[pn] Mabruk to the people of Iraq!

[Mark Warschauer]

*********************************************************************
This message was distributed by Papyrus News.  Feel free to forward
this message to others, preferably with this introduction. For info on
Papyrus News, including how to (un)subscribe or access archives, see
<https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-news>.
*********************************************************************

(Comments welcome.  Those of you who wish to unsubscribe may do so 
yourself at 
<https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-news>).

To the people of Iraq, who have suffered three decades of rule by one 
of the most brutal, murderous regimes in the world, I offer a hearty 
"mabruk" (congratulations).  I have spent enough time in liberated 
countries -- from post-Somoza Nicaragua to post-communist 
Czechoslovakia -- to know that there is little sweeter in life than 
seeing the symbols and institutions of tyranny crumble before ones 
eyes, and even having the chance to stomp on them oneself.  Though 
readers of this commentary probably have very diverse perspectives on 
this war--and I suspect that many, if not most, have been in 
opposition to it--I hope that everyone can unite in taking pleasure 
at the downfall of the fascistic Baathist regime (even if our 
satisfaction is tinged with sadness at the many who have died or been 
wounded in the war, not to mention the far greater number whose lives 
were earlier snuffed out by Saddam's regime, and our cognizance of 
the challenges that remain in rebuilding Iraq.)  This is a regime 
that has tortured and murdered tens of thousands of its own citizens, 
brutally crushed all internal dissent, slaughtered innocents with 
chemical weapons, cruelly repressed religious and ethnic groups that 
constitute the majority of the ctizenry, and launched aggressive 
attacks against most of its neighbors.  The fact that at times the 
regime was supported by various Western powers provides an 
interesting lesson in history, but in no way mitigates the fact that 
Saddam is fully worthy of being overthrown.

For much of the past decade, the US and European left, broadly 
defined, has been demanding greater foreign intervention against 
tyranny, whether in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, or Rwanda (and, I might 
add, with, or without, UN support, as in Kosovo, where the left 
widely supported NATO intervention).  Yet, in this instance, with 
Saddam Hussin making Yugoslavia's Milosevic look like a puppy in 
comparison, much of the left reversed course and agitated against the 
war, in effect playing the role of an international human shield for 
the Baathist regime.  Some on the left eloquently discussed the need 
for the Iraqi people to overthrow the regime themselves (e.g., 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45508-2003Feb21?language=printer), 
but the fact is that the grip of the regime was so tight that foreign 
involvement was required (and, indeed, should have been offered 12 
years ago, when the Shia and Kurdish peoples carried out an uprising 
against the regime, following the Gulf war, only to be crushed by 
Saddam's forces).  The symbolism of the downing of the statue 
yesterday in Baghdad's main public square, with Iraqis first trying 
with ropes and sledgehammers, finally to be aided by a US tank, after 
US Marines hoisted US and then Iraqi flags, will not soon be lost. 
(Of course it is also worth pointing out that the Kurdish people 
were, today, able to down Saddam's statues in Kirkuk by themselves, 
without any assistance required.  The Kurds, who have felt the 
bitterest pain of the Baathist regime, including the massacre of 
5,000 Kurdish civilians by chemical weapons in 1988, have also been 
the best organized forces in opposing the regime, in part due to the 
security offered by foreign support over the last decade. It is 
especially satisfying to see their joyous celebrations at the 
downfall of the Butcher of Baghdad.)

