In the midst of the continued standoff between America and Iran, the editor of a Saudi London daily newspaper seems to think that the US is conspiring with Iran to allow them to take over Iraq in return for Iranian cooperation on the nuclear issue...
First, I'd like to ask the question of exactly what cooperation is being referenced here. To my knowledge, Iran has not yet agreed to halt the progression of their nuclear program. The latest round of dares from President Ahmadinejad do little to bolster my confidence in that area, regardless of how much for show these remarks are.
The article brings up the marginalization of over half of the population of Iraqis. There is some validity in this point as there have been problems with the displacement of Sunnis within the country. However, since the drawdown of American forces from Iraqi soil to about 50,000 troops, the Iraqi security forces have managed to accomplish quite an impressive feat by maintaining relative stability. The insurgency is nothing compared to what it once was, and the Iraqi forces - once incompetent and unreliable - are now handling the situation far better with the US acting as more in a support role. In a recent interview on NPR, Iraqi expert Michael Wahid Hannah of the Century Foundation had this to say:
I think looking at the Iraqi security forces and what they've been able to do since the draw-down of American forces we're at something like 50,000 troops now, in a support role - should be encouraging. I mean violence in Iraq is horrific but in a stable way, and that can only be said about Iraq. Compared to any other country the situation would be abysmal. But Iraq has seemed to cope, and the insurgency has been downgraded.
There are still many problems and challenges in the days ahead, with the current issue of putting together a governing coalition remaining at the forefront. Iraq is one of the youngest democracies in the world - certainly the most fragile one that the US is directly involved in. It is important to take a hard look at what is going on there to make sure that things do not go unnoticed. That said, it is unreasonable to expect there to be a nicely progressive trend in Iraqi democracy. It will take time to develop the institutions for a democracy to flourish. It will take even more time to internalize those institutions in Iraqi society.
Of course, no one doubts Iran is a regional power attempting to assert its hegemony by exercising its influence over Iraq. But to say that the US and Iran are cooperating with one another flies in the face of all evidence. Iranian support for Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr certainly does nothing to enhance American interests.
It also is crucial to note that the concentration of power by the Shiite bloc in Iraq does not imply support for Iran. In general, Iraqis have a much stronger identification with nationalism than with the Sunni-Shiite divide. This was made clear during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. Iran's leaders hoped that the Shiites of Iraq would join with their Shiite brothers to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Not only did this not happen, but the Iraqi Shiites actually fought even harder than most of their Sunni countrymen against the Iranians. Despite the brutal treatment of Shiites during the Hussein regime, they continue to feel a strong sense of nationalism. They did not struggle so much to attain liberation and autonomy simply to turn that over to Iran.
The Saudi London article probably should not be taken too seriously, but it is not the first time I have heard of such theories of this. It is important to be critical of motives and actions of governments and militaries. However, such analysis must be thoughtful and reasoned, not simply scrutiny for scrutiny's (read: pessimism's) sake.
On the personal side, my significant other and I are living in Chicago now, so there will be many exciting things on the home front in the coming future. Perhaps I will blog more about that soon.
0 comments:
Post a Comment