud Barzani and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) of Jalal Talabani, who have been warring with each other for decades.

But, even when divided, they have enjoyed some semblance of autonomy in north Iraq, first under the British mandate, then the leftist regime of Brig Kassem, and even under the kid gloves and poisoned sword treatment of Saddam Hussein, with an almost free run during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s  and under US-led protection after the 1991 Gulf War. The idea of a Kurdish identity and autonomy, while vigorously suppressed in the unitary Turkish state, has remained alive in Iraq. They certainly have dreams, ignited by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres.

The Iranians have manipulated Iraqi Kurds as did the Russians the Iranian Kurds during World War II, encouraging them to declare the Mahabad Republic, which after the Russian withdrawal in 1946 was annihilated. Iran gave shelter and arms to Iraqi Kurds and the PKK, Turkey's rebellious Kurds. In return, after the 1979 Khomeini revolution, the Iraqis supported Iranian Kurds. But unlike Iraq, Iran and elsewhere, the Kurds in Turkey are the most well integrated with other citizens.

The roots of the Kurdish problem in Turkey were sown during the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of the Turkish Republic after World War I. Under the Ottomans, its Christian, Armenian and other millets (religious communities) enjoyed religious freedom with autonomy in their personal laws and education. The Turks complain that the Christian West used the stick of religion and nationalism in Eastern Europe to break up the empire during the 19th and early 20th century.

The first to leave were the Balkan Christians, and in the late 19th century it was feared that even the Kurds might desert, like the Egyptians. But the last straw was the revolt by Muslim Arabs, for the Ottoman caliphs were always Muslims first and then Turks. In fact the word "Turk", until Kemal Ataturk endowed it with dignity, was used as a term of contempt by the Ottoman elite.

Hence, Turks manifest a pervasive distrust of autonomous movement or administration as across in Iraq with models of a federal state for Iraqi Kurds . It would affect its own Kurds. It revives memories of Western conspiracies against Turkey and the unratified 1920 Treaty of Sevres forced on the Ottoman Sultan by the World War I victors. The Treaty would have divided Anatolia with outright independence to the Armenians and given autonomy to Kurds, leading to their independence and granted zones of influence to France, Italy and Greece. The successful war of independence led by Ataturk, undid the Sevres Treaty. In the new treaty of Lausanne in 1923, there was no mention of Armenia or Kurds - not even the latter's language Kurdish, although it permitted Greeks, Armenians and others to speak in their tongues.

To begin with, Ataturk himself had talked of Turks, Kurds, Lazes and others, but a dramatic change came over him during 1923 -24 and he opted for a unitary state. Perhaps it was because of the British detachment of the oil rich Mosul and Kirkuk region, the ambivalent attitude of many Kurds and minor revolts after the Treaty of Sevres. He wanted to concentrate on internal reforms. In 1924, he abolished the caliphate and Kurds were just turned into non-persons; their language, music, dress and culture, even the use of Kurdish first names, were made illegal. Kurdish rebellions were ruthlessly suppressed.

Kurds after the 1991 Gulf War

The 1990-91 Gulf War proved to be a watershed in the violent explosion of the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey. A nebulous and ambiguous situation emerged in north Iraq when, at the end of the war, US president Bush Sr encouraged the Kurds (and the hapless Shias in the south ) to revolt against Saddam Hussein's Sunni Arab regime. Turkey was dead against it, as a Kurdish state in the north would give ideas to its own to Kurds. Saudi Arabia and other Arab states in the Gulf were totally opposed to a Shias state in south Iraq. The hapless Iraqi Kurds and Shias paid a heavy price. Tens of thousands were butchered. Recall of the 1988 gassing of Iraqi Kurds and the international media's coverage of their pitiable condition, with pictures of more than half a million Iraqi Kurds escaping towards the Turkish border from Saddam's forces in March 1991, led to the creation of a protected zone in north Iraq, now patrolled by US and British war planes. The Iraqi Kurds have since then elected a parliament, which, of course, has never functioned properly.

Barzani and Talabani, run almost autonomous administrations in their areas. They make forced handshakes from time to time. This state of affairs had allowed the PKK a free run. Earlier, it had used the eight-year 1980s Iran-Iraq war to stockpile arms.

