Iraq: What is the US up to

The American proconsul could legitimately be expected to prefer a political, rather than a purely military, approach to the problem posed by what is now a resistance movement against American occupation in the mainly Sunni triangle in Iraq's middle parts. Dr. Bremer or his advisors should have

tried to establish some contact, direct or indirect, with influential Sunni leaders, clerics or possible mediators who could say to the disaffected, indeed alienated, Iraqis that let them draw up minimum demands and talk to a Bremer, who says he is anxious to transfer sovereignty. Instead of finding

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

out what did the Iraqis demand, the American chose to bomb the hell out of them? Events in Falluja speak for themselves. At the time of writing, US Army is trying to extend a temporary ceasefire that might not be acceptable. For the rest, Coalition forces are ready to give some shock and awe.

Why no political approach was adopted earlier becomes clear from the list of what the new sovereign and democratic government of Iraq shall not be able to do after becoming sovereign: it shall not interfere in any detail of oil policy -- how much is produced, to whom it is sold and at what price. Or how much oil income shall go for reinvestment or to the entrepreneurs running the business. The new government shall have no jurisdiction over the American troops who will indefinitely stay in Iraq on a permanent basis in autonomous bases. No American shall be tried by an Iraqi court. In short, the sovereign government of Iraq shall exercise its sovereignty in a way it does not interfere with America's own plans of how Iraq is to be governed. The new constitution imposed by Bremer is a clear colonial architecture. If Iraqis take it to be a fraud few can blame them.

American response to Iraqis' resistance has hitherto been purely military. Watching an American general with a mike in front is an experience; one appreciates why the Iraqis must keep up their campaign. One recently watched one on TV: My God, what arrogance was oozing out of his very mien, let alone his words? Americans were aiming at creating shock and awe by their reprisals. It is hard to expect that US methods will change. So far, Iraqis have not been cowed down by the panoply of US military power, brutally used to maximum effect. The kind of resistance that has emerged in the Sunni

triangle has been named Intefada.

Now, as if this was not enough, Bremer has responded to somewhat more radical demands of a young Shia cleric, Muqtada al Sadr -­ for early elections and genuine transfer of power ­- by banning his weekly newspaper, arresting his aide and discovering an old warrant of arrest for a one year old murder. Bremer ordered overwhelming brute force be used with no political approach. Young cleric's militia has countered with intense resistance. It means yet another and bigger Intefada. Shias being a majority

and having been long suppressed -- indeed ever since the modern Iraqi state was created by the British after WWI -- potential of this likely Intefada has frightened most Arab potentates no end. What the future holds cannot be said with certainty.

Iraqi Shias had until recently been quiescent. Few of their leaders could have forgotten either the 1920 massacre in the south by the British troops that left 100,000 dead or the one in 1991 when the Americans double-crossed them: after inciting them to rise against Saddam Hussain's regime, they left them to be butchered by Saddam. Would the history be repeated and the Americans, may be with the help of other Arab regimes that have their own suppressed Shia minorities, succeed in smashing their violent resistance, just as the British had done 84 years ago? Probably history will repeat itself or maybe a conflagration might ensue.

American expectations of the much-predicted civil war between Sunnis and Shias in areas roughly below Sulemaniya or between Kurds versus Sunnis has not been fulfilled; indeed Sunnis are cooperating with Shias and Kurds remain discreet. The latter fear the Turks who may put down their campaign

and annex the areas north of Sulemaniya, were it not for a deed of the good Lord who chose to put a lot of oil beneath their areas. So now, the Americans will not allow their old friends, the Turks, to do what they will love to.

The western press has been full of stories of impending civil war(s) in Iraq that were supposedly about to break out. Well, none of it has happened. Times do change, though tricks of trade by colonial powers do not change. Well, what has been witnessed in Iraq is that Kurds so far are quiet, realising the limits of what they can achieve; they seem to prefer a deal with whatever central authority in Baghdad emerges. As for Shias and Sunnis, instead of fighting each other, they have joined hands in the anti-American

violence in the Sunni triangle. There are no clear reports of Sunnis joining hands with Shias in the specific Shia areas. But given the current line up in Iraq so far, there is not much likelihood of a Shia Sunni civil war ­

- to provide the Americans with the alibi to stay on indefinitely.

If so, will Iraqis win over Coalition troops? One would say their chances of winning independence from America ­- that now occupies it and seems to be ready to pay a high price for its indefinite stay -­

will be incomparably higher if their Intefada had been non-violent. In the case of Palestinians, whatever gains they made were when their Intefada was non-violent and Israeli brutality could be seen for what it was by the rest of the world. It takes a lot of courage to stay non-violent in the face of oppression and

injustice but without giving up the struggle.

This columnist is against violent means being now adopted against oppressive and unjust regimes, whether foreign or home grown. It is a Human Right of all. When an oppressed people take up the gun, the tyrant gives a whoop of delight. He prefers an unequal fight: Since usurpers are generally able to

deploy a large modern Army, they welcome their unarmed and weak opponents' choice of violence. In a physical clash, more guns, used by better-trained soldiers, will ordinarily prevail. As a rule today, better-organised and bigger violence must prevail over the smaller one ­

- unless there are special circumstances, usually friendly neighbours. Oppressive regimes use agents provocateurs to infiltrate opposition ranks with a view to inciting the unwary to take to violence. Governments thus win and frequently crush opposition for a generation or two.

A lot of oppressed people think that since they ask for no more than what is their due, the good Lord will help them win the battle. There is no evidence that the supreme deity, of whatever religion, ever interferes in human quarrels. It likes to wait for the Day of Judgment to adjudicate. Meantime, it is for humans to sort out their earthly matters in the here and now. There is no evidence from history that the just, the meek, the law-abiding always prevail against oppressors; it all depends on earthly circumstances. There is more evidence that a massive amount of violence wins over relatively weaker opponents. There might be a few exceptions. But they are apt to be explicable in terms of various circumstances. Victory of a just cause is more likely to come, if it uses its moral high ground to good

effect through non-violent political means. Pure violence does not promise victory.

Anyway, the Iraqis have more or less unwittingly outfoxed the Bremer, Abizaid and Co by refusing to get involved in the civil war obviously desired by the occupying power. That was desired as a workable excuse not to go through even the cosmetic exercise of June 30. But this anti-colonial struggle, as violent as it is, can also provide as good an excuse to go on occupying Iraq as a civil war would have done. There is one difference, though: now the US would forfeit any claim to moral rightness. Maybe even the American public might not have the stomach for a pure colonial venture that may cost more American lives.

All said and done, there is a serious possibility that America's ruling establishment may stay the course. After all, its many geo-strategic purposes hinge on a tight control over Iraq. It may be ready to pay a high price. Iraqis will be better advised to think of a long-drawn-out political agitation in which they will be morally superior. The rest of the world will support Iraqis with good conscience if they do not adopt the so-called terrorist methods. India became independent as a result of a long political struggle that was almost entirely non-violent. Many Brits could sympathise and ultimately forced their government to accede to Indian demands. That may be a less romantic method. But, slow and steady, it will lead them to freedom.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.