How Bush Created a Theocracy in Iraq
Posted on Dec 2, 2005
By Juan Cole
The Bush administration naively believed that Iraq was a blank slate on which it could inscribe its vision for a remake of the Arab world. Iraq, however, was a witches’ brew of dynamic social and religious movements, a veritable pressure cooker. When George W. Bush invaded, he blew off the lid.
Shiite religious leaders and parties, in particular, have crucially shaped the new Iraq in each of its three political phases. The first was during the period of direct American rule, largely by Paul Bremer. The second comprised the months of interim government, when Iyad Allawi was prime minister. The third stretches from the formation of an elected government, with Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister, to today.
In the first phase, expatriate Shiite parties returned to the country to emerge as major players, to the consternation of a confused and clueless “Coalition Provisional Authority.”
The oldest of these was the Dawa Party, founded in the late 1950s as a Shiite answer to mass parties such as the Communist Party of Iraq and the Arab nationalist Baath Party. Dawa means the call, as in the imperative to spread the faith. Dawa Party leaders in the 1960s and 1970s dreamed of a Shiite paradise to rival the workers� paradise of the Marxists, with a state ruled by Islamic law, where a “consultative council” somehow selected by the community would make further regulations in accordance with the Koran. The Dawa Party organized covert cells throughout the Shiite south. In 1980, in the wake of the Khomeini revolution in Iran, Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party cracked down hard on Dawa, executing many of its leaders, attacking its party workers and making membership in the party a crime punishable by death. The upper echelons of the Baath were dominated by Sunni Arabs who disliked religious Shiites, considering them backward and Iran-oriented rather than progressive and Arab. In the same year, 1980, Saddam invaded Iran, beginning a bloody eight-year-long war with his Shiite neighbor.
In the early 1980s, Iran came to be viewed in Washington as public enemy Number 2, right after the Soviet Union. In the Cold War, the United States had viewed Iran as a key asset, and in 1953 the CIA overthrew the populist government of elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, which had broken with the country’s monarch. The U.S. put the autocratic Mohammad Reza Shah back on his throne, building him up as an absolute monarch with a well-trained secret police and jails overflowing with prisoners of conscience. The shah’s obsequiousness toward the U.S., and his secularism, provoked the ire of many religious Shiites in Iran. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, exiled as a troublemaker in 1963, had lived from 1964 to 1978 in Iraq, where he developed a new doctrine that clerics should rule. In 1978 he was expelled from Iraq to Paris and helped lead the revolution of 1978-79 that overthrew the shah and brought Khomeini to power as theocrat in chief.
Khomeini�s rise coincided with that of Saddam, a secular Sunni. Thousands of activist Shiites from Iraq fled to Iran, and the leadership congregated in Tehran. In 1982, with the support of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iraqi Shiite exiles formed a militant umbrella group, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Dawa was also active there. Among its leaders was a physician from the Shiite holy city of Karbala named Ibrahim Jaafari. In 1984, the cleric Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim became the head of SCIRI. From Iran, both Dawa and SCIRI mounted commando attacks on Baathist facilities and officials, attempting to overthrow the Baath government. In 1989 Jaafari and other lay leaders of the Dawa Party relocated to London, seeking greater freedom of action than they could attain under the watchful eyes of the ayatollahs in Tehran.
During the Gulf War of 1990-91, when the U.S. and its allies pushed Saddam Hussein�s forces back out of Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush called on Iraqis to rise up against the dictator. The Shiites took him at his word, launching a popular revolution in the spring of 1991 in which they took control of the southern provinces. Bush, fearful of a Shiite Islamic republic, then allowed the Baath to crush the revolution, killing tens of thousands. In the aftermath, two clerical leaders emerged: Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, originally from Iran but resident in Najaf since late 1951, took a cautious and quietist course, teaching religion but staying out of politics. His rival, Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, increasingly defied Saddam, organizing poor Shiites into a puritanical form of religion. In 1999 the Baath secret police killed al-Sadr and his two older sons. His middle son, Muqtada, went underground. The religious Shiite parties established their credibility with the Shiite public by their dissident activities.
In the run-up to the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, both the London branch of the Dawa Party and the Tehran-based Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq engaged in consultations with Washington. Both had been involved in extensive meetings with secular Shiite politician Ahmed Chalabi, who organized the Iraqi National Congress as an expatriate party aimed at overthrowing the Baath. When Saddam fell, leaders of both Shiite organizations established themselves in Iraq. Ibrahim Jaafari came from London with his colleagues and sought to organize the Dawa Party as a populist political force in the Shiite south. Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq made a triumphal journey overland from Tehran to Iraq. SCIRI immediately launched membership drives in the villages and small cities of the Shiite south and garnered thousands, perhaps millions, of new members over the next year and a half.
