Sistani...What Are You Waiting For?

Rene L. Gonzalez Berrios M.A.

01/30/04: (ICH) Post-Saddam Iraqi politics are surely confusing, especially for a political scientist trained to look at the objective "scientific" facts on the ground, assess the political forces and their motivations, and make predictions based on those assessments. So, what's my assessment, as a political scientist?

Well, to start off, the situation in Iraq is pretty clear-cut: The Sunnis dominate the streets, the Shi'ites permit the entire postwar scenario to exist by their passive acquiesence to the colonial occupation (although that seems to be ending), and the Americans and Coalition forces are...well...sitting ducks. No amount of raids and crashing down doors will change the fact that a significant group of Iraqi citizens (mostly Iraqi nationalists, ex-Baathists, and Arab jihadists) is having a shooting gallery of fun with American soldiers as propped-up targets. However, by sheer volume of forces, the Americans have been able to contain this concentrated insurgency. So, when top Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the virtual pope of Shi'ites, started to flex his political muscle, all analysts, on the Right and the Left, came to the same conclusion: a word from Sistani to his Shi'ite followers to wage jihad against Americans and the entire colonial fantasy concocted by the neoconservatives is OVER. Zip. Done. Finished. Bring in the helicopters, Fall of Saigon-style. Only a force of about half a million American soldiers, using severe, Nazi-style repressive techniques could keep a population of 50 million in check (and even that is debatable, depending on how fervent Shi'ites waged their jihad). With only 150,000 or so troops, such a jihad would be a no contest. The Americans would be beaten and the colonial occupation destroyed.

So, if you are Ali Sistani, and you're obviously dissatisfied with the progress of the colonial occupation (as he has publicly declared), and you are aware that the United States is attempting to calm you and your direct election demands, only to advance the particular agenda of neoconservatives in the United States (oil theft, geopolitical military bases in Iraq, etc.), their hard-line Zionist buddies in Israel, and the loyal-puppet aspirations of convicted fraudsters like Ahmad Chalabi (Jordan convicted him of fraud) and the rest of the American-imposed Governing-Council sell-outs, an obvious question comes to mind...what the hell are you waiting for?

Consider the following realities. Shi'ites make up 60% of the Iraqi population. A common assertion made by Western analysts of the Iraqi social situation is that, should Americans be pushed out of Iraq in a violent fashion, the result could be civil war between Sunnis (now deposed from their previous priviliged position under Saddam), Kurds (flexing their muscles in the North for autonomy in their Kurdish regions), and Shi'ites (the majority asserting its will on the nation). This is the worst-case scenario, and its credibility depends on how intransigent all or some of the groups are regarding a new re-composition of the Iraqi political/social system. But, is it a certainty? A very plausible outcome of an American withdrawal from Iraq under forced conditions could be that the victorious Iraqi people, of all ethnic shades, could come together in a spirit of national liberation and make moves toward political accomodation of the demands of all groups. Similar "national unity" has been shown in other Third World national liberation struggles, despite tribal, linguistic, and other differences. Besides, Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds have lived in Mesopotamia for millenia. Has that history been nothing but ethnic civil warfare? Hardly. So why expect that now, without American or British colonial tutelage, the groups will decompose into brutal and unreasonable civil war? Something just doesn't fit.

Polls in Iraq have consistently showed that the Iraqi people conceive of themselves as a nation first, despite loyalties to tribes and religious groups. This conception could provide the ideological cement to keep all groups together in a process of national "rebirth" and collaboration. Perhaps with friendly overtures from the United Nations, the ruling Shi'ites and representatives from the Sunni insurgents and Kurdish forces up North could fashion out a peaceful, democratic compromise. Automatic civil war is not necessarily the only outcome. On the contrary, the American occupation may have had one residual positive benefit to the Iraqi society: it may have provided the foreign "Other" to help unify the Iraqi people in a national liberation struggle. Already, polls show that hatred against the occupation is universal. What isn't is the degree of opposition...but opposition, no matter how peaceful, is virtually universal in Iraq. That's an important point to keep in mind, considering the lofty justifications of "democracy-building" in Iraq professed by Bush administration officials. If democracy was really a goal for these goons in the White House, then U.S. forces would have already left, at the behest of the democratic will of Iraqis. So, let's cut the crap about democracy in Iraq. We all know we are there to take their oil and establish our geopolitical dominance in the region. Let's not play dumb. And perhaps it is time to discard American prophecies about post-war Iraq without their presence there. They've lied so much already and been so wrong, why should we trust them anymore?

