As we get closer now to the end of hostilities following the fall of Baghdad, we have to decide what the fate of post-Hussein Iraq will be. Of course, we will have to build a nation for the Iraqis because we took the unilateral decision to invade. What does nation building involve? I don't think anyone in the U.S. government knows the answer to this question. But, the first step, of course, is regime change. Our last effort at regime change brought Hamid Karzai into power in Afghanistan. It is interesting to note that his influence does not extend beyond the limits of Kabul City. The various warlords still have as much sway as they did with the Taliban. Murder and kidnapping of top government officials is rampant in Kabul. To top it all, Karzai is protected by American body-guards rather than by his own people. Our efforts in installing an indigenous pro-U.S. rule in Afghanistan have failed miserably. We have to learn from our mistakes and be more careful with Iraq.
I have been reading that Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress leaders are set to succeed Tommy Franks' military administration. A U.S. general once dismissed these Iraqi exiles as "silk-suited, Rolex-wearing guys in London." These Iraqis haven't been in Iraq for a very long time. Living luxuriously in London, they are more distant from the reality in their "homeland" then Hussein himself. If they are allowed to lead a pro-U.S. administration in Baghdad, they will, almost certainly, end up like Karzai.
So, what are our other alternatives? Let us investigate a few of them.
The Shia make up almost 65 percent of the Iraqi population. Despite their support of the war, we wouldn't want the Shia to take control of Iraq. Historically, the Iraqi Shia have been very close to Iran, which, as we know, is a member of Bush's "Axis of Evil." The Iranian government would simply love to have a fifth of the world's oil reserves under its "control" to fund its covert nuclear weapons program. The Shia themselves have been leaders of several radical anti-western, anti-modern, anti-everything-non-Shia movements around the world. In fact, a report last week mentioned that some Shia in southern Iraq were preparing to take up arms against the "white invaders." Therefore, we cannot be sure whether the Shia will align themselves with Teheran or with Washington. In effect, we cannot let the Shia majority take Baghdad.
Our "friends" the Kurds in the north are a fifth of the population. Again, the Kurds have actively assisted the United States in its war against Hussein. But, again, we would not want them to form the government in Baghdad. No, they don't share common roots with any "evil" regime. No, they are not extremists themselves. No, they don't hate the Americans because after all, the American-imposed no-fly zone has insured their de facto independence from Hussein. The main problem in this case is that the Kurds span four countries in the area: Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq. A Kurdish government in Baghdad will invite its "brethren" to rise up against their respective countries adding to Middle-East instability. We wouldn't want them to form a separate state either because of this same reason.
Finally, Sunnis are a minority in Iraq. Despite their relatively moderate outlook, they will find it impossible to win post-war elections. The Sunnis are our only hope of stability in Iraq and it looks that without Shia support they are not going to rule from Baghdad. And the Shia aren't going to back a Sunni government.
Another option we have been talking about is a coalition of all three dominant groups. With such diverse interests as a free Kurdish state for the Kurds, a pro-Iran stance for the Shia and a pro-western view of the Sunnis, we have to ask how long this coalition will be able to stay together.
So, what I am trying to say is that democracy is bad for Iraq and for the Middle-East. They don't want it. We can't be sure if a bin Laden-like radical may take over Baghdad and, with the world's second largest oil reserves under his belt, declare jihad on everyone else. We can't let the majority rule and the Shia won't allow the minority to stay in power. So why do we need democracy in Iraq at all? Let's just keep a benevolent American military administration in Baghdad, and sit back and enjoy the cheap oil.