In April and May of 2003, after the fall of Saddam, the Sadr movement emerged into the spotlight. Muqtada al-Sadr, just 30 years old, did not have the scholarly credentials to be a great clerical leader, but the fanatic devotion of the slum-dwelling Shiite masses to his father ensured that he, too, would be met with acclaim when he came out of hiding. He organized the takeover by his followers of most major mosques in the ghetto of East Baghdad, which was promptly renamed Sadr City in honor of Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr. He immediately launched regular demonstrations against what he characterized as the U.S. occupation of Iraq, demanding that American troops depart immediately. In the summer of 2003, he began organizing his militia, the Mahdi Army. He desires a theocratic government similar to that in Iran.
The U.S. State Department, fearful that the Pentagon might install corrupt expatriate politician Chalabi in power in Iraq, convinced President George W. Bush instead to send in Paul Bremer, who had been a career foreign service officer. Bremer intended initially to rule Iraq single-handedly. As the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement gained momentum in May and June, it became clear to him that he could not hope to rule Iraq by himself, and he appointed a governing council of 25 members. Ibrahim Jaafari of Dawa and Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim of SCIRI were appointed, as were several prominent figures with backgrounds in the Iraqi Dawa Party, along with Sunni Arabs and members of minorities.
Bremer’s plan to have the constitution written by a committee appointed by himself foundered when it met strong objections from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. In a fatwa, or legal ruling, Sistani insisted that an Iraqi constitution must be drafted by delegates to a constituent assembly elected by the Iraqi people. Bremer initially discounted this criticism. He is alleged to have asked one of his aides, “Can’t we get a fatwa from some other mullah?” It gradually became apparent that Sistani’s authority was such that he could overrule the U.S. proconsul on this issue.
By October of 2003, as the guerrilla war grew, it became clear that Bremer could not in fact hope to rule Iraq by fiat, and that the U.S. would have to hand sovereignty back to the Iraqis. Bremer�s initial plan was to hold circumscribed elections for a parliament. Most voters would be members of the provincial councils (each with 16 to 40 members) that the U.S. and Britain had somehow massaged into existence.
Again, Sistani objected, insisting that only open, one-person, one-vote elections could guarantee a government that reflected the will of the Iraqi people. It was almost as though Sistani were quoting French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau to the Americans. He also insisted on a prominent role for the United Nations as midwife to the new Iraq. When it seemed as though the Bush administration might ignore him, Sistani brought 40,000 demonstrators into the streets in Basra and 100,000 in Baghdad in mid-January of 2004. The Bush administration immediately acquiesced. U.N. special envoy Ibrahim Lakhdar came for extensive consultations, and elections were set for January 2005. In the meantime, the U.S. would hand sovereignty to an appointed government for six months, with a supporting United Nations resolution.
The weakness of the U.S. in Iraq encouraged the proliferation of party paramilitaries. The Dawa Party began having men patrol in some cities. SCIRI expanded its Badr Corps militia, originally trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. These militias avoided conflict with the U.S. because their parties had a marriage of convenience with the Bush administration, and because they agreed not to carry heavy weaponry. It is alleged that the Supreme Council continues to receive substantial help from Iran, and that the clerics in Tehran still pay the salaries of some of the Badr Corps fighters. The likelihood is that the Iranians give at least a little money and support to a wide range of Shiite politicians in Iraq, including some secularists, so that whoever comes out on top is beholden to them. The mullahs in Iraq probably support the Supreme Council more warmly than any other political party, however.
In contrast, the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr was viewed by the Americans as a threat, even though the Sadrists seldom came into violent conflict with U.S. troops. As the handover of sovereignty approached, the Americans in Iraq suddenly announced that they wanted to kill or capture Muqtada al-Sadr, and they arrested several of his key aides in early April 2004. He responded by launching a massive revolt, which initially succeeded in taking control of East Baghdad and several southern cities. Through hard fighting, the U.S. military gradually defeated the Mahdi Army, reaching a truce in early June. In August, fighting broke out again between the Sadrists and the Marines in the holy city of Najaf. This crisis was resolved when Sistani returned from London after a heart procedure there to call for all Iraqis to march on Najaf. The flooding of the city by civilians made further fighting impossible, and Muqtada al-Sadr slipped away. Thereafter Muqtada fell quiet for many months. When he reemerged, it was as a political broker rather than simply a warlord.
