'Divide
and Rule' Gone Awry
Is Civil War in Iraq a Product of US Occupation?
by
Kevin B. Zeese
by Kevin B. Zeese
Inherent in
the policy of Iraqization is the traditional strategy of an occupier
– divide and rule – as it means some Iraqi collaborators will be
put in the employ of the occupier in an effort to control other
Iraqis. Thus, Iraqization naturally means turning Iraqis against
each other. And, having Iraqis fighting between themselves – rather
than uniting in opposition to the occupation of Iraq – benefits
the United States.
"divide and rule" seems to be central to the U.S. strategy to controlling Iraq.
The U.S. has used this strategy in other conflicts, and the closest
ally of the United States perfected "divide and rule" during its
history as a colonial power. The British typically played one tribe
or ethnic group against another to maintain control of their colonies
with a minimal number of British troops. For example, the British
used "divide and rule" strategies to gain control over India, keeping
its people divided along lines of religion, language, and caste.
The divisions created or enhanced by Great Britain still cause problems
in some of its former colonies.
Indeed, in
the 1920 Mandate of Iraq, the British worked to check the Shia majority's
power by keeping Sunni Arabs in senior positions in government and
the armed forces. And, created a country that had divisions, Sunni,
Shia and Kurd – divisions that still exist today.
It is hard
to believe that the Bush Administration did not realize the likely
sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shia. Not only did Saddam Hussein
check the Shia majority during his rule of Iraq, but the
dispute between these two sects dates back to the death of the
prophet Mohamed in 632. Sunnis are the majority sect in the Muslim
world, but Shias form as much as 60% of Iraq's population, whereas
Sunnis make up 35%, divided between ethnic Arabs and Kurds. This
demographic dominance of the Shia has not resulted in economic and
political power, until the U.S. occupation.
Indeed, during
Saddam's rule, the Shia community were particularly persecuted,
especially after the Islamic Revolution in Iraq in 1979. Saddam
executed Ayatollah Mohamed Baquir Sadr (the uncle of Moqtada Sadr
a leading cleric in Iraq today) after an attempted assassination
of his deputy prime minister in 1980 by Shia political activists.
During the war between Iraq and Iran, Saddam further cracked down
on the Shia community, expelling thousands to Iran or imprisoning
them as well as restricting religious pilgrimages to holy shrines.
Despite these
historic divisions and simmering rivalries Shia and Sunni in Iraq
lived together. There are mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad. And, there
was intermarriage between Sunni and Shia.
When the United
States overthrew Saddam in 2003 and began the occupation of Iraq,
one of the first acts of the U.S. was de-Baathification – large
numbers of the Sunni elite were ejected from government and banned
from politics. They were replaced by Shia leaders. Of course, this
was resented by the Sunni population and not surprisingly led many
into resisting the occupation. And, as Shia took control of government
and roles in the police and military they became targets of the
insurgency against the occupation.
And, there
have been numerous reports of death squads operating within the
Iraqi police force. Sunnis have repeatedly claimed that uniform
Iraqi police were raiding homes and taking people who later turned
up handcuffed and shot in the head. More than 1,600 people have
been killed in this way according
to Sunni leaders. There have also been reports of abuse in Iraqi
run prisons where Shia guards held Sunni prisoners. These are classic
"divide and rule" strategies, giving those oppressed by the previous
regime, official clothing and the opportunity for revenge while
in uniform. Of course, there have been Sunni reprisals and a cycle
of violence has grown to what is now becoming a sectarian war.
None of this
is a surprise. As John
Walsh recently wrote:
"Top analysts
in the CIA and State Department, as well as large numbers of Middle
East experts, warned that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could result
in a violent ethnic and sectarian conflict. Even some of the war's
intellectual architects acknowledged as much: In a 1997 paper,
prior to becoming major figures in the Bush foreign policy team,
David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith predicted that
a post-Saddam Iraq would likely be 'ripped apart' by sectarianism
and other cleavages but called on the United States to 'expedite'
such a collapse anyway."
Not only did
the abuses of the Shia police forces add to the divisions in Iraq,
but so did the Bush Administrations push for democracy on the U.S.
timetable and U.S. terms. The elections and Constitution in Iraq
were not about issues like socialism vs. capitalism – the United
States had already determined Iraq would be a free market especially
for foreign corporations. The elections were not even about whether
the occupation should end – that is something all the parties supported.
Rather, the elections were primarily about whether a party or candidate
was a Shia, Kurd or Sunni. And the outcome of the election was measured
by which ethnic or sectarian group gained more power. In other words
Bush democracy highlighted and expanded the divisions in Iraq.
Shiite cleric
Moqtada
al-Sadr has appealed for calm among Iraqi Shiites following
bomb attacks in Baghdad. Sadr said Iraq was now in a state of civil
war, but he said he would order his Mahdi army militia not to respond,
the Journal of Turkish Weekly reported March 13. Sadr blamed U.S.
military forces for letting attacks happen and was particularly
critical of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who said last
week that U.S. forces would not intervene if civil war broke out
in Iraq, "May God damn you," Sadr said of Rumsfeld. "You
said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw,
and now you say that in case of civil war you won't interfere."
On February
25, 2006, Iraq's Defense Minister, Saadoun
al-Dulami, warned of a "civil war" that "will
never end." And, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay
Khalilzad said the "potential is there" for sectarian
violence to become full-blown civil war, describing the U.S. invasion
as opening a "Pandora's box" of sectarian violence. The
escalating violence – potential civil war – has become an excuse
for the United States to continue the occupation with Khalilzad
warning that if the U.S. leaves violence will escalate.
Thus, the U.S.
occupation escalates long-simmering conflicts between Muslim sects
to the point of sectarian war and then uses the violence, that the
occupation creates, as an excuse to stay in Iraq. As Dahr
Jamail wrote in a series of columns during the recently escalating
violence – who benefits? Quite clearly, he points out, the occupiers
benefit. Or, as Walsh
concludes "The fact is that the neocons who control U.S.
strategy have no interest in preventing a civil war but only in
inciting one."
On March 5th,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps' General
Peter Pace said in a televised interview that things in Iraq
are "going very, very well, from everything you look at."
To most eyes the escalating violence was bad news, but maybe the
general knows "divide and rule" is working out as planned.
More Information:
A
Photo Essay of what "Divide and Rule" looks like in Iraq,
photos American's don't see in the U.S. Press.
March
15, 2006
Kevin
Zeese [send him mail]
is Director of Democracy
Rising. You can comment on this article by visiting
the blog.
Copyright
2006 Kevin Zeese
Kevin
Zeese Archives
|