But many Turks remain fascinated with the dream of "getting back" the Ottoman provinces of Kurdish majority Mosul and Kirkuk in Iraq. They were originally included within the sacred borders of the republic proclaimed in the National Pact of 1919 by Ataturk and his comrades, who had started organizing resistance to fight for Turkey's independence from the occupying World War I victors. So it has always remained a mission and objective to be reclaimed some time.

The oil-rich part of Kirkuk and Mosul region was occupied by the British forces illegally after the armistice and then annexed to Iraq, then under British mandate, in 1925, much to Turkish chagrin. Iraq was created by joining Ottoman Baghdad and Basra vilayats (provinces). This is what tempts Turks, specially its armed forces to join the war, if USA will do it in any case. Turks raise claims on behalf of Shia Turcomans, who lived in Kirkuk with Kurds, before Arabisation changed the ethnic balance (but Turkish police and establishment do not treat well their own Shia Turcomens called Alevis). So there are 3 claimants for Kirkuk and its oil wealth. Kuwait 's kayamakan (sub-governor) came under Basra. Later, two British agents, Sir Percy Cox for Iraq and Major John More for Kuwait, drew the frontiers between them in 1923, which remains a cause of perennial claims, tension and wars in the region. Kuwait was known to have oil and Kirkuk and Mosul had potential. Thus, control of oil resources remains a permanent factor in the region. The British have now been replaced by the Americans, with the former colonial power becoming the latter's poodle.

In the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, Turkey lost out much instead of gaining. The closure of the Iraqi pipeline, economic sanctions and loss of trade with Iraq, which used to pump billions of US dollars into the economy and provide employment to hundreds of thousands, with many thousands of trucks roaring up and down to Iraq, further exacerbated the economic and social problems in the Kurdish heartland and the center of the rebellion. The 1980s war between Iraq and Khomeini's resurgent Shia Iran helped the PKK to establish itself in the lawless north Kurdish Iraq territory. The PKK also helped itself with arms freely available in the region during the eight-year war.

After a court in Turkey in 2002 commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence passed on Ocalan and the parliament granted rights for use of Kurdish language, some of the root causes of the Kurdish rebellion have been removed. Ocalan led PKK rebellion from 1984 to 1999 for a Kurdish state in the southeast of Turkey had cost over 35,000 lives, mostly Kurds, but also lives of more than 5,000 Turkish soldiers. To control and neutralize the rebellion, thousands of Kurdish villages were bombed, destroyed, abandoned or relocated; millions of Kurds were moved to shanty towns in the south and east or migrated westwards. The economy of the region was shattered. With a third of the Turkish army tied up in southeast, the cost of countering the insurgency amounted to between US$6 billion to $8 billion a year. Externally, the struggle had brought charges of military and police brutality and human rights violations. No wonder Turkey remains vitally concerned and worried about the consequences of another Gulf war involving Iraq.

Saddam' heirs, proxies and pretenders

"Just you wait until we have democracy in Iraq, and I'll throw you in jail!" one lifelong opponent of Saddam Hussein to another at the December 2002 Iraqi opposition conference in London.

Now let us look at Saddam Hussein's heirs, promoted by the West (Anglo-Saxons) and their claims to bring about stability, rule of law and democracy.

The Anglo-Saxons organized a conference of Saddam Hussein's opponents in London in mid December last year to back their claim aired from time to time that they wanted to usher in stability and democracy as part of the regime change in Iraq. It was held after many postponements and much prodding. That the conference finally took place was an achievement itself. Many a times the proceedings looked like the scene from the film 'Lawrence of Arabia' starring Peter O'Toole, with the Arab tribes squabbling and fighting after taking over Damascus following the with drawl of the Ottoman troops. The French had chased them out.

The conference brought together north Iraqi Kurdish parties, KDP and PUK - who are at each others throat inside Iraq, Iranian-backed Shia group SAIRI, the Constitutional Monarchy Movement and the National Accord Movement. One of the prime movers of the conference was the Iraqi National Congress (INC), headed by Ahmad Chalabi, on the run once from Jordan's law, but now a creature of Washington. Those who did not participate were the Iraqi Communist Party, the Socialist Party and the pro-Syrian branch of Iraq's ruling Ba'ath party. The Shia Muslim al-Daawa Party also did not attend, as the purpose of the conference implied a US attack on Iraq and installation of a pro-US regime.