The Americans had had to give up their hopes of ruling Iraq directly, both because of the Sunni Arab guerrilla war and the challenge of the Shiites. Although he was more peaceful about it, Sistani opposed key American initiatives as much as the young firebrand Muqtada al-Sadr did. The Mahdi Army uprising was the nail in the coffin of direct American rule of Iraq. Next, the U.S. completely lost control of the political process.
In fall 2004, Sistani intervened to shape the upcoming elections. He insisted that all the major Shiite parties run on a single list, to avoid splitting the Shiite vote. Since Shiites comprise about 62% of Iraqis, a united Shiite list could hope to win a majority in parliament. The coalition of Dawa, SCIRI and smaller Shiite parties won the election on Jan. 30, as Sistani had foreseen. The U.S. had attempted to build up the old CIA asset and secular ex-Baathist, Iyad Allawi, as the natural leader of Iraq. It signally failed. His list received only about 14% of seats in parliament.
The real winners of the January 2005 elections were the Shiite religious parties. This was bad news for Bush. In partnership with the Kurdish Alliance, they formed a government that brought Ibrahim Jaafari of Dawa to power as prime minister and gave Dawa and SCIRI several important posts in the executive. Sunni Arabs from the rival branch of Islam were largely excluded from the new government, insofar as they had either boycotted the election or had been unable to vote for security reasons. The new Jaafari government quickly established warm relations with Iran, receiving a pledge of $1 billion in aid, the use of Iranian port facilities and help with refining Iraqi petroleum.
At the provincial level, the Shiite parties swept to power throughout the south. SCIRI dominated nine of 11 provinces that had a significant Shiite population, including Baghdad province. The Sadrists took Maysan province and Basra province. Shiite militias proliferated and established themselves.
The dominance of the central legislature and the executive by religious Shiites gave Sistani great moral authority over the drafting of the permanent constitution, the main task of the new parliament. The Shiites inserted a provision that no legislation could be passed by parliament that contravened the established laws of Islam, and made provisions for Muslim clerics to be appointed to the judiciary. Some important elements of the old Dawa Party vision of a government in accordance with Islam was therefore achieved, though it was leavened by modern, secular human rights ideals. When Dawa and SCIRI were based in Tehran in the 1980s, plotting to overthrow Saddam and come to power, they could not have imagined that their dream would be realized 20 years later with American help. Jaafari, the elected prime minister, employed his position to strengthen the Shiite fundamentalist Dawa Party that he headed. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim had lived to see his Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq rule half the provinces of Iraq, including the capital, as well as play a central role in the parliament and the cabinet. Both parties drew Baghdad closer to Tehran, seeking warm relations with the clerical rulers of Iran. Shiite power now dominated the eastern stretches of the Middle East. The Bush administration trumpeted its bestowal of democracy in the region, but most Middle Eastern observers saw only the installation of a new Shiite power.
The hawks in the Bush administration had initially hoped that a conquered Iraq would form the launching pad for a further American war on Iran. The Shiites of Iraq foiled that plan. Sistani forced the Americans into direct, one-person, one-vote elections. Those elections in turn ensured that the religious Shiites would come to power, since they had the greatest street credibility, given their long struggle against Saddam and their nationalist credentials in the face of American occupation.
An Iraq dominated by religious Shiites who had often lived in exile in Iran for decades is inevitably an Iraq with warm relations with Tehran. The U.S., bogged down in a military quagmire in the Sunni Arab regions, cannot afford to provoke massive demonstrations and uprisings in the Shiite areas of Iraq by attacking Iran. Bush has inadvertently strengthened Iran, giving it a new, religious Shiite ally in the Gulf region. The traditional Sunni powers in the region, such as the kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, are alarmed and annoyed that Bush has created a new “Shiite crescent.” Far from weakening or overthrowing the ayatollahs, Bush has ensconced and strengthened them. Indeed, by chasing after imaginary weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he may have lost any real opportunity to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon should it decide to do so.
The real winners of the Iraq war are the Shiites.
Email Newsletter
Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Previous item: Serious Miscalculations About Syria
Next item: Love and Loss on Brokeback Mountain
Elsewhere: .
Comments: 76 Published. Add Yours?
Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
The Defining Moment for Climate Change
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By labeai, October 21, 2006 at 6:56 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
neocon pointman, Dick Cheney
Neocon is slang for dirty jew. liberals love this word. now they cant have jews wear a star on their arms; as they say been there done that.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Ed, August 20, 2006 at 12:34 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
IF you had a Brain Cell, you would be Dangerous.
