Live from the Nuke Free Zone

As I write this, the fractured nation of Iraq is holding a parody of a national election as those people who dare go to the polls will vote for parties who dare not disclose the identities of their candidates. Security and turnout will be better in the calmer north and south of the country, but in the chaotic centre, the predicted scattered violence has occured, with tragic result. It might not be pretty and it’s hardly Democracy, but this is the best they’ve got at the moment.

The question that nobody is asking is, what are these people voting for? The government in Iraq is the law of the sword, a de facto military dictatorship under the presumed rule of former (?) CIA agent Iyad Allawi, under the actual rule of John Negroponte, a man with as many massacre victims under his belt as Saddam, and under the ultimate rule of George W. Bush and the United States Congress. Bush’s carefully-worded non-statements can give one the impression that the United States will now back off and let the Iraqi parliament government the country. Indeed, they are designed to give that impression, but how much power the US will allow Iraq to wield and whether Bush is being honest are open questions. Will the new Iraqi Parliament have the authority to overrule the free-fire zones in Iraqi cities, recover its citizens from US custody, and order the US to evacuate from bases on Iraqi soil? Let’s just say I’m doubtful.

To my own embarassment, I predicted that the insurgency would dry up after Uday and Qusay were killed. I didn’t understand the nature of the fighting then, and I only hope that I understand it now, but it seems that it is a real war of independence wherein the Iraqi fighters believe they are fighting for their country’s freedom from tyranny. It is a war of emotions that the US has been losing since the first airstrike a year and a half ago that was called in because it wasn’t safe enough to send ground forces, continues to lose when the answer to the question “Are you better off now than under Saddam” is a resounding “no”, and purposely loses with the refusal to spend earmarked reconstruction money or listen to bad news about the deteriorated situation there. It’s a lot like Vietnam, except Bush isn’t Johnson or Nixon. He’s Diem.

By this election more people will feel they have a stake in the Iraqi government, which was previously wholly appointed at the whim of the US overlords, and will be more supportive of the new order until it has time to prove or disprove itself. Unfortunately, these people do not include the Sadrists and Ansarists who are boycotting the election, making a tautology of their opposition to the new Iraqi government. For a people to accept a government, they need to feel that it works in their interests at least some of the time, if only for basic security.

The fighters need to be won over or shamed into surrender. Killing them just creates and recruits angry relatives/neighbours, especially with the messy way the US is going about its military affairs in the country. Ironically, as the majority of the fighters are Iraqi nationalists, the best strategy may be to simply withdraw and leave them nothing to fight against. It worked for Israel in Lebanon, and we can even act like Saddam and declare our retreat to be a victory. However, this strategy carries two grave risks: First, that some of the terrorists won’t stop at Iraq and will follow the retreating US back to a now-fairly stabilized Afghanistan or even the mainland. Second, that the militants will turn their guns on the Iraqi government, each other, and everyone else, creating the three-way civil war that was oft warned about.

If the US isn’t going to get out or act as a guest, they might as well make it official and annex the place. Not that I’m advocating that, as it would open up another can of worms. Senator Kennedy wants to see a timeline for withdrawal, and suggests measures to make the Iraqis more trusting of the US. A timeline I saw in the paper said that there’s already a date set for a second election in December, which is a very good thing because it gives the people something to look forward to.

A haunting fear of mine has been that Bush is going to hand the country over to Moqtada al Sadr, either directly or by failing to leave a strong enough central Iraqi government to stand against the Mahdis, and Moqtada afterwards continues being an evil bastard. A secondary fear has been the rise of a new Persian Empire in an oil-rich string of Shiite-dominant states under Iran’s political influence. The latter might actually be a good thing if it counterbalances out the Arab League, but I don’t want to see the Guardian Council in control of three of the world’s top oil-producing nations. The former I fear the possibility of because the Mahdis are an effective and organized force supported by many anti-US Iraqi nationalists and strong enough to wipe out the rest. If Moqtada succeeds in knocking off the pacifist Shiite leader Sistani and blaming it on someone else — he’s tried it once already — then he can become the irresistable voice of God to unite the country behind him, under his sword.