What then was, and is, this war, really about?  The left's slogan 
that this is a war for oil is true, but not principally in the narrow 
sense that is propagated.  Yes, of course, Bush and his associates 
would love to have greater influence, control, and profit from Iraq's 
massive oil resources, but this is not principally a war for 
corporate profit through control of local resources anymore than the 
war in Vietnam was (well, maybe a little more).  Rather, both wars 
are about the US defending what it perceives to be its global 
geo-political interests.  In Vietnam, that meant stopping, and 
rolling back the spread of a global ideology and set of alliances 
referred to as communism.  In Iraq it means rolling back a different 
ideology.  Identifying that ideology is is complex, because it 
doesn't have a convenient label already attached to it, like 20th 
century communism or fascism.  One convenient label is terrorism, 
though obviously what is under consideration is not terrorism in 
general but a particular type emanating from the Arab world to the 
broader Muslim world.  Liberal essayist Paul Berman, in his recent 
book, Terror and Liberalism, describe this ideology of terror as 
having two main variants, a religious Islamist variant, headquartered 
until recently in Afghanistan, and a secular nationalist variant, 
headquarted in Baghdad.  Though these variants are often bitterly and 
violently opposed to each other, they are also linked in numerous 
ways, as evidenced by the support that Iraq and Syria have rendered 
for religious terrorist groups such as Hizbollah, Hamas, and Islamic 
Jihad.  Clearly, neo-conservative leaders in and around the Bush 
administration believe that both terrorist variants, religious and 
secular, must be rolled back, with the war in Afghanistan being round 
1 and the war in Iraq being round 2 in what some are now calling 
World War IV (with the Cold War being World War III).  The reference 
to the Cold War indicates that a variety of political, military, 
diplomatic, and economic weapons will be used.  The Bush 
administration will probably prefer to use mop-up campaigns and 
threats rather than invasions of other countries, at least in the 
immediate future--but, in one form or another, the war will go on, 
and the threat of further military action is undoubtedly in the air.

In what sense then is this a war about oil, beyond the narrow sense 
of corporate profit?  Well, to state the obvious, the Middle East 
matters so much to the world precisely because it is such a 
resource-rich region.  The United States, and others, would unlikely 
get involved in overthrowing local tyrants in poorer parts of the 
world (witness again Rwanda), but the oil wealth of the Middle East 
makes it a key area in international politics.  Without oil wealth, 
Osama Bin Laden would not have had the resources to launch Al Qaeda, 
Saudi Arabia would not be spreading its brand of Wahabi 
fundamentalism around the Muslim world, and Saddam Hussein would not 
have developed his regime's vast array of weapons of mass 
destruction.  And of course, neither the US, nor the British, nor the 
French, nor the Russians, would have demonstrated such keen interest, 
involvement, and interference in local affairs.

What then comes next?  While the first stage of the Iraqi war -- 
eliminating the former regime throughout the entire country -- is not 
yet complete, the second stage is already set to begin: the 
reconstruction of Iraq.  Once again, the largest current on the left, 
with its slogans of "US Out" and its emphasis on the UN as a 
constraining force on the US, is off the mark.  For those who support 
democracy and development in Iraq, the main current danger in the 
post-war phase is not necessarily too much US involvement, but 
perhaps too little.  If the US exercises benign neglect, as it has in 
Afghanistan, the chances of national democratic development in Iraq 
will be hampered (just as they have been in Afghanistan, where the 
new government, albeit well-intentioned, controls little more than 
the capital city, and local warloads are reasserting their influence 
elsewhere.)  What should be demanded of the US is the level of 
political and financial commitment to assist Iraq in developing into 
a thriving and economically successful democratic state.  Indeed, I 
believe that conditions are good for this, given the level of 
education and other forms of human and cultural capital in Iraq, its 
long and proud history as a unified country, and its substantial oil 
resources.  But, with the degree of destruction and impoverishment in 
the country over the last two decades, Iraq will need a tremendous 
amount of help to get through initial hurdles.  I believe that the 
demand of the left should not be "US out of Iraq", but rather for a 
new US Marshall plan to the country and a strong long-term commitment 
to supporting economic and democratic development.  Benign neglect, 
or handing over control to a local strongman, won't do. The United 
Nations and its members of course have an important role, but those 
who opposed regime change can hardly expect to be invited in to 
assume the reins of leadership mid-way through. Of course ultimately 
it will be up to the Iraqi people to carry through this developmental 
process, and I am confident of their ability to do so, especially if 
they are provided the full level of US and international support they 
deserve.

Mark Warschauer