freya
21-10-05, 14:32
Would the referendum make a difference on the ground: A sketch of Actors
Saturday 15 October 2005
Dyab Abou Jahjah
At the same moment when the Iraqi’s are heading to the ballots to approve or reject the widely debated and still controversial constitution, the whole Arab region seems to be plunging into a very tense period with high likelihood of open conflict.
Regardless of the outcome of the Iraqi vote, the situation in Iraq will not be radically changed. The country is part of a wider system with strong interdependency grade and to approach it independently of that system would be a scientific heresy.
The Jihadist insurgency and the National Resistance in Iraq will keep gaining momentum.
And it is clear that these are two different components of the Political and military scene in the country and the region as a whole.
The Insurgency is part of an international network that is either linked or inspired by Al Qaeda and its leaders, Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri. It is founding its legitimacy upon a very militant variant of the Salafi teaching that was widely propagated (albeit in a more docile variant) by the Wahaby movement based in Saudi Arabia. The Qaedist are Idealists who are operating out of a world conception where they consider themselves to be defending the Absolute good of Humanity and the will of god, and all their enemies to be Evil. In Essence their logic is very similar to that of American Neo-cons currently in office.
The only difference is that they conceive themselves as being attacked and being the underdog they justify the use of any possible means to fight back against what they see as a powerful and tyrannical empire of Evil.
Their Aim is not to destroy the Western way of life for as much it is establishing a puritan archaic Islamic way of life in the Muslim world. The relational approach to the West will be then determined in function of the position taken towards that to be Caliphate.
The other Component, the National Resistance operates with traditional resistance logic. They are motivated by the will to liberate their country from foreign occupation. They do not have a very ideologue vision of what to do after that, and they do not necessary care.
Their leadership is mainly in the hand of generals and other ranks of the old Iraqi army and most of their fighters belonged one way or the other to the institutions of the Baath regime. This does not necessary mean that they are Baathist, even though some of them are certainly to be described as such. They do enjoy support among tribal leaders and they keep open lines of communications with Iraqi authorities and even the occupation army through these leaders.
Both these groups gather around 20 percent each of the resistance fighters in Iraq. The rest of the fighters a rough 60 percent are dispersed among several other organizations, with various ideological tendencies but generally moderate Islamist. They keep closer ties to the national pole rather than the Al Qaeda pole. There are 4 reasons for this:
1- The National pole of the resistance is better organized and has set up a coordination committee called the general command of the Moujahideen with a very efficient communication approach (their communication command is called Rafidan).
2- The National Pole has more money and more resources.
3- The National Pole has more ties with the tribal leaders.
4- The National pole is less controversial and do not adhere to the extreme visions of Al Qaeda ( decapitations, bombs in mosques and public places, war against Shia’s)
With the prospects of more Kurdish autonomy and an increasing Iranian influence in the South the situation can only become more explosive.
The Kurds might not be very keen on looking for conflicts since they mostly have more than they want, and since they have to look over their shoulders and not anger the Turks. On the other hand the Iranians are becoming more and more frustrated with the American attempts to Isolate them and to terminate their nuclear program.
Until now the American are failing to achieve that Isolation. Russia and China among others are opposed to any UN sanction on Iran and are both fostering economic and even military Ties with Teheran. Until now Teheran was pushing its allies in Iraq to cooperate with the Americans and thus gain power and influence by diplomatic means. This has lead to a position where Iran is now certainly a power broker in Iraq. The accusation by the US and Britain to Iran of supporting the resistance are very weak and seem to be unlikely. Iran has nothing to gain for the time being from instigating its Shia allies in Iraq to fight the occupation. And if it did, the impact would be much more then a couple of bombs here and there in the south. The most anti-American Shia faction that of Moqtada Al Sadr, is also at the same time the most anti-Iranian Shia faction. And if any resistance activities are being undertaken by Shia, they are certainly originating from either Sadr supporters, either Secular Shia close to the Baath or the rest of the National resistance factions.
Therefore, in light of the increasing tension between the US and Iran, one might expect things to worsen in Iraq for the Americans.