But, aside from this theorizing, let's look at this from Sistani's eyes, not necessarily from the point of view of those that hope for the most equitable and peaceful outcome for Iraq. What does Sistani stand to gain from peaceful, transitional-government reformism with the United States, as virtual leader of the majority ethnic group? An orderly transition process, as opposed to the threat of civil strife? A transition to where? Mr. Sistani should acquaint himself with past American and British "democracy-building" history (if he isn't already acquainted with it). There is nothing in the American or British historical palette to suggest that this new painting will be anything but the same old "puppet-regime democracy", the so-called "Arab Facade" that Britain proposed for its Middle East colonies. The U.S., while attempting to change the "perfume" of the colonialism (as we Puerto Ricans view changes in the conceptions of colonialism, based on our experience as a colony of the United States), is nevertheless attempting to find a way to perpetuate it, and the interests protected by it, for the United States. That much is a given, and Sistani knows that. Which is why he ordered those hundred thousands of Shi'ites to the streets on one day, and silenced them the next. It was a muscle flex, and it worked. The Americans were running scared, with Bremer flying over to Washington to consult with the Bush administration about the new political situation. Clearly, there was a new big boy in town. He had been sleeping, and he had awakened. Sistani's got nothing to lose by letting loose his Shi'ite followers, and everything to gain: a free Iraq and a chance to arrive at an equitable compromise with the Sunnis and Kurds, on Iraqi terms and without outside interference or foreign military presence. Was it Marx who said, "you have nothing to lose but your chains"? There's nothing like colonial occupation to make you appreciate freedom and to realize that it does not come in a gift-wrapped package with the initials "U.S.A" on them. For Iraqis, the road to freedom is clear: expel the invaders. Nothing is for certain in Iraq, but then again, nothing could be better than having the opportunity to establish an Iraqi consensus with the other ethnic groups without American interference. That is priceless. So why legitimize the American colonial occupation and prolong the humiliation of your people? All in the hope that the U.S. government will play fair? Please.....come on now, Sistani.

Perhaps Sistani is just playing his cards, one at a time. Maybe he thinks that he can force the Americans to concede defeat in their colonial adventure, by withdrawing peacefully, conducting direct elections, and legitimizing Shi'ite majority rule in Iraq, while helping to rebuild Iraq with foreign aid. That the U.S. civilian presence will leave is virtually certain. The Bush administration has proposed ending the occupation by June, but only its public face. The occupation would remain indefinitely in the form of a U.S. military presence and U.S-sponsored Governing Council sell-outs in the Iraqi political scene. That's not true liberation. Something in my political scientist heart tells me this is wishful thinking. After all, those running the game back in Washington aren't your regular "realpolitik" analysts, changing their politics as the situation demands. We got hard-line neoconservative ideologues in charge, and they won't change for no old man in a turban. What we may see is a game of chicken between the Richard Perle's and Wolfowitz of the U.S. and the Sistanis of Iraq. Luckily for those who fear the American empire, Sistani has the advantage of having the ability to screw the Americans' plans, destroying the credibility of "preemption" theories and neoconservative imperial grand strategies, while the neoconservatives' chances of staying politically relevant depend on success in Iraq. One false move on their part, and Iraq becomes Saigon, the U.S. is humiliated world-wide, the Bush administration loses credibility and loses the election in 2004, and their Bush doctrine, the Patriot Act, and the rest of the pseudo-fascist chutzpah is condemned once and for all to the history books, right next to Nazism and totalitarian communism. Wouldn't that be great? Yes, yes...I know. It is too utopian. But, one thing is for certain. U.S. domestic and foreign policy would undergo a profound change. The neocons would suffer a severe credibility blow.

Which leads me to my final point. Not only is Iraq's future in the balance, the future of the United States and the future of the world is also at stake. A failure in Iraq would delegitimize the entire neoconservative agenda, and the Bush administration's reliance on "national security" prerogatives as a solution to all world and domestic problems. The American public would be faced with the reality of a failed foreign policy approach, and a renewed sense of respect for multilateralism, international law, and international fair play would emerge. With Vietnam and Iraq behind them, the American people would be more reluctant to send their sons and daughters to war without a very clear explanation. And, should the American people again fall into war-fever hysteria of the kind experienced after 9-11, Vietnam and Iraq would be there to remind them to look at things rationally. Counter-terrorist theories that ignore the "draining of the swamp", but that kill the mosquitoes (and the nearby ladybugs as well, collateral damage), would be discarded, in favor of a more rational approach combining both elements, but with a clear focus on nipping terrorism in the bud, rather than after it sprouts.