Thank God you don’t have a brain cell to speak of.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Mike, August 19, 2006 at 9:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thank you!
Reply to this | Report thishttp://vrywukso.com/jakn/tpuh.html | http://lgwzdnsc.com/jhyj/tfzt.html
By Jane, August 19, 2006 at 9:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thank you!
Reply to this | Report thisMy homepage | Please visit
By Dixie, August 19, 2006 at 9:10 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nice site!
Reply to this | Report thisMy homepage | Cool site
By glee, April 30, 2006 at 11:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
After reading all the comments I have come to one clear conclusion. The more one supports Bush, the poorer the writer’s ability to use correct grammar, spelling and correct expression. Perhaps this merely reflects the intelligence and educational level of the typical Bush supporter, Therefore s/he is one who is less likely to be a fully informed and educated voter and far more gullible to believe those who know how to sway people. I would suggest those people read (or reread) the following two books: 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. Hopefully they will be astute enough to understand the inherent metaphor of each. Then they should read all they can about the rise of Hitler, starting off with a rather easy to read Melissa Muller’s Anne Frank, the Biography. Maybe they would begin to get an understanding of how easily it is to be swayed to willingly give up freedoms and rights. It is happening in 2006. Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Duane Sample, January 9, 2006 at 5:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Better late than never! Very good info by Juan Cole...hopefully he has it approx. right. However, my view of this carefully prepared invasion observes that the natural resources of the entire Middle East need to be at the beck and call of the United States and it’s brother ally, Israel. Further, their joint efforts will include a great part of Africa and portions of the prior Russian properties. So we will see much bigger bombings and invasions ahead. There is no stopping World Empire because it holds all the cards of weapons manufacturing and disposable humans (soldiers). When the Empire runs out of soldiers; they will use prisoners: both domestic and foreign. Our (the USA) conversion to full Plutocracy is fast happening; and the paper democracy is vanishing. We (of the proletariat) needn’t worry. We should watch this as if we are reading a novel; and live our personal lives in happiness and pleasure. We who are aware of our very nature know that the leaders of our world are simply beasts: devoid of human qualities. So let them be.
Reply to this | Report thisBy marvin, January 7, 2006 at 6:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The U.S. is the proverbial bull in the china shop I’m afraid. You know what that does to the china shop.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Vor Dire, January 1, 2006 at 2:02 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
<<<I believe it is leftists’ intetions to make it look it was all Bush’s fault!>>>
Two things…
If it’s not War President’s responsibility/fault… then, where might the old proverbial buck stop? Are you accusing the neocon pointman, Dick Cheney of the FUBAR in Iraq?
Nevertheless, in all fairness to your contentions… the “leftists” and a ever-growing number of “conservatives” have a substantial amount of material to work with as re Bush’s fault(s).
Reply to this | Report thisBy F14 Pilot, December 31, 2005 at 12:50 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I believe it is leftists’ intetions to make it look it was all Bush’s fault!
Bush is a hero
Reply to this | Report thisBy Vor Dire, December 20, 2005 at 1:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
<<<Bush went to war to liberate Iraq, did u forget?>>>
Oh, no… the slobber-faced NASCAR Sunday Fundie non-thinkers bought that lie and are now flopping on the deck like a bunch of mullets on a trot line. Everybody else knows that Bush invaded Iraq so he can make senseless excuses about spying on his political opponents…
Reply to this | Report thisBy Winston, December 20, 2005 at 10:37 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bush went to war to liberate Iraq, did u forget?
Reply to this | Report thisBy nathan johnson, December 19, 2005 at 5:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
wow.............they werent kidding about what the liberals were saying about the successful elections in iraq...........11 million iraqis vote and there is almost no violence........and yet you die hard bush haters still cant get past your petty small minded hatred of bush and his “cronies” if iraq is so bad then how come 2 out of 3 iraqis feel next year will be better....how come over 70% feel their lives are going well........maybe you people should actually listen to military people over their and iraqis themselves instead of you little whining groups.....and as for this stupid oil conspiracy need i remind you that the oil companies made record profits when demand was high and supplies were low...........for the ones that attended public school that means that if iraq starts pumping as much oil as saudi arabia then the oil companies will not make as much money ie the 90s
Reply to this | Report thisBy VOR Dire, December 13, 2005 at 7:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
A fact of reasoning omitted… On November 1, 2000 Saddam Hussein converted Iraq’s oil trading unit to the euro and away from the private banking family known to a few as the federal reserve ‘system’ currently ruling the United States and most of the world economies.