At the same time, Increasing Shia power in Iraq is worrying Saudi Arabia that Iranian influence will reach its borders and expend to its strong Shia minority in the eastern region of the kingdom, the region where most of the oil is. Saudi Arabia finds itself between a rock and a hard place, on one hand it is committed to fight the Jihadist insurgency as it is dealing with it at home and it poses a threat to the survival of its regime. On the other hand it can not easily live with the prospect of a shia insurgency instigated from Iraq and strongly influenced by Iran. The outcome of this dilemma is still hard to predict, but it might lead to paralyse the Saudi influence in Iraq depriving the Americans from a possible mediating partner that can exercise influence on the Sunni factions.
The last factor is the Syrian factor. Syria is currently under tremendous pressure for three declared reasons. Its alleged involvement in the assassination of American proxy rafik Hariri in Lebanon, second its role in supporting Palestinian resistance, and third its alleged support of Iraqi resistance either directly or by keeping its borders uncontrolled.
Lately the signals coming from Washington to Damascus reached a high level of aggressiveness as reports were leaked to Newsweek talking about a possible air strike against Syria. Alleged consultations also took place between the Americans and the Israelis on possible regime change in Syria. Attempts of the Syrians to appease the Americans and collaborate have been rebuffed as insufficient or as political maneuvers.
This is of course a reason for the Syrians to actually turn a blind eye on resistance and insurgent activities cross its boarders with Iraq. If the Americans are going anyway to blame them for doing it, why not do it in reality. After all contributing to an American failure in Iraq can only make attacking Syria harder, not withstanding irrational fleeing forward scenarios of the Bush administration.
For all these reasons, regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the war in Iraq will keep escalating and the Americans there seem to be heading towards another humiliating Vietnam Style defeat.
Written for AEL-ASF all rights reserved. ASF@2005
bron (http://www.arabeuropean.org/live/index.php/federal/publications/would_the_referendum_make_a_difference_on_the_grou nd_a_sketch_of_actors?eZSESSIDfederal=51ba76c1b71d 83ebcb8a7cc534eead5c)
Saturday 15 October 2005
Dyab Abou Jahjah
At the same moment when the Iraqi’s are heading to the ballots to approve or reject the widely debated and still controversial constitution, the whole Arab region seems to be plunging into a very tense period with high likelihood of open conflict.
Regardless of the outcome of the Iraqi vote, the situation in Iraq will not be radically changed. The country is part of a wider system with strong interdependency grade and to approach it independently of that system would be a scientific heresy.
The Jihadist insurgency and the National Resistance in Iraq will keep gaining momentum.
And it is clear that these are two different components of the Political and military scene in the country and the region as a whole.
The Insurgency is part of an international network that is either linked or inspired by Al Qaeda and its leaders, Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri. It is founding its legitimacy upon a very militant variant of the Salafi teaching that was widely propagated (albeit in a more docile variant) by the Wahaby movement based in Saudi Arabia. The Qaedist are Idealists who are operating out of a world conception where they consider themselves to be defending the Absolute good of Humanity and the will of god, and all their enemies to be Evil. In Essence their logic is very similar to that of American Neo-cons currently in office.
The only difference is that they conceive themselves as being attacked and being the underdog they justify the use of any possible means to fight back against what they see as a powerful and tyrannical empire of Evil.
Their Aim is not to destroy the Western way of life for as much it is establishing a puritan archaic Islamic way of life in the Muslim world. The relational approach to the West will be then determined in function of the position taken towards that to be Caliphate.
The other Component, the National Resistance operates with traditional resistance logic. They are motivated by the will to liberate their country from foreign occupation. They do not have a very ideologue vision of what to do after that, and they do not necessary care.
Their leadership is mainly in the hand of generals and other ranks of the old Iraqi army and most of their fighters belonged one way or the other to the institutions of the Baath regime. This does not necessary mean that they are Baathist, even though some of them are certainly to be described as such. They do enjoy support among tribal leaders and they keep open lines of communications with Iraqi authorities and even the occupation army through these leaders.
