| |
The constancy of
chaos
By K Gajendra Singh
The
Anglo-Saxons organized a conference of Saddam Hussein's
opponents in London in mid-December last year to back
their claims that they wanted to usher in democracy as
part of the regime change in Iraq. The conference was
held after many postponements and much prodding and it
was an achievement in itself that it took place. But
oftentimes the proceedings resembled the scene from
Lawrence of Arabia where the Arab tribes
squabbled after taking over Damascus following the
withdrawal of Ottoman forces. The French, who were
awarded Syria as part of the Sykes-Picot division of
Arabia, then chased out the tribes.
The London conference brought together north Iraqi
Kurdish parties, the Kurdish Democratic Movement (KDP) of
Massoud Barzani and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)
of Jalal Talabani - who are mostly at each other's
throats inside Iraq. It also included the Iranian-backed
Shi'ite group, the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution
in Iraq (SAIRI), the Constitutional Monarchy Movement
and the Iraqi National Accord. 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 radical Shi'ite 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 the US should not
run Iraq after Saddam Hussein. There was no agreement on
the kind of political system or on a general framework
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 now!), while others called
for geographic and not ethnic decentralization.
Chalabi of the INC wanted
a government-in-waiting (with himself, of course, at
the head) as a political authority to provide legitimacy in
the power vacuum after the demise of the Saddam regime.
The US strongly opposed the formation of such a
government-in-exile, arguing that it would alienate
serving Iraqi generals and others who might otherwise
mutiny once a war started. Then Saddam, his government
and people would fight till the bitter end, leaving
little flexibility for a post-war scenario. But those
wanting to come over to the US side might well consider
the fate of two highly-placed sons-in-law of Saddam
Hussein, who defected to Amman a few years ago. They
were rebuffed by the West. Unwanted and turned into
pariahs, they returned, to be brutally disposed of soon
after entering Iraq.
Naturally, the US did not
want to tie its own hands in advance about Iraq's
rulers, its political fate or, more importantly, the
economic status of its oil reserves.
Of course
it remains the US's dear wish that someone assassinate
Saddam or there be a coup d'etat. From time to time, US
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, UK Foreign Minister
Jack Straw and others have talked of an amnesty for
Iraqi officials and generals and political asylum for
Saddam and his family, in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.
War and chaos
Every party - ie "heirs, pretenders,
predators, interlopers and proxies" - remains
worried about the ambitions of the others. Chalabi was
rightly worried about Kurdish plans. While there is
little official to go by, there will probably be a mad
scramble for power. Kurds with their peshmergas
(soldiers) and other groups would try to fill any
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", claimed by Kurds, Turkomens, Arabs and
others - 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 Sulaimaniya, 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 the
unenviable prospect of war, are willing to take part only
if the oil-rich provinces of Mosul and Kirkuk do not fall
under somebody else's control. They have opposed stationing
of even British troops in Kirkuk. Turkey, which has
also refused to put its troops under US command,
would certainly head straight for that city. (Recall that
the Turks invaded Cyprus in 1974 much against US
wishes, and that Turkish troops still remain there.)
Turkey already has many thousands of troops in
northern Iraq and has moved heavy armor along its
border. It claims that it is preparing for a 1991-like
refugee influx, and guarding against the activities of
Turkey's Kurdish rebels there. Turkey would also protect
her kinsmen the Turkomen in Kirkuk. But Turkish
ministers have openly talked of their old claims on
Kirkuk and Mosul. Turkey has made no secret of its
intention of occupying parts of northern Iraq to prevent
the Iraqi Kurds from taking control of Kirkuk. They
would also oppose any Kurdish bid for statehood in
northern Iraq. They have put many other conditions on
the US request to deploy up to 40,000 American troops in
southeastern Turkey to invade Iraq. Turkey also wants
billions in aid, loans and compensation.
In case
of a large-scale Turkish incursion and stay of
indefinite duration, as in Cyprus, Kurdish forces can be
expected to oppose them. 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 Abdullah Ocalan is in a Turkish jail, have
threatened to end their 1999 ceasefire and resume their
rebellion for a separate state. They have increased
their activities inside Turkey under the leadership of
his younger brother Osman Ocalan. US-supported Iraqi
opposition groups certainly have an alliance of
convenience with the Kurds, but they would oppose any
threat to Iraq's territorial integrity. Thus it appears
that a 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 on stubbornly? In Afghanistan, the US
relied on the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. But
the US did not envisage ceding control of Kabul to the
Northern Alliance, who did not even wait - ignoring US
demands, they went headlong into Kabul. The result is
there for all to see. Or remember Afghanistan after the
Soviet withdrawal in late 1980s and the subsequent rise
of warlords and al-Qaeda. The warlords are back again.