As the 2nd largest producer of oil on the planet, Saddam’s crippling move to the euro shattered the smooth flow of the federal reserve’s paper through the oil piplines and diverted the fiat paper into the sewer lines of the world economies.
The after effect continues to haunt the massive paper printing bank. Even a cursory look at the last five years since Saddam’s brilliant shift away from the dollar and one can find the United States economy circling the proverbial drain.
Anyway, after the unilateral invasion, disguised as a coalition, the federal reserve banking family’s first and foremost directive was to have the Bush administration replace the euro with its so-called federal reserve petrodollar. That was done quietly and without fanfare, yet it was done nonetheless.
Now the question remains, will the private federal reserve banking family be able to print enough paper to unclog the ‘sewer’ lines already jammed to capacity with worthless paper dollars? I believe the answer lies in the question itself.
Yet, in other words let it be asked this way--When was the last time in history that a nation was able to borrow itself out of debt by printing more worthless money?
Saddam was right about one thing. The United States government and its house of cards paper money scheme could be brought down without a single shot being fired. What he failed to realize though, was the fact that Bush’s (the federal reserve’s) invasion did not need a shot fired to inspire ‘shots’ being fired back.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Wallsy, December 11, 2005 at 10:37 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I am alway stunned by the claim that this war, or any military intervention, is about achieving democracy. The democracy card was pulled out when it became increasingly obvious that no one really believed the WMD threat-discourse. Indeed, it follows a pattern that, after all the intial arguments for intervention are spelled out, the peace and democracy discourse is applied as a sugar-coating at the end. It frankly disgusts me that in light of the destruction of Iraqi society during 12 years of harsh sanctions, bombing raids, causing the destruction of vital infrastructure and the death of 500,000 infants, that a new administration would lie about an Iraqi threat, knowing full well what the outcome of an invasion and occuptaion would entail. I do not need to illustrate the outcomes since they are all too vivid now. One thing is for sure, however, and that is the Bush Administration knew that invading Iraq would not be difficult militarily. However, their obvious disregard for the situation on the ground, the people, the culture and the political set-up, has bogged them down in a veritable quagmire. I agree too with the thesis that the Administration knew what it was doing, that it had a hidden agenda. HOwever, this had nothing to do with the welfare and well-being of the Iraqis, far from it. Indeed, how could Mr Rumsfeld, after having had presiously warm relations with Hussein, have suddenly witnessed a pang of conscience? But, stranegly enough, we are suppsed to believe that this war was predicated on altruism. Ridiculous.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Winston, December 10, 2005 at 1:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Good Point, Tom!
Democracy is indeed taking place and shaping in Iraq and the fight, I believe, is over that.
Reply to this | Report thisTerrorists in one side and US & Iraqis on the other side are trying to shape the future of Iraq.
Democracy, even a little, is in place now but it has to become firmer and stronger. It is going to happen if terrorists are defeated there.
By Tom Janzen, December 8, 2005 at 1:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Winston, the following excerpt from your comment indicates that you believe a “more probable outcome” is likely to occurr that is differenct from the one projected by Mr Cole. Aside from the circular logic in the comment (Iraq will be a democratic country if democracy is attained), what are the facts supporting your argument, and the logic of how that outcome is attained, or is it based simply on belief?
“The liberals do not try to understand that in the long run Iraq will be a peaceful and democratic country if the democracy and freedom the American & Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing their lives for, takes place.”
Reply to this | Report thisBy Winston, December 7, 2005 at 10:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have got this in response
http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2005/12/response-to -coles-latest-article.html
Reply to this | Report thisBy JCanuck, December 7, 2005 at 4:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I think that they thought they knew exactly what they were doing. If one looks at how politics have been carried on by the GW crowd domestically, it’s very clear that one of the central pillars of how they operate is “divide and conquer”.
Unfortunately, they seem to have looked at Iraq through the lens of an isolated country, instead of as part of the whole. The goal may well have been to splinter Iraq into three “mini-states” based on ethnic and religious lines, who would then spend a great deal of time squabbling amongst themselves. I have to wonder as well if the pressure put on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon didn’t have the same purpose in mind for the various factions that exist in Lebanese society. It’s not particularly difficult to see that dividing the stronger states in the area into many smaller and weaker states would create a situation in which it becomes much easier to pit one against the other and to stir up racial or ethnic tensions to keep them off balance and in fear. This eventuality would considerably strengthen the position of their main regional ally, and therefore the position of the US.