The only apparent agreement reached was that after Saddam Hussein USA should not run Iraq (like making an advertising film without the product and the message). There was no agreement on the kind of political system or general frame work for a Constitution. The only common denominator to emerge was some vague form of federalism. The Kurdish parties argued for a bi-national model with an Arab and Kurdish state, (like Cyprus!) while others called for geographic and not ethnic decentralization.

US favorite Chalabi of INC wanted a government in waiting (with himself of course at the head); a political authority to provide legitimacy against political power vacuum after the fall of the present regime. The US strongly opposed the formation of a government-in-exile, arguing that it would alienate serving Iraqi generals and others who might mutiny once a war starts. Then Saddam Hussein, his government and people would fight till the bitter end, which left little flexibility with USA. But those wanting to come over to US side might well consider the fate of two highly placed sons-in-law of Saddam Hussein, who had defected to Amman a few years ago. They were rebuffed by the west. Unwanted and turned into pariahs, they returned but were brutally disposed off soon after crossing into Iraq.

Naturally USA did not want to tie its own hands in advance concerning Iraq's rulers and its political fate. More importantly about the economic status of its oil reserves. Of course US's dear wish, proclaimed from the White House press room and by others, remains that some one would assassinate Saddam Hussain or there would be a coup d'etat. From time to time, Donald Rumsfeld, Jack Straw and others, have talked of amnesty to Iraqi officials and generals and political asylum to Saddam Hussein and family, in Saudi Arabia or somewhere else.

War and Chaos All Around

Every party i.e. 'heirs, pretenders and proxies' remains worried about the ambitions of the others . Chalabi is rightly worried about the Kurdish plans. While there is little official to go by but there would be a mad scramble for power. Kurds with their peshmargas and other groups would try to fill in the vacuum. Chris Kutschera of Middle East Report magazine and others have written that high-level Kurdish military personnel admitted that it was not just the oil-rich city of Kirkuk - the so-called Kurdish Jerusalem - that the Kurds sought, but they wanted a share of power in Baghdad. "We have an agenda for all possibilities," Kosrat Rasul, former PUK prime minister in Suleimaniya, remarked. "We want a share in Baghdad. If we have air cover, and artillery support, we can even take control of Baghdad. Geography is in our favor: Kalar and Kifri [two towns controlled by the PUK] are only an hour and a half to two hours from Baghdad." It is likely that the US might send in the Kurdish peshmergas as the first wave of fighters. And these men do not intend to go half way.

Of course the Turks, faced with unenviable choice of a war are willing only if, the oil rich province of Mosul and Kirkuk, does not fall under some body else's control. They would certainly head for it. (Turks had invaded Cyprus in 1974 much against US opposition. Turkish troops are still there). Turkey already has many thousand troops in north Iraq and has moved heavy armor along its border with Iraq. It says that it is to prepare for a 1991 like refugee influx. And also to protect their kinsmen the Turcomens. But Turkish ministers have talked of their old claims on Kirkuk and Mosul. Turkey has made no secret of occupying parts of north Iraq to prevent Kurds taking control of Kirkuk .They are also opposed to any Kurdish bid for statehood in north Iraq. The have refused to put their troops under US command. They have put many other conditions on the urgent US request to deploy up to 40,000 American troops in SE Turkey to invade Iraq. Turkey also wants billions in aid, loans and compensation. An attack from north is very vital to get rid of Saddam Hussein, a US obsession and it might even agree.

In a situation of a large-scale Turkish incursion of indefinite duration as in Cyprus in the footsteps of an American invasion, Kurdish forces can be expected to fight. Barham Salah, a senior PUK leader, said recently that Turkish intervention could encourage that of Iran. "The best thing the neighbors can do is stay out, as any country entering Iraq could draw in others," he added .Even PKK cadres, whose leader Ocalan is in jail have threatened to end their 1999 ceasefire and resume their rebellion for a separate state. US propped Iraqi opposition groups have an alliance of convenience with the Kurds, but they would oppose any threat to Iraq's territorial integrity. Thus it appears that US led war on Iraq could trigger a conflagration in Kurdish areas involving Turkish, Kurdish, Iraqi and even Iranian forces.

What if desperate Saddam forces fight stubbornly!