Or remember Algeria in 1963 after the French withdrawal,
when the top Algerian political leadership of Ahmed Ben
Bella and Colonel Houari Boumedienne, 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 president. But
in 1965 the colonel put Ben Bella behind bars. The
bloody equation in Algeria still remains unresolved. So
it is in Afghanistan.
Apart from the
NATO-committed Incirlik base near Adana , the US would
use bases at Diyarbakir, Batman and Malatya in south and
east Turkey. A US team has inspected these military air
bases, and shortcomings are being rectified to upgrade
them for a war on Iraq. With Turkish government
approval, US planes could be deployed at these bases.
The US administration also wants the use of airports
elsewhere, including Istanbul. But more than that, the
US wants areas in the Kurdish region in southeast Turkey
to garrison around 40,000 troops for a ground attack
against Iraq. Earlier they had wanted to station more
than 100,000 US troops.
The bases do need
upgrading. Last month, a Turkish Airlines passenger jet
crashed amid fog in Diyarbakir, killing 75 people and
injuring five others. Civilian aircraft are now handled
on part of the military airfield. Then two F-4 fighter
jets collided in heavy fog during a training flight near
Malatya, killing four pilots.
The NATO air base
at Incirlik near Adana was used during the 1990-91 Gulf
War and since then has provided for bombing runs over
Iraq by US and British planes to protect Kurds in
northern Iraq. It was also used in the war against the
Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Ancient
warfare
Barely 80 kilometers east from Adana lies
Issus, just north of the Turkish port of Iskendrun
(founded by Alexander), from where the emperor Darius
fled when attacked by Alexander of Macedonia, leaving
behind his family. The final defeat was inflicted at
Gaugamela between Nineveh and Mosul (in Iraq).
Diyarbakir is ancient Amida, now the largest Kurdish
city and its stronghold. Nearly 250 kilometers northeast
lies Manzikert, near Lake Van, where the Byzantine
emperor Romanus IV Diogenes was defeated and captured in
1071 by Seljuk Turk Sultan Alp Arslan.
Romanus
had come with 150,000 soldiers to teach Arslan (with
14,000 horsemen) a lesson. The divisions in the Roman
ranks led to the defeat. Romanus's Turkomen troops went
over to Arslan, and one of his generals, Andronicus
Ducas, fled with his men. Even the Seljuk chief was
saved only by the loyalty of his Turkish
mamelukes (slaves). This opened Anatolia for
Turkish conquest, first by the Seljuks and then by the
Ottomans, whose janissaries knocked at the gates
of Vienna twice in the 16th century, a memory which even
now sends shivers down European spines.
Around
200 kilometers south of Malatya lies another Kurdish
city, Haraan, near the border with Syria, where the
Parthians defeated the Roman emperor Crassus Marcus
Licinius in 53 BC, capturing the legion standards and
taking the loot to Ctesiphon (near Baghdad), then the
winter capital of the Parthians and later of Sasanians.
Crassus, who was governor of Syria, had attacked the
Parthians with a large force to gain military glory and
be at par with the other triumvirs, Julius Caesar and
Pompey. After he lost the war at Carrhae near Harran, he
was killed.
If one zigzags a few hundred
kilometers south from Diyarbakir along the Tigris (Dicle
in Turkish), one will pass by the city of Batman, then
Hassan Kief, the Kurdish Ayubid stronghold now submerged
under a dam, and then Cizre, the hot border post between
Turkey and Kurdish Iraq. (Many believe that it was on
the nearby Judi mountains that Noah's ark came aground
and not on Mount Ararat as is generally believed).
Another 50 kilometers south along the Tigris into Iraqi
Kurdish territory, one will reach Gaugamela, the
battlefield of final victory by Alexander over Darius
and the termination of the Achaemenean empire, then at
its peak.
The Kurdish areas in Turkey and Iraq
are difficult mountainous terrain. It is upper
Mesopotamia, center of many civilizations and many
historic battles and wars. Unable to produce enough to
establish or sustain a large kingdom or empire, the
Kurdish highlands have always remained a place of
dispute between empires based in Iran, Iraq and Turkey,
and even as far as Russia. Numerous battles have decided
the fates of empires and kingdoms in the region.
The earliest recorded war in the region was
between the Hittites and the Aryan Mitannis, when King
Tushratha was defeated and the Mitanni kingdom destroyed
in the 13th century BC. Another well-recorded conflict
in the region and one of the greatest tactical battles
of ancient times was fought between Hittite king
Muwatallis (1320 to 1294 BC) whose capital was at
Bogazkoy (200 kilometers northeast of Ankara) and
Pharaoh Ramses II of Egypt at Kadesh in Syria. It was
probably indecisive, even though the latter claimed a
victory. And of course the decisive victories of the
Muslim Arabs over the Byzantines and the Sasanians in
the 7th century AD.