Too bad they forgot about Iran...something they are no doubt trying to rectify with the latest round of fear-mongering about nuclear states. Interesting to see that Russia has quietly stepped into the fray this time. I guess that Putin also saw into Bush’s soul, and didn’t much like what he saw.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Winston, December 6, 2005 at 1:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
@Lance Uppercut
What kind of popular government when milions of Iranians greeted their king after his return from Rome?
Dont you believe me? Do a google on that!
Never ever believe what the left wants you to believe. They spin the facts and feed us with what they think is the real truth.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Lance Uppercut, December 6, 2005 at 9:35 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m pretty sure that the CIA has admitted to installing the Shah. You can’t overthrow a popular government without putting disidents in prison, or in a shallow grave. That’s a fact.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Hopi Elder, December 5, 2005 at 8:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Fast forward 10-20 years, and the surviving pockets of humanity will be huddled around their campfires, the scattered remnants of a vast and cruel diaspora, entirely man-made.
And one will ask: What was the cause of WWIII and the nuclear holocaust? Why did it have to happen?”
And no one will know the answer.
Will you?
Reply to this | Report thisBy DeeEmseven, December 5, 2005 at 7:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
What is it with these Presidents from Texas? It’s now clear that the Vietnam war was started by Lyndon Johnson using lies and distortions. Now we have Dubya starting the Iraq war using lies and distortions. Do these cowboys think that they won’t appear macho and get respect unless they kill thousands people?
Reply to this | Report thisBy Tom, December 5, 2005 at 6:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Magix asked how do we can get out of this mess?
The best answer is that we should give a date certain when we will be gone from Iraq. This information will let the insurgents know how long they have to wait, but it will also let the other members of Iraqi society know how long they have to prepare. The Iraqis must develop their own solution and this action will immediately focus the minds of all involved on that reality.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Winston, December 5, 2005 at 2:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I am from Iran and I disagree with what Cole says about the Late Shah of Iran.
The hoax of secret police and prisoners are what Ted Koppel made you believe.
Where is he now talking about Mullahs and their prisoners?
This article is another left wing BS.
Thanks
Reply to this | Report thisBy Rook, December 5, 2005 at 9:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I hate history. I can’t even stand to read about events from last year.
Yet, I read ever single word of this article. Thanks for educating me on the political developments in Iraq, something the MonoMedia has failed to report. And for doing it so well.
Reply to this | Report thisBy ernest p. algorri, December 5, 2005 at 9:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I say let our cigarette companies in there to generate the deficit-reducing revenue our defense contractors and oil companies couldn’t from Iraqi oil. Thus, a new Republican 2006 campaign slogan (recommended for usage in red states in particular): “SMOKER’S RIGHTS SHALL WIN THE FIGHT!”
Reply to this | Report thisBy Johnnei, December 5, 2005 at 6:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Looks like yer story has lotsa them facts, and tries to make a point based in reality; Juan, Why do you hate Americuh? Don’t you know this administration don’t do no truth based thinkin’.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Bill Clinton Podcast, December 5, 2005 at 12:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree totally with your analysis. Not with the tone. Who says Bush and the Neo Cons don’t want a Shiite theocracy in Iraq? It would counter the Shiite theocracy in Iran. Divide and rule. Sistani and the Iranian religious leader are rivals for the leadership of the Shiite religion. You probably know that Iraq is the traditional seat of Shiite learning and leadership. This also explains the new Iranian president’s extremism, trying to be relevant in a Shiite world where the power is shifting to Najaf.
Reply to this | Report thisBy alec hakim, December 4, 2005 at 10:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I believe the words allah akbar written on the Iraq’s flag clearly deminishs any hope of a secular state ruling in Iraq.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Raul, December 4, 2005 at 7:38 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
So your thesis is? The average, unschooled American knows that the Shiites, by definition, get the biggest prize. Say something meaningful.
Would you prefer Saddam?
Reply to this | Report thisBy Pawlr, December 4, 2005 at 7:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Juan - One of the best summaries of the insanity I’ve read to date. Enjoy your in-depth analysis on your blog as well.
Reply to this | Report thisAgree with Brian that the reason for the invasion was #3 and #2 - #2 being the underlying force behind it and #3 being the justification. _Assassin’s Gate_ provides further evidence for #3.
Where’s the Jean Kirkpatricks of the Neocon movement when we needed them? She and Scowcroft would have smacked some sense into these idealistic goofballs.