In Afghanistan US had relied on northern alliance against Talebans. But had USA envisaged control of Kabul to Northern Alliance, who did not even wait and ignoring US demands went headlong into Kabul. The result is there for all to see. Or remember Afghanistan after the Soviet with drawl in late 1980s and the subsequent rise of Talebans and Al Qaida. Or remember Algeria in 1963 after the French with drawl, when the top political leadership led by Ben Bella and Col Houarri Boumiddienne with his army, which had mostly hung around Algeria's borders, rushed to the capital city Algiers. So did the Vilaya leaders who had done most of the guerrilla fighting inside Algeria against the French. But the Colonel and Ben Bella joined up, with the latter becoming the president. But in 1965 the Colonel put Ben Bella behind bars.The bloody and messy equation in Algeria still remains unresolved. So it is in Afghanistan.

Peter Cheney 'Iraq is doable' when queried by Prince Hassan ibn Talal of Jordan why choose Iraq when similar regimes exist elsewhere. As for unsubstantiated charges of Iraq's links with Al Qaida , no body, not even CIA which has leaked out some reports to this effect, appears convinced by the arguments put forth by the US administration or Tony Blair. Apart from giving sanctuary in Iraq to some Palestinian terrorist elements in the past, the Saddam Hussein regime had restricted its assistance to terrorist groups, whether Islamic or ideological, to financial contribution and had avoided giving them sanctuaries, training or arms assistance. Amongst terrorists and terrorist organizations thus financially helped by the Iraqi intelligence in the past were Carlos and his organization, Al Zulfiquar of the late Murtaza Bhutto of Pakistan, the Sunni extremist and anti-Shia Sipah-e-Sahaba of Pakistan and the anti-Teheran Mujahideen-e-Khalq.

The Anglo-Saxons turned Afghanistan and Pakistan in to nurseries of Islamic terrorism, for which they are paying, but mostly countries like India in the neighborhood. But Anglo-Saxon have not yet succeeded in changing Iraq or its secular, nationalist and socialist regime under Saddam Hussein into an Islamic one. They might, after heaping death and destruction and untold miseries on the hapless Iraqi population, already suffering from 12 years of sanctions' regime.

Apart from an exit policy for the enemy as Napolean believed in, there should be an exit policy or a with drawl position for the other side, if war like bluff fails or the momentum for a war would lead to unpredictable disasters or even a catastrophe. Even if Saddam Hussein disappears tomorrow, the situation created by the Anglo-Saxons has now few easy solutions. The second Gulf war after the unnecessary 1991 Gulf war, would be a parallel of second world war after the first one, in terms of destruction and misery in the region. The cold war would be replaced by a war against an invisible enemy; Al Qaida and its mutations, all over the world. Here are men in USA with terrible means of destruction in their hands, with their narrow corporate experience and vision with little overall holistic understanding, hurtling along a mad course to a war, opposed by majority of the world and population.

Millions all over the world from Australia to USA have protested against war on Iraq on 15 February. The war would kill many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, like Kissinger did in Vietnam to establish big power credibility. Then what? Remember the Kharijites, the Wahabis, the Al Qaida cells and its copy cats all over the world. They would not be short of new recruits in the Islamic world or in the west, with tens of millions of Muslims in FRG, France, UK and other European countries and 3 to 5 million Muslims, mostly blacks, in USA.   

– K Gajendra Singh
Bucharest, March 28, 2003

(K Gajendra Singh, served as Indian Ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan in 1992-96. Prior to that, he served as ambassador to Jordan (during the 1990-91 Gulf war ), Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. E-Mail.gajendrak@hotmail.com)

Published by arrangement with SAAG.org

Top
 

 
Analysis | Architecture | Astrology | Ayurveda | Book Reviews | Buddhism | Cartoons | Cinema | Computing | Culture | Dances
Environment | Fables | Family Matters | Festivals | Hinduism | Health | History | Home Remedies | Humor | Individuality | Jagoji
Literary Shelf | Memoirs | Musings | Opinion | Parenting | Perspective | Photo Essays | Places | Ramblings
Random Thoughts | Recipes | Sikhism | Society | Spirituality | Stories | Teens | Travelogues | Vastu | Vithika | Women

Home | Bolography | BoloKids | Columns | Hindi | Kabir | Poetry | Quotes | Workshop | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact

Boloji.com is owned and managed by Boloji Media Inc
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer
No part of this Internet site may be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.