| |
COMMENT
In Iraq, the chaos theory
in action
By Ehsan Ahrari
The
Bush administration is sending mixed signals about its
plans for Iraq. The chief reason is not a lack of
focused direction in Washington, even though that is
partly correct. The real reason is the November
presidential elections in the United States. The object
of the game among the Bush functionaries is to postpone
the emergence of chaos, maintain an open mind about all
major issues related to Iraq, including not upsetting
the Shi'ites, and not overly antagonizing the Kurds. In
other words, doing everything to keep Iraq from becoming
an issue that could harm George W Bush at the polls.
When the Bush administration sent L Paul Bremer,
US viceroy in Iraq, to the United Nations last month, it
was aimed at accommodating Shi'ite leader Grand
Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who had insisted on holding
direct elections in June, rather than the convoluted
caucus system that the US had come up with to hand over
sovereignty to Iraqis. Sistani had no faith in the US's
explanation that there was not enough time to hold
direct elections, and wanted the UN to study the
situation in Iraq and give him its recommendations.
Now Lakhdar Brahimi, UN secretary general Kofi
Annan's special envoy to Iraq, has concluded his mission
and is about to report back to the UN about the
feasibility of conducting direct elections. But
according to an interview with Annan, published in
Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun on Thursday, he believes that
Iraq elections are essential, but June is too soon. "It
may be necessary for the UN Security Council to pass a
resolution, but we will need to wait and see how things
resolve," Annan was quoted as saying. This confirms a
leaked reports that suggests that Brahimi in his report
favored direct elections, but at a later date, perhaps
toward the end of this year.
That is perfectly
acceptable to the US, as long as the transfer of
sovereignty to Iraq is carried out on June 30. July
through October are highly crucial months in creating or
unraveling patterns of electoral perceptions about who
the next US president ought to be, the incumbent or the
Democratic challenger. The administration is also hoping
that violence in Iraq will considerably subside in that
duration.
Currently, there is a continuing
debate in the inner sanctums of the Bush administration.
Topic: How much authority the UN should be allowed in
Iraq. Even though the world body has tremendous
experience in nation-building, ideologues in the Bush
administration aren't at all interested in assigning it
the needed primacy. Despite their tactical maneuver of
lying low regarding Iraq until the general elections,
they are insisting that the UN play a limited role.
Needless to say, the hawkish Vice President Dick Cheney
and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are leading
this behind-the-closed-door debate.
However, the
military leadership in the Pentagon has no qualms about
allowing the world body a major role in Iraq. The
civilian side of the Pentagon is aware of this reality;
however, political battle on this issue (as well as on
all major issues) is fought and won at a higher level
than the Pentagon - in the bowels of the Principals
Committee and the National Security Council, where
Condoleezza Rice is likely to go along with the
perspectives of Cheney and Rumsfeld.
In the
interim, Iraq continues to present a picture that is
totally undaunted by the power game in Washington. Once
the UN formally spells out its recommendations regarding
direct elections, Iraq is likely to start boiling once
again, with all ethnic and sectional factions redoubling
their maneuvers to win significant votes. Sunnis, since
they are not expected to have a major political role,
might intensify their insurgent activities, along with
Islamic radicals, who have already gained considerable
footing in Iraq.
No one knows which way the
Kurds will go. Somehow, they were under the impression
that they would continue to enjoy the autonomy that
Washington had provided them when it was pursuing a
policy of containing Saddam Hussein. However, such an
option - even if it was considered seriously at one time
in the US - is now out of the question. The territorial
integrity of Iraq as a nation is too sacred, even for
the lone superpower to handle cavalierly. So now Kurds
have to live with the fact that they will be part of a
predominantly Arab nation in which they are only a
minority. The Bush administration is hoping that there
is no Kurdish-sponsored violence between now and
November of this year.
A potentially volatile
issue for the US is the nature of the Iraqi constitution
that is due to take effect at the end of the month.
Bremer stated on February 17 that he would block any
move by Iraqi leaders to make Islamic law the backbone
of the interim constitution. He elaborated that its
current draft would make Islam the state religion and "a
source of inspiration for the law", but not the main
source of law. Sistani, on the contrary, has already
stated his position on the centrality of Islam in any
future Iraqi government. Mohsen Abdel Hamid, current
president of the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council
and a Sunni, has also made a statement on making Islamic
law the "principle basis of legislation". There is
little doubt that this issue will surface as a major
source of contention, inflaming a generally held
perspective in the Middle East that one of the main
objectives of the US presence in Iraq is to minimize the
primacy of Islam. Radicals in Iraq will have a field day
publicizing this variable. The reason for their presence
in Iraq, as they consistently reiterate, is to wage
jihad against the "chief infidel".
Any of these
strategic maneuvers of the Bush administration is likely
to undergo change or even be abandoned, when necessary.
The only constant between now and November is doing
everything to win the White House for George W Bush for
four additional years. Starting January of next year, if
Bush is still at the helm, the US will have an entirely
different approach toward Iraq, an approach that is not
likely to resemble the present one.
Ehsan
Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based
independent strategic analyst.
(Copyright
2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