By Robert, December 4, 2005 at 7:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Reading Richard Perle, it seems to me that there has been a plan to install friendly Shi’ites in Iraq going back at least ten years. My understanding is that Perle originally saw Shi’ites somehow loyal to Arab Hashemites rather than to Persians as the way to go.
A small tweak to this plan, going with Sistani’s Iranian Shi’ites instead, builds on the tentaively improved relations with Iran under Clinton, and means that America gains a friendlier Iran as well as the pipelining and energy business that such improved relations implies.
America has been busy ridding Iran of its enemies and rivals. First the Taliban in the east, now the Iraqi Baathists, and no doubt soon Iran’s Syrian rivals will be more fully marginalised. With Hezbollah, fatah and Hamas more or less legitimate political entities or soon to be, Iran can afford to concentrate on making serious oil money, playing off growing Chinese and Indian demands against western needs, with Russia providing its security credibility. Iran could Geographically, politically and theocratically wind up holding the powerful middle ground.
I expect to see Iran taking Saudi Arabia’s place as America’s influential regional Islamic go-to regime.
Reply to this | Report thisBy DocHolliday, December 4, 2005 at 5:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
What’s wrong with theocracy? That way we can make sure that narrow-minded idiots control everything. Avoid all those elections and vote-counting strategies. Much easier this way.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Wade Hudson, December 4, 2005 at 3:41 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Juan Cole’s piece is a good, helpful summary, but I disagree that “The Bush administration naively believed that Iraq was a blank slate.” Rather, I agree with Tom, who said “It is extremly unlikely that the people who drafted the plan were ignorant of the ethnic and religious dynamics within Iraq. Therefore, it must be assumed that the most likely outcome; i.e, a Kurdish state, a Shite state and a Sunni state was anticipated and desired.”
When I was in Baghdad during the invasion with the Iraq Peace Team, high-level officials in the Iraq government told me and others that they believed that the Bush Administration intended a three-state scenario.
Recent foreign policy decisions in the Balkans and Africa also suggest that the West has a preference for fragmentation. Weak states offer less resistance.
Personally, as I told the CBS affiliate in Washington on live TV as the bombs were falling, I believe that the primary motivation behind the war was to get Bush re-elected. All other explanations fall short, but on that point Rove and company were successful.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Betty J. Ellis, December 4, 2005 at 3:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I knew that Bush had no knowledge of other cultures. I had said since the Gulf I war by his father that when Saddam was gone that we would have another Bosnia situation because of the ethnic groups. All that I could visualize were more horribley wounded and dead people on both sides. If only our leaders would study history and learn some lessons from it.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Jim, December 4, 2005 at 9:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Great article!
Reply to this | Report thisYou should write a book about it, maybe the standard text, after an initial US drawdown
By John Massie, December 4, 2005 at 9:27 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I remind people of President Cheney’s casual purchase of Dresser Industries and it’s asbestos liability for $7.7 billion for Halliburton in the mid 90’s during a weekend of quail hunting. Halliburton’s stock plunge as a result and the subsequent rebirth of Halliburton in Iraq. And this is just one little sad tale.
Reply to this | Report thisMakes one think of the Edwardian excesses of 1913.
Spot of bother there chappie, about that asbestos settlement. Not to worry, old sport, we can make it up in Iraq.
Z. Brzezinski recently refered to the French description of this as “l’outrance”. Describes it so much better than conspiracy.
The sun always seems to shine the brightest at sunset.
By dan, December 4, 2005 at 4:56 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks for the interesting post.
I’ve noticed that there is a persistent train of thought amongst US neocon sympathisers which holds that Sistani’s quietism is a threat to the clerical regime in Iran and that he is a US strategic ally on the ground in Iraq, as his “massive” influence amongst the Shia faithful in Iran would undermine the Khomeinists. There are still people trying to argue this line - in spite of the voluminous evidence to the contrary.
This has always struck me as at best a nonsensical piece of wishful thinking - especially in the light of Sistani’s apparently uncoerced conversion to interventionism in June 2003. I’d appreciate it if you could discuss this issue.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Wallsy, December 4, 2005 at 3:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
For an even clearer synthesis of events since the beginning of the war, in combination with Cole’s excellent piece above, I would recommend that you read “Crude Designs”, a British report on the real reasons for going into Iraq, namely, Oil and Profit (economic hegemony).