Both these groups gather around 20 percent each of the resistance fighters in Iraq. The rest of the fighters a rough 60 percent are dispersed among several other organizations, with various ideological tendencies but generally moderate Islamist. They keep closer ties to the national pole rather than the Al Qaeda pole. There are 4 reasons for this:
1- The National pole of the resistance is better organized and has set up a coordination committee called the general command of the Moujahideen with a very efficient communication approach (their communication command is called Rafidan).
2- The National Pole has more money and more resources.
3- The National Pole has more ties with the tribal leaders.
4- The National pole is less controversial and do not adhere to the extreme visions of Al Qaeda ( decapitations, bombs in mosques and public places, war against Shia’s)
With the prospects of more Kurdish autonomy and an increasing Iranian influence in the South the situation can only become more explosive.
The Kurds might not be very keen on looking for conflicts since they mostly have more than they want, and since they have to look over their shoulders and not anger the Turks. On the other hand the Iranians are becoming more and more frustrated with the American attempts to Isolate them and to terminate their nuclear program.
Until now the American are failing to achieve that Isolation. Russia and China among others are opposed to any UN sanction on Iran and are both fostering economic and even military Ties with Teheran. Until now Teheran was pushing its allies in Iraq to cooperate with the Americans and thus gain power and influence by diplomatic means. This has lead to a position where Iran is now certainly a power broker in Iraq. The accusation by the US and Britain to Iran of supporting the resistance are very weak and seem to be unlikely. Iran has nothing to gain for the time being from instigating its Shia allies in Iraq to fight the occupation. And if it did, the impact would be much more then a couple of bombs here and there in the south. The most anti-American Shia faction that of Moqtada Al Sadr, is also at the same time the most anti-Iranian Shia faction. And if any resistance activities are being undertaken by Shia, they are certainly originating from either Sadr supporters, either Secular Shia close to the Baath or the rest of the National resistance factions.
Therefore, in light of the increasing tension between the US and Iran, one might expect things to worsen in Iraq for the Americans.
At the same time, Increasing Shia power in Iraq is worrying Saudi Arabia that Iranian influence will reach its borders and expend to its strong Shia minority in the eastern region of the kingdom, the region where most of the oil is. Saudi Arabia finds itself between a rock and a hard place, on one hand it is committed to fight the Jihadist insurgency as it is dealing with it at home and it poses a threat to the survival of its regime. On the other hand it can not easily live with the prospect of a shia insurgency instigated from Iraq and strongly influenced by Iran. The outcome of this dilemma is still hard to predict, but it might lead to paralyse the Saudi influence in Iraq depriving the Americans from a possible mediating partner that can exercise influence on the Sunni factions.
The last factor is the Syrian factor. Syria is currently under tremendous pressure for three declared reasons. Its alleged involvement in the assassination of American proxy rafik Hariri in Lebanon, second its role in supporting Palestinian resistance, and third its alleged support of Iraqi resistance either directly or by keeping its borders uncontrolled.
Lately the signals coming from Washington to Damascus reached a high level of aggressiveness as reports were leaked to Newsweek talking about a possible air strike against Syria. Alleged consultations also took place between the Americans and the Israelis on possible regime change in Syria. Attempts of the Syrians to appease the Americans and collaborate have been rebuffed as insufficient or as political maneuvers.
This is of course a reason for the Syrians to actually turn a blind eye on resistance and insurgent activities cross its boarders with Iraq. If the Americans are going anyway to blame them for doing it, why not do it in reality. After all contributing to an American failure in Iraq can only make attacking Syria harder, not withstanding irrational fleeing forward scenarios of the Bush administration.
For all these reasons, regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the war in Iraq will keep escalating and the Americans there seem to be heading towards another humiliating Vietnam Style defeat.
Written for AEL-ASF all rights reserved. ASF@2005
bron (http://www.arabeuropean.org/live/index.php/federal/publications/would_the_referendum_make_a_difference_on_the_grou nd_a_sketch_of_actors?eZSESSIDfederal=51ba76c1b71d 83ebcb8a7cc534eead5c)