Unabated murder and mayhem

It does appear that America opened a Pandora's box when the US, by degrading the UN and ignoring the opposition by several prominent European governments, started the war on Iraq. Why did the US feel so strongly about Saddam Hussain as to start a war -- the man whom another Republican government had supported for eight long years in his Iran war and sold arms and chemical WMD to him a decade ago? The stated purpose was that he possessed nuclear WMD capacity and thus he was a dangerous man. Later they said he was, in some way, responsible for 9/11 and Dick Cheney now says he had links with al-Qaeda.

The whole world knows these were, and are, just untrue excuses. There is not a shred of evidence that Saddam possessed any WMD in 2003 or 2002. Instead, inquiry after inquiry has confirmed the view of Dr. Hans Blix, the Chief UN Arms Inspector, that Iraq had no WMDs. As for Saddam having been in cahoots with al-Qaeda, it is too irrational to merit serious inquiry. The basic nature of Baath Party regime run by Saddam was secular Arab Nationalism -- an antithesis of what various Islamic extremist groups stand for. Of necessity this American venture has to be judged as a premeditated war of aggression for attaining American objectives, as the UN' Secretary General has confirmed.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The next question inevitably arises about American objectives of this aggression. Regime change has also been cited as a reason because Saddam was an extremely oppressive dictator. This should be laughed out of court. One mentioned the record of Bush Senior having supported him in Iraq-Iran war with war material, including chemical WMDs. The US love of democracy may be genuine. But it seems not to go beyond American borders. The US has always flirted with despots, kings or dictators; Americans have propped up most dictatorships in every continent. Pakistanis know only too well how the US has underwritten every local dictator down to his day, even if they have forgotten the high international intrigue in early 1950s against democracy in this country. Regime change cannot be accepted even by Americans as the reason for expending American treasure and lives.

Unavoidably most observers have had to speculate over the likely reasons for starting this war. So far there is near consensus on three objectives: first, there is the oil, getting control over the second largest reservoir of oil would be extremely useful to the hyper power -- in future when things quieten down. The second is Israel; an Anglo American-sponsored pro-west regime in Baghdad that will enhance Israel's security no end. The third reason can only be related to America's strategic purposes -- both in ME region and for larger aims in Asia. The American assumptions could only have been that overcoming Iraqi Army would require only a week's campaigning. After that a people freed from an oppressive dictatorship would gratefully accept American advice on most matters.

Anyway, where do we go from here? is the question. The present rate at which the Iraqis are being killed both by Americans and the Iraqis, both insurgents and fledgling Iraqi Army cannot be allowed to continue. It is horrible. It is, however, not easy to suppose that this phase will soon be over. There are signs that politically aware Iraqis have started what can only be called Resistance to American presence and its schemes of governing the occupied country through American puppets of Iraqi descent. Make no mistake, it is a proper Resistance. Hired men do not mount suicide attacks. This can only be done by the highly committed. What then is the chief philosophy and purpose of the Resistance?

The purpose is not in doubt: it is to see the back of Americans, no matter what happens after their departure. But philosophy or ideology of the Resisters is not easy to determine. For one thing, there are enough indicators that quite a few disparate forces have come together to fight American occupation forces for their separate purposes. Suicide car bombing carries the signature tune of al Qaeda and like-minded other smaller groups. Their goal can only be a theocratic Islamic State of Sunni persuasion. Then there are the Shias. Muqtada al Sadr's militia and other Shia leaders like Sistani want free and fair elections to a democratic Assembly at an early date.

Kurds in the north want autonomy for now, they do not seem to be too bitterly opposed to Americans. But sabotage and ambushes do happen there. It would be odd if all the Kurds were of one view. Apparently elements from amongst these may be conducting their own campaign, joined in by other Iraqis who might be living in their areas.

Sunnis, hitherto the dominant element in the public life, living in the middle latitudes of the country, are the most fierce opponents of American intruders. But most of them, by several accounts, are secular-minded and are still influenced by Baath ideology. They are the solid core of Resistance. If so, then where do the al Qaeda come from? To answer this is easy: they come from outside. How do they find local hosts? To answer that is more difficult. For all anyone knows both Shias and Sunnis may be their hosts.

For all the massive talk of demographic faultlines in Iraq along sectarian lines, no one should forget the intellectual legacy of original leaders of Baath, mostly Christians, as well as Nasserites; their emphasis was on Arabness. Both major schools decried religiosity and sectarian prejudice. The Baath under Saddam Hussain, for all his oppression, ran a thoroughly secular regime. Its genuineness and success was shown in the eight-year war with Shia Iran: Shias in the Iraqi army did not desert in all those years. Saddam had Shia generals. There were also many Shia Baathists.

A telltale circumstance is that all those western experts who talked so much about the brittleness of Iraq and that its being prone to a civil war, only wanted to justify indefinite American presence in Iraq. Reports were that Israeli Mossad was straining to cause serious rifts among the Iraqis along both sectarian and ethnic lines. Iraqis are still mainly Arabs and Iraqis first and anything else later. There is also evidence of cooperation between Shias of the south -- and in Baghdad -- with Sunnis of the middle strip. At any rate, it is clear that Resistance is constantly waging a war with a view to preventing the interim government of Iyad Allawi from consolidating itself and holding an orderly election under the shadow of American bayonets. In this they seem to be succeeding despite American propaganda to the contrary. The UN representative for Iraq has certified that prospects for elections in January are dim.

What happens if the Americans go on indefinitely occupying Iraq, hoping that they can cause the birth of a US-friendly 'democracy' one of these days so that it will be happy to host them? On present indications, the Resistance is growing tougher. It aims at the sabotage of economic and political kind to prevent the Iyad regime from achieving the American objective. It may attain the objective of postponing the economy's revival. It has already derailed the American roadmap of what was expected to happen when and in what stages.

A hard question must be asked: Can the Americans kill or maim this Resistance in sufficient numbers to allow their political schedule of events to succeed over a somewhat longer stretch of time? So far there is every indication that this Iraqi Resistance is resilient enough to withstand what America can do. It seems the Americans are unlikely to prevent the growing chaos and lawlessness from becoming endemic. Americans might have to call it a day sooner rather than later. The other option is to go on holding Iraq in the way Israel is holding West Bank and Gaza Strip. Are the Americans tough enough to do so? One may be wrong but one does think that before too long American public opinion will force either Bush or Kerry to bring home the boys.

What of Iraq, then? Iraqis, if they persevere in this Resistance, will suffer horrible casualties, to be sure. Economic hardship too may become more intense. Frankly, one had not thought, way back in April last year, that Iraqis will show so much unity and so much grit as they have. There is no indication yet of Iraq splitting three ways along sectarian and ethnic lines. Not that Iraqi Sunnis have become less Sunni or Shias have ceased to give importance to their beliefs and rituals. But there seems to be common understanding among all Iraqis that they are Arabs and individual beliefs are individual's business. In that lies much promise. Already it seems, the Iraqis are mentally prepared for democracy. If this assessment is true, there is light at the end of the long, long tunnel. Other matters like social justice will have to wait for democracy to take root.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.