Few easy solutions
Among the so-called casi
belli trotted out with regard to Iraq are
unsubstantiated charges of Iraq's links with al-Qaeda.
But nobody appears convinced by the arguments put forth
by the US administration or Tony Blair. Not that there
have not been links to terrorists. Apart from giving
sanctuary to some Palestinian terrorist elements in the
past, the Saddam regime restricted its assistance to
terrorist groups, whether Islamic or ideological, to
financial contributions, and avoided giving them
sanctuary, training or arms assistance. Among the
terrorist and terrorist-related organizations thus
financially helped by Iraqi intelligence in the past
have been Carlos the Jackal, Al Zulfiquar of the late
Murtaza Bhutto of Pakistan, the Sunni extremist and
anti-Shi'ite Sipah-e-Sahaba of Pakistan and the
anti-Tehran Mujahideen-e-Khalq.
Apart from an exit policy for the
enemy, as Napoleon believed in, there should be an exit
policy - or a withdrawal position - for the other side
too. In case war-like conditions and military buildup
fail to spur an assassination or military coup, then the
momentum for war could lead to unpredictable disasters,
in this case, maybe even to a catastrophe . Even if
Saddam disappears tomorrow, the situation created so far
now has few easy solutions. The now-threatened second
Gulf War, after the unnecessary 1991 Gulf War, would be
a parallel of World War II after the first one in terms
of destruction and misery in the region. Nearly a
million Iraqis have died of malnutrition and for lack of
medicine (the Iraqi population is now 16 percent below
1990 levels.) One can see malnourished children and
adults on Western TV screens in a country with 10
percent of the world's oil reserves, a reason for
sympathy and world-wide protests.
The Cold War
against communism will be replaced by a war against an
invisible enemy: al-Qaeda and its mutations spread all
over the world. Here are men 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 war,
opposed by majority of the world. A war would kill many
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to establish power
credibility. Then what?
Remember the Wahhabis,
the al-Qaeda cells and their copycats 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 Germany, France, the UK and other European
countries and 3 to 5 million Muslims in the US.
Protests against war
Over the weekend
of February 15-16, there was an explosion of protest in
over 60 cities against the war. Many millions, up to 8
million or more, from all over the world, from Australia
to the US, from Russia to South Africa, came out in
protest against a war on Iraq. The protesters belonged
to all classes and from across the political spectrum,
mothers with babies, young and old. The protests were
the largest ever, much bigger and more universal than
even against the Vietnam War. They were bigger in Spain,
Australia, the UK and the US, whose governments are busy
supporting and preparing for a war.
It ought to
give pause to the governments in the US, the UK and its
coalition of the willing. But Tony Blair maintained his
position at a Labour Party conference. US National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was not moved either.
Unimpressed, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said,
"I don't know that you can measure public opinion just
by the number of people that turn up at demonstrations."
The televised Security Council session on the UN
inspectors' reports, and the passionate opposition to
war by the French, Russian and other foreign ministers,
which, against all protocol, were even applauded, must
have left an abiding impression on the world-wide
audience. It might further shift away popular support to
George Bush in the US itself. It would be difficult to
defy world public opinion and go to a war without UN
approval. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has already
talked about a second resolution.
After endless
discussions in the Oval Room, there now appears to be
some sort of sketch of a post-Saddam regime a-la General
Douglas MacArthur in Japan after World War II. The idea
would be to rule for one year and complete the
"de-Ba'athification" of the Iraqi regime using the
de-Nazification of Germany as a model. In the first
stage, for a year there would be the US military
governor, General Tommy Franks, who is expected to lead
the invasion. In the second transitional phase, the
military governor will have a civilian leader to assist
him, acceptable to the international community. And
finally, it is hoped, a pro-US democratic regime would
be born of the Pandora's box.
Awaiting a
coup
It has been reported that the Pentagon and
US vice President Dick Cheney favored a Western-style
democracy in Iraq, but the State Department and the CIA
felt that it would destabilize the region. Neighbors and
allies, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both Sunni countries,
vehemently oppose a federal arrangement favoring Iraqi
Kurds or Iraqi Shi'ites in a democratic regime.
This has naturally caused a furor among
until-now loyal supporters, such as the INC, which would
be now replaced by new quislings, and those, too, from
the Ba'ath political and current military cadres in
Iraq. Only the top two or three position holders would
be replaced by US advisers or generals. Kanan Makiya, an
adviser to the INC, decried the thought of the US going
back on its commitment to democracy and letting the
present regime (sans Saddam, of course) remain in place.
Ahmad Chalabi, head of the INC, who had expected to
become Iraq's new president, opposes these plans. "The
vision of having US military officers three deep in
every ministry is not workable," he said.
(©2003
Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication policies,
or to submit a letter to the editor.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
