|
|
Latest Column:
It’s
Hard Out Here for a Parent
When Vulgarity Takes Over...
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
Michael Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@LA Times
..........
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
 Civil
War In Iraq?
If it comes, it’s not a strategic catastrophe…
[by
Daniel Pipes] 3/1/06
The bombing
on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was
a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy.
The destruction
of the Golden Dome, built in 1905 and one of the holiest shrines
of Shiite Islam, represents an escalation of the Sunni assault
on the Shiites, a purposeful outrage intended to provoke an
emotional backlash. It signals not Sunni weakness but the determination
of elements in Iraq's long-ruling community to reassert its
dominance. Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, has
rightly warned, "The fire of sedition, when it breaks
out, can burn everything in its path and spare no one." One
shudders at the possible carnage ahead.
Contributor
Daniel Pipes
Daniel
Pipes is director of the Middle
East Forum, a member of the presidentially-appointed
board of the U.S.
Institute of Peace, and a prize-winning columnist
for the New York Sun and The Jerusalem
Post. His most recent book, Miniatures: Views
of Islamic and Middle Eastern Politics (Transaction
Publishers) appeared in late 2003. His website, DanielPipes.org,
the single most accessed source of information specifically
on the Middle East and Islam, offers an archive and
a chance to sign-up to receive his new materials as
they appear. [go to Pipes index]
|
That said,
Iraq's plight is neither a coalition responsibility nor a particular
danger to the West.
When Washington
and its allies toppled the hideous regime of Saddam Hussein,
which endangered the outside world by beginning two wars of
expansion, by building a WMD arsenal, and by aspiring to control
the trade in oil and gas, they bestowed a historic benefit
on Iraqis, a population that had been wantonly oppressed by
the Stalinist dictator.
Unsurprisingly,
his regime quickly fell to outside attack, proving to be the "cakewalk" that
many analysts, including
myself, had expected. That six-week victory remains a glory
of American foreign policy and of the coalition forces. It
also represents a personal achievement for President Bush,
who made the key decisions.
But the president
decided that this mission was not enough. Dazzled by the examples
of post-World War II Germany and Japan "whose transformations
in retrospect increasingly appear to have been one-time achievements" he
committed troops in the pursuit of creating a "free
and democratic Iraq." This noble aim was inspired
by the best of America's idealism.
But nobility
of purpose did not suffice for rehabilitating Iraq, as I predicted already in
April 2003. Iraqis, a predominantly Muslim population newly
liberated from their totalitarian dungeon, were disinclined
to follow the American example; for their part, the American
people lacked a deep interest in the welfare of Iraq. This
combination of forces guarantees the coalition cannot impose
its will on 26 million Iraqis.
It also implies
the need for a lowering of coalition goals. I cheer the goal
of a "free and democratic Iraq," but the time has
come to acknowledge that the coalition's achievement will be
limited to destroying tyranny, not sponsoring its replacement.
There is nothing ignoble about this limited achievement, which
remains a landmark of international sanitation. It would be
especially unfortunate if aiming too high spoils that attainment
and thereby renders future interventions less likely. The benefits
of eliminating Saddam's rule must not be forgotten in the distress
of not creating a successful new Iraq.
Fixing Iraq
is neither the coalition's responsibility nor its burden. The
damage done by Saddam will take many years to repair. Americans,
Britons, and others cannot be tasked with resolving Sunni-Shiite
differences, an abiding Iraqi problem that only Iraqis themselves
can address.
The eruption
of civil war in Iraq would have many implications for the West.
It would likely:
- Invite
Syrian and Iranian participation, hastening the possibility
of an American confrontation with those two states, with
which tensions are already high.
- Terminate
the dream of Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern
countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This
will have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated
by the popular vote, as Hamas was just a month ago.
- Reduce
coalition casualties in Iraq. As noted by the Philadelphia
Inquirer, "Rather than killing American soldiers,
the insurgents and foreign fighters are more focused on creating
civil strife that could destabilize Iraq's political process
and possibly lead to outright ethnic and religious war."
- Reduce
Western casualties outside Iraq. A professor at the U.S.
Naval Postgraduate School, Vali
Nasr, notes: "Just when it looked as if Muslims
across the region were putting aside their differences to
unite in protest against the Danish cartoons, the attack
showed that Islamic sectarianism remains the greatest challenge
to peace." Put differently, when Sunni terrorists target
Shiites and vice-versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be
hurt.
Civil war
in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not
a strategic one. -one-
copyright
2006 Daniel Pipes
§
|
|
|
