Amir Taheri: "Iraq's Civil War: A New Television Production"

Here's a voice that should be listened to but probably won't be in the current climate:

Ever since Saddam Hussein was toppled, those who regret his demise for different reasons have tried to burnish his image with a number of devices. Chief among these is a denigration of Iraqis as a people with violence written in their DNA.

It was not Saddam Hussein, we are told, who made Iraq what it was but the other way round: the despot was the product of Iraqi society. This is a political version of the chicken-or-egg conundrum: which came first? The fact that, over centuries, when given a chance, Iraq also produced mystics, philosophers, poets, theologians and even decent politicians, is conveniently ignored. Iraqis die violent deaths almost every day because they deserve to die, we are told.

To prove that Iraqis are incapable of living together let alone building a decent society, it is important to portray the current violence in that country as a civil war. In a civil war, no one but the people of the afflicted land deserves blame. In a civil war, no outside intervention would be of any use.

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the claim that Iraq is in a state of civil war has been made and unmade every three or four months on the average. Each time there is an exceptionally tragic spate of killings, Saddam nostalgics appear on TV to claim that Iraq is in a state of civil war and, thus, had better be left to its fate. Last week's media frenzy about "civil war in Iraq" is nothing new.

Before examining the aptness of the " civil war" claim, let us see who benefits from it.

The first beneficiary is Al Qaeda, few of whose Jihadists in Iraq are of Iraqi origin. Of the hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters captured or killed in Iraq since 2004 no more than 13 have been identified as individuals with some Iraqi ancestry. The others were from more than a dozen nationalities, including French, British, Belgian and Spanish. The chief Al Qaeda propagandist on Iraq on the Internet is an American youth who has never even visited Iraq. Support for Al Qaeda's strategy in Iraq comes not from Iraqis but from non-Iraqi pan-Islamists and former leftists, as anyone who watches Arab satellite television would know.

To present the violence in Iraq as civil war, would enable Al Qaeda to claim some popular support among the Iraqis, and, thus, also a measure of legitimacy. With that logic the 9/11 attacks against the United States could also be described as "civil war" because the same people who attacked New York and Washington also attacked Samarra and are now targeting Sadr City.

To present the conflict in Iraq as a civil war also benefits the remnants of the Saddamite clique. It presents them as one side of a conflict in which both sides can claim a degree of legitimacy thanks to their presumed respective popular bases. However, the fact is that the Saddamites have no such base. Even the vast majority of Baath Party members recognise that Saddam had destroyed their party by turning it into an instrument of domination for himself and his Takriti clan. The American decision to ban the Baath Party was wrong, and has deeply angered many Baathists. However, few dream of putting the clock back by handing over the party and the country to Saddam and his cohorts.

The civil war claim also benefits the various militias, some with a veneer of political ideology and others nothing but organised criminal gangs, by casting them in a role they do not deserve. Some militias are recruited, trained and paid by Iran and act as mercenaries rather than bona fide combatants in a national cause. Others are death-squads hired to kill members of rival religious sects. Many Iraqis fear them, and all loath them. But, none loves them. [...]

Read the rest.

Tags: Iraq, terror, civil war, Saddam