No subject

their way to alienate every section of Iraqi society. The Sunni Muslims
who ruled the country under the Ottomans, the British and Saddam Hussein
were marginalised. The army and the security forces were disbanded,
ensuring that opponents of the US occupation would have an endless supply
of recruits and sympathisers.

The Shi'ite majority in Iraq always loathed and feared the previous regime
but is intent, for the first time in history, on taking power themselves.
They believe it would be a mistake as happened during the uprising against
the British in 1920 to be in the frontline against the occupation (Iraqis
remember these lessons of history even if the US and Britain do not). But
they will not wait forever.

The Kurds are the only Iraqi community who want a long term US presence,
knowing that historically the Kurds have always lost out because they
never had a great power as an ally. But even the Kurds are suspicious,
recalling that just before the war the US was happy to let the Turkish
army loose in Iraqi Kurdistan in return for Turkey letting US troops use
its bases to invade northern Iraq.

I was in Washington as a visiting fellow at a think tank for the first six
weeks of the year before having to leave suddenly to take advantage of a
fleeting opportunity to get into Iraq before the start of the war. I was
continually struck by the ignorance and extraordinary arrogance of the
neo-cons, then at the height of their power. They had all the intolerant
instincts of a weird American religious cult, impervious to any criticism
of their fantasy picture of Iraq, the Middle East and the rest of the
world.

Iraqis not pre-approved by the neo-cons but willing to explain how their
country really worked found appointments with senior officials
mysteriously cancelled at the last moments, sometimes while they were
sitting in the officials' waiting rooms.

This should be the real charge against Tony Blair's government. It is not
that it did not understand what was happening in Baghdad but it did not
sufficiently take on board the strange happenings in Washington. There is
nothing peculiar about Britain supporting the US come what may since this
has been a priority of British foreign policy for nearly a century. But it
should have been realised much earlier in London that this is a very
different and more dangerous US government from any of its predecessors.

The extent and irreversibility of the American failure is not yet
appreciated outside Iraq. The tentative effort to internationalise the
conflict by bringing in the UN or raising a pro-occupation Iraqi military
force are still only slogans with no real willingness on the part of the
US to share power in Baghdad.

This may be long in coming. The US occupation authorities remain
extraordinarily isolated within the Iraqi capital, impervious to the dire
reality around them.

One Iraqi friend recently saw a group of US dignitaries eating and
drinking in a luxury restaurant in a hotel. Whoever had organised the
party had confused Iraq with the Indian Raj and dressed all the waiters in
turbans.

My friend went up to one of the American VIPs and said: "I would like to
shake you by the hand." Surprised and gratified the American shook hands
warmly. "Now," said the friend,"You can go back to the US and say that you
actually met one real Iraqi in Baghdad."

[Patrick Cockburn is the co-author with Andrew Cockburn of 'Out of the
Ashes: the Resurrection of Saddam Hussein.']

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Randall Cotton wrote:

> During Sunday's AWARE meeting while we were discussing possible
> positions on the occupation of Iraq, at least one opinion was
> expressed that we can't pull out our troops now because in the face of
> ethnic divisions in Iraq, it would be "naive" to believe Iraq wouldn't
> descend into some sort of nightmarish ethnic civil strife.
> 
> Oddly enough, I remember arguments last year against the U.S. invasion
> (though not from within AWARE) claiming that once Saddam was removed
> from power, the three main ethnic minorities would be at each others
> throats and Iraq could be engulfed in perpetual ethnic violence.
> 
> What ethnic violence? This just hasn't come to pass. I've only seen
> rare spurious reports of anything of the sort. And I don't believe for
> a second that this is because the U.S. military is earnestly
> attempting to prevent Iraqi violence against other Iraqis when they've
> got their hands full protecting themselves (often failing to do so).
> The only violence seems to be inflicted by the U.S. and those opposing
> the U.S. occupation.
> 
> Can anyone enlighten me on this? What ethnic tensions (ancient or
> otherwise) exist in Iraq that weren't ultimately caused by Saddam's
> rule, now defunct? What evidence is there to suggest any such tensions
> would boil over if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq?
> 
> Am I really "naive"?
> 
> R