Inside the Current Issue

Iraqi Democracy: Is Civil War the Solution?

Ozgur Usenmez

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is apparently in favor of looting and plundering, at least in Iraq. His views on similar activities in New Orleans are not on record. Photo: Defense Department

As the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq continues to rise, President Bush and his neo-conservative fellows once again reiterated that things are under control and that their mission - of bringing democracy to Iraqi people - will soon be completed. Putting aside the usual propaganda, the question we should ask ourselves is this: do we have a better infrastructure and political situation for democracy in Iraq than existed during the days of Saddam's dictatorship? My answer is yes, although my reasoning is unconventional. I came to the conclusion by attempting to understand the perspective of the victims of this illegal occupation.

First, my interpretation of democracy and freedom has nothing to do with the so-called American liberation. The first reason Bush stated as a justification for the war was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). When the world saw that there were no WMDs, a second justification was deployed by accusing Saddam of collaborating with Al-Qaeda - an accusation which was not credible, and has been proven false. Finally, as the third justification, we heard that Americans are in Iraq to bring democracy to the Middle East - though that mission greatly resembles the renowned burden of the White man. As the democratic aspirations of the Iraqi people melt down in the annals of Iraqi sectarian politics, and the insurgency against the occupation escalates, the Bush administration has come up with yet another new justification for the continuation of the occupation. They have argued, especially in response to the growing anti-war sentiment at home, that Americans should complete the mission at least for the sake of fallen soldiers. This line of defense is the most abominable of all - neo-cons justifying future killings with past killings - and it provides a lens through which we can glimpse at the haplessness of the occupation.

Most of the time, the American public is caught in a conundrum: they feel they must either choose to "stay the course," and therefore suffer more troop losses, or to leave Iraq, which is viewed as a strategic defeat for American power in the 21st century. Neo-cons and associated pundits claim that withdraw can only deepen the possibility of a civil war in Iraq. So the media has created a mystified aura that this possibility would be the worst option of all, and is therefore unthinkable. Civil war is a disaster for American project because Washington has planned a free-market economy and has enormous stakes in the oil revenues and construction businesses of the region. Since Halliburton and its subsidiaries took charge of many of these business opportunities, the most important issue has become the stability of the investment environment.

Even plundering and looting in Baghdad was praised by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld when he said that "it is good for accumulation of capital." If one looks at the writings of Marx on primitive accumulation, there is an inexorable logic that ties Rumsfeld to the earlier imperialist masters regarding the creation of the basis of colonial administrations. The transitional law that regulates social and political relationships requires the privatization of state enterprises without even providing a modicum of explanation as to where they can find those private capitals among the Iraqis. How could anyone believe the occupier's protestations about freedom, considering that the first thing they did once in Iraq was to secure the oil ministry and its wells, well before doing anything bearing on urgent human needs? The real motives of the occupation were apparent from the beginning. Amidst the plundering of Iraqi museums and libraries, Iraq lost many of its historic artifacts that bridged ancient human civilizations of Mesopotamia to our day. Not only was this a huge cultural catastrophe, but it also showed how contemptuous the occupying force was towards the future of the people of that land.

The lesson that should be learned from this American project is that the occupiers have no actual, progressive plan for a democracy; what they care for is only the future guarantee of American corporate profits in a relatively stable environment. Today one sees that the prospects for a peaceful coexistence of all communities in Iraq is sliding into near-hopelessness as America's old allies from the '80s Afghan-Soviet war, the mujahaddeen, are waging a merciless war not only against the Americans, but on the social fabric of Iraq. Since the days of Abbasid period, these different ethnic and religious groups, from non-believers to the Shiites to Sunnis to Kurds, have all coexisted in more-or-less peace - as long as their society's own internal dynamics were left alone by outside powers. Even Iraqi women have lived in relative freedom, especially when compared to their counterparts in American-friendly Saudi Arabia.

One could argue that Iraq was invaded by Abbasids, Mongolians, Ottomans and British during the past millennium, but it should be remembered that, putting aside the 14 years of brutal British repression between 1918-32, the imperial powers have preferred distant control and locally agreeable administrations whose legitimacy was derived from the consent of different communities. But since the Saddam and the Ba'ath party, onetime American allies, initiated its campaign of ruthless oppression, ruptures occurred within that peaceful social fabric. Saddam used his Sunni roots to engender a client network whose existence depended on perpetuation of visible discrimination among various religious and ethnic groups. During the Cold War years and the struggle against Iran's Islamist regime, the US and its allies supported that infamous policy which resulted in many deaths in Shiite communities and the gassing of Kurds in the Iran-Iraq war. The CIA in the '70s and '80s recommended Saddam as the workable and reasonable guy against the Communists and other subversive groups in Iraq. The Iraqi Communist party historically got its biggest support from poor Shiite working class or secular Kurds, and it lost most of its members during Saddam's oppression years. Thus the American cold-war policy of containment of Soviet Union alloyed with Saddam's interests in creating fissures within that tolerant culture of Mesopotamia.

The current conditions and political situation in Iraq do not suggest a stable and peaceful future. Anti-American Islamic extremists, largely Sunni, are obsessed with the destruction of prevailing structures; what they don't have is a rational, long-term political program for the Iraqi people. This can be understood from Al-Zarqawis messages, which have asked Al-Qaeda leaders about their post-occupation plans. The political program of the Radical Islamists rests upon the negative fear they inflict on their rivals; whether or not they have anything positive in their arsenal was already foreshadowed in post-Cold War Afghanistan. These organizations were more of a by-product of American Cold War plans than the results of internal Iraqi politics.

In addition to Sunni extremists, the strict Shiite groups that support an Iranian-style Islamic republic demand privileges for their religious officials and have tried to develop new ties with Iran. With corrupt officials like Ahmad Chalabi in power, Shiite religious groups constitute the second flammable front of this civil war.

Indeed, the situation looks grim when one assess the difficulties precluding a peaceful solution. Although a minority, the secular and open-minded religious groups who want a real democratic process are also struggling to overcome the grievances that inter-communal violence has created. Most of these groups, especially on the Left, have tried to organize people around labor unions or other civic associations. This is an on-going struggle.

Civil war looks like the most likely road ahead for a post-occupation Iraq. However, one might suspect that the US and other foreign powers will take sides in those proxy wars. And if the democracy the US claims to be building in Iraq triumphs over all other options, it will not only encourage further neo-conservative wars in the region, but will block the movement towards a real democracy and civil initiatives by establishing a low-intensity democracy. This is an option not even worthy of discussion, since millions of Latin and Central Americans have been suffering exactly from that kind of governance for the last three decades.

So, as the best of the horrible options before us, civil war at least contains the possibility that clear political programs will emerge and that a modicum of understanding of the political process will crystalize.

Ozgur Usenmez is a PhD student in the Political Science department.