When I read Cole’s piece following the report, I immediately experienced an epiphany regarding the function of estbalishing (con)fedral regions in Iraq. Indeed, it would appear that the dissolution of Iraq as a national entity in favour of ethnically coloured regions, serves the purpose of weakening any bargaining power Iraqis may have had in the face of the imminent privatisation of Iraq’s oil resources and also of keeping these new regions busy with the indigenous insrugency, the members of which comprise those Iraqis likely to be left out of future oil profits. This does not mean, however, that Washington’s Iraqi yay-sayers gain in the long term either since so-called the PSAs lock Iraqi oil resources into 40-year irrevocable contracts, the consequences of which we can only guess at, at this stage. Personally, I believe that this ostensible form of divide and conquer strategy will suit the short-term purposes of the neocons but will ultimately destroy Iraq. Now, couple that with what has emerged as the new power brokers in Iraq and we have an interesing new from of “stability” forming. Indeed, if Iran supports SCIRI’s and DAWA’s support of the constituion and thereby Bremer’s Trojan horse, Washington will inevitably acquiesce in order to further its plans for profiteering in the future. I can’t waait to see how Bush and Blair lie their way through Iraq’s ultimate desecularisation when, in the next few years, we witness the inevitable human rights crimes arising from a fundamentalilst state(let) in Iraq.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Ed, December 4, 2005 at 12:03 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Where is your Proof?
Or is this all just Conjecture and Opinion, as is 99% of ALL Liberal “news”.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Ace Loves Gary, December 3, 2005 at 11:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks for the post Professor Cole. Very informative.
Reply to this | Report thisBy baby-puppy, December 3, 2005 at 10:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Damn this is an excellent piece Mr. Cole. Straight out of the history books of the future. Should be required reading for some of our Senators and Congressmen, and yes even the State Dept. Thank you.
Reply to this | Report thisBy bakho, December 3, 2005 at 8:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The initial Bush slogan was “shock and awe”. Bush planned to unleash a military force so mighty none would oppose the political solution Mr Bush wished to impose: a democratic secular non-Baath government friendly to US interests and especially US oil companies. However, the military can achieve limited objectives and political objectives must be achieved by diplomacy.
Mr Bush achieved all his possible military objectives in toppling Saddam in 2003. Since then he has met political failure. Mr Bush will continue to meet political failure because he believes the US military can solve his political problems in Iraq. Only a concerted political effort can solve the problems of Iraq.
The US is stuck in Iraq with no good options to leave because Mr Bush is committed to his military solution. Mr Bush has FAILED to take those political steps that would be necessary to ease the US troops out of Iraq. Until Mr Bush understands that the US military is not the answer and that the troops need to be withdrawn, none of the necessary political steps to accomplish withdrawal will be made.
We are told Mr Bush is stubborn and he does not take contradiction, bad news or constructive criticism very well. We are screwed.
Reply to this | Report thisBy JM, December 3, 2005 at 6:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
My thoughts are reflected in the previous comments. Except this. The PNAP people, with their arrogant vision that only they understand global politics, were not seasoned by input from any other knowledgeable source. Consequently, they egged Bush and his supporters into something that even Bush’s father was too savvy not to try. The main problem is simply GWB’s gullibility. I’ll always have to wonder if GHWB tried to talk him out of it and he plugged his ears and said “La la la la, I can’t HEAR you!”
Reply to this | Report thisBy Floyd Vaughn, December 3, 2005 at 6:29 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree whole-heartedly with Larry Uzarski,it seems as if every day we have to deal with yet another mistake and the funny thing about it,is Americans should live up to their right to vote,and do something about this mess.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Orlo Makrovskovitchewsky, December 3, 2005 at 6:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thank you, Mr. Cole, for this englightening article. It blows the pants off of every other explanation I’ve heard about the war. I object to the notion by other commenters that the religious right is creating a theocracy in the U.S. These scum are not truly religious. They merely use religion to dupe the a shockingly large number of dull, working-class Americans into supporting the largest theft of tax dollars in world history.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Tug, December 3, 2005 at 5:24 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nicely done, Professor. Shout this one from the hilltops - these guys (the Bush Administration) are just simply incompetent.
Reply to this | Report thisBy susan pierce, December 3, 2005 at 5:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thank you for this fantastic article by Juan Cole. It contains so much important information. Would that every American could/would read it.
Reply to this | Report thisBy ali, December 3, 2005 at 2:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
excuse me ramakrishna, you suggest that muslims are religious fanatics. thanks for the gross generalisation, but you can keep your ignorant views to yourself.
The shias winning is not neccessarily a bad thing, seeing how their country is in such a bad state, they will be forced to sell that oil at the prices the west want, simply to survive!
Reply to this | Report this