Framing the Debate: The Iraqi Civil War

While the White House propaganda machine captures headlines with its Nazi analogies and comparisons of our enemies to the Red Menace of the Cold War, equally dubious is their attempt to reframe the debate in terms of an Iraqi Civil War.

As the violence escalates and the death toll mounts, it is tempting to take the bait. It is too easy to make the case for civil war and that should be the tip-off. Whether the rising violence constitutes civil war is in fact irrelevant to the question before us: Should America continue a failed occupation, at a cost of countless lives, treasure that could be used to rebuild America, and at a risk of a broader war in the Middle East?

An objective analysis of the situation in Iraq must begin with the solemn observation that none of the factions vying for power is allied with American interests – not even the Kurds.

Noted but little discussed amidst the provocative assertions of the neocon warlords were three stories with profound implications.

First was the decision of Kurdish President Massoud Barzani to replace the flag of Iraq with the flag of Kurdistan. Symbolic though it may have been, it leaves no doubt that the Kurds are not interested in a unified Iraq. To the extent that Iraqi unity is America’s objective, Kurdistan is a formidable obstacle. This is precisely what the Turks feared when they refused to cooperate with our invasion three and a half years ago. The Kurds are painfully aware that the crimes against their people, for which Saddam Hussein is now on trial, were carried out with America’s tacit approval and assistance. They are aware that the brutal repression of the Kurdish uprising following the 1991 Gulf War was executed with the explicit approval of the American commander.

The Kurds are no friends to America.

Second was the warning of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, perhaps the leading voice of Shia Iraq, that if the government could not protect the people, "other powers" would step in. When American-backed Iraqi forces recently took on the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, it was hardly an attempt to quell sectarian violence for it will surely have the opposite effect. It was not long ago that we embraced al-Sadr as we folded him into the political process. That we are switching sides (again) is a sure sign that we have no side. We are playing one faction against another and they are doing the same.

Of equal or even greater importance was a little noted report in the Washington Post concerning a coalition of three hundred tribal leaders, calling for armed resistance and demanding the release of Saddam Hussein.

Before you dismiss this gathering as a radical fringe, one was the leader of the al-Obeida tribe, boasting one and a half million members. Unless we intend genocide, that tribe alone would support an active resistance indefinitely – a prospect the White House warlords find irresistible but one that virtually all others of all religions, nationalities and cultures find unconscionable.

Occupied Iraq is like Casa Blanca in the classic film starring Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman: There is no shortage of parties willing to do business with the occupying power but not one of them is a true ally. They will turn on us in the flash of an instant if it serves their own interests. With every day the occupation continues, parlaying one side against another in an elaborate and indecipherable scheme of shifting alliances, we move closer to the day when all sides converge against a common enemy.

While the White House propaganda machine is throwing out false analogies, there can be no doubt what part America is playing in the Casa Blanca metaphor.

For those who still cling to the myth that we are fighting for democracy, imagine what would happen if the people of Baghdad took a page from Mexico or Ukraine. If hundreds of thousands converged on the Green Zone and planted the staff, demanding American withdrawal, would we yield to the will of the people or would we shoot them down in the streets like the abandoned dogs of New Orleans?

In short, no matter how bad it may or may not get after we pull out, it will be better than if we had stayed – better for the people of Iraq, better for the people of America and better for a world wary of war and terrorism.

In an interesting tack, our president wants us to be guided by the words of Al Qaeda, proclaiming Iraq as the central front in their war with America. After five years, we have been following the Al Qaeda playbook too long. There should be no doubt that the Iraqis are more than capable of purging the marginal forces of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" once we are out of the way. How grateful should Iraqis be that we have invited Al Qaeda onto their lands?

After five years, it is eminently clear that we have been following the dark vision of the White House war machine too long. What has it delivered if not a world of distrust, a radicalization of Islam, a vibrant resistance throughout Latin America, stalemate in North Korea, steady erosion of security in Afghanistan, increased debt at home and among third world nations, strengthening of China and Iran, decline of the middle class, exploitation of labor (bordering on slavery), erosion of international and domestic law, and the cheapening of the very concept of human rights?

Mission accomplished.

Jazz.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE APPEARED ON DISSIDENT VOICE, THE ALBION MONITOR, BUZZLE, PEACE-EARTH-JUSTICE AND COUNTERPUNCH.