Iraq — still a potential battlefield

For people of my generation, the defining experiences were the Palestinian ‘Naqba’, the heroic Algerian struggle for independence, Kashmir, the Suez crisis of 1956 and, of course, apartheid in the racist South Africa. These were moments of exceptional luminosity in the larger struggle for decolonisation and for history to begin anew. The iniquity, illegality and the sheer brutality of the invasion of Iraq revived many old themes as it represented, by far, the most audacious attempt at the reconquest of the Arab-Islamic world.

There is global consensus that the invasion was wrapped in layers of lies spun by the administrations of George Bush and Tony Blair. Men of conscience from their own nations continue to peel away these layers to recover the integrity of the western civilisation. Regrettably, the compulsion to hide behind half-truths and lies infiltrated the statements marking the end of the Iraq mission. Independent commentaries challenged the claim of total withdrawal by highlighting the fact that the huge new American embassy in Baghdad — many times larger than the White House — will have 18,000 ‘diplomats’ most of whom would bear arms. As to Iraq, the cradle of human civilisation wantonly laid waste, the prognosis by independent observers was the opposite of the official success story. It is not easy to be optimistic about a country that lost hundreds of thousands of its children to violent death or forced flight abroad after the invasion. A succinct recent editorial by the Guardian noted that the country had been left to the wolves and that it “is fissuring once more and may never be one country again”.

None of the occupiers projects — except the future exploitation of oil — worked, and, even for oil, arrangements imposed on Nouri alMaliki may not last the planned decades if separatist regionalism and worsening sectarianism blow Iraq up again. Years ago, Peter Galbraith warned America of the likely consequences of the major change in the regional strategic balance wrought by Washington’s policies. Today, Iraq is a potential battlefield for a contest between forces led by Saudi Arabia and Iran.

There is a school of thought that argues that states harvesting large oil revenues are historically averse to democratisation. The American-driven democratic institutions reflect the power of the Shiite majority, something that Ba’athists under Saddam Hussein stubbornly denied. But the beneficiary, Nouri alMaliki, is already shifting to authoritarian ways. Oil revenues enable him to run patronage networks allegedly on sectarian lines, a factor that may intensify opposition from Sunni tribes that had given up insurgency. The security situation has already started deteriorating; 72 Iraqis died on December 22 in sectarian violence. Maliki’s own orientation and the pressure from the militia commanded by Muqtada alSadr would be to move closer to Iran at a time when the Gulf Cooperation leaders have just used their 34th summit to warn Tehran against ‘interference’ in the neighbouring Arab states. Oil-rich Kurdistan, reconfigured by the coalition as an autonomous part of Iraq, will probably take more steps towards sovereignty, an anathema also to Turkey. The current uncertainty about Syria’s future adds to regional instability.

Internal conflicts of Iraq are explosive per se; it will be a nightmare if they are projected as a strategic battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Has Pakistan’s diplomacy a possible role in helping avert worst case scenarios? If the worst happens and the cradle of civilisation becomes a cauldron of conflict, does Pakistan have a plan to limit the damage to its own interests? Islamabad needs to factor various contingencies into its own security planning, especially if developments in Afghanistan follow a trajectory detrimental to its interests.

American Vice-President Joe Biden’s latest pronouncements on the Taliban, made in his conversation with Newsweek, carry the suggestion that Washington is pursuing an own exclusive path to ‘reconciliation’ with the Taliban even as it punishes Pakistan for not using more firepower against them. So far, Pakistan’s military has shown a better understanding of the cross-currents — as, indeed, of the undercurrents — shaping events in the region than any civilian institution. It is time for the Foreign Office to extend its canvas and also recover its lost voice. We live in dangerous and unpredictable times.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 26^th, 2011.