If the Democrats and progressive forces in the United States were smart, they could use the "national reflection moment" to press on a concrete, alternative domestic and foreign policy agenda that emphasizes the resolution of international grievances through diplomacy, more money for humanitarian aid, focus on poverty and disease issues in the Third World, and a true commitment to promoting REAL democracy (not elite-dominated puppet regimes, either in the dictatorial form present in the Arab world, or in the fake democracies of Latin America and other elite-dominated places). Military force would be maintained as a last-resort alternative, but only with clear consensus from the United Nations (unless the issue was a clear self-defense case for the United States, which is permitted by the U.N. Charter). The Bush doctrine of preemption, endless "War on Terrorism", continuation of neoliberal economic policies that impoverish the majority in the world, and increasingly police-state encroachment in the United States is not the only possible vision for the United States or for the world. A failure in Iraq could discredit the established assumptions, and lead to a much needed debate within the United States about what domestic and foreign policies the country should undertake. Something tells me that the American people would be pretty turned off with the Perle's, Cheneys, and Bushes, should Iraq fail miserably.

There is another impetus for this radical move. Sistani is not God. At this moment, he has the eyes of the world media on him. He has legitimacy in the eyes of most foreign observers. He's Iraq major public-relations representative, whether he knows it or not. And the last two bearded men who defied the U.S. didn't end up so good. Ask Castro and Bin Laden. One was isolated by a crushing economic embargo, while the CIA plotted assassination attempts, and the other is hiding in some cave in Afghanistan, vilified by virtually the entire Western world. So, popularity, international recognition, and legitimacy are not permanent certainties, Mr. Sistani. You could very well miss your opportunity to do something historic for Iraq. You could very well end up dead one day (although this would probably provoke a national riot in Iraq, the likes we have never witnessed).

Taking a quote from the neoconservatives, "all we need is a new Pearl Harbor, a catalyst to start the agenda". All we need is for the Iraqi colonial occupation, which has nothing to do with the lofty "democracy-building" goals that many analysts ascribe to it (and many, like me, wish for, although we know better), to become an abject failure, for a progressive, alternative domestic and world conception of America's role in the world to be proposed, and hopefully implemented. The Bush doctrine of domestic and foreign policies must be discredited for the American republic to survive as a beacon of progressive democratic ideas for the world.

I know my idea is very unpopular. To actually hope for a failure on the part of the United States in Iraq seems like the most ultimate treason, on the part of an American citizen. From my vantage point, however, a failure in Iraq would discard the neoconservative political path for a long time to come, and bringing that to fruition is the patriotic duty of all justice-oriented people in the world. Besides, there is nothing patriotic about quietly hoping for the best and "finishing the job, no matter how wrong it was from the beginning", while Iraq continues to be colonially occupied and the U.S. continues toward fascism. That's delusional complacency. If it is between allowing Bushism to rule the U.S. and the world and the "collateral damage" of dead U.S. soldiers in a Shi'ite insurgency against the U.S., I choose the latter path. If the soldiers were willing to become pawns in a global chess game for neoconservatives, then they should know that pawns are the first to go in any chess game (and the least to be thought of during the game). So, let the real chess game begin.

The American people have been too apathetic for too long, ignoring, as the Germans did, the smoke rising from the crematoriums in their nearby towns. The American people, in their apathetic and naive wish to see their government act in accordance to the lofty goals proclaimed by its Constitution and by its national values, ignore the truth in front of their eyes: their boys and girls in uniform are becoming pawns in a global, imperial chess game played by neoconservative ideologues and supportive corporations. The colonial occupation has nothing to do with freedom, democracy, or equality. The U.S. has been hijacked as sure as the flights in 9-11 were. If the Americans won't wake up, then we need Sistani to be our Eisenhower. We need Sistani to force us into the "concentration camps" of Iraqi failure and expose the Iraq War and the Bushist neoconservative agenda for what it is: a half-baked plot for world domination by modern day imperial fascists. We need Sistani to burst the neoconservative bubble, once and for all.

The time for wishful thinking and patience with the Bush doctrine is over. Sistani...give the freaking word already! Tell the Shi'ites to rebel against the U.S. and coalition forces. Free Iraq from colonial occupation and decide your destiny on your own terms. Give us in the United States and in the world hope for a better future and a chance to pick apart the sorry losers that pretended to be our imperial masters. We made the mistake of overlooking a stolen election, only to be faced with the most imperial and disastrous presidency in U.S. history. We won't make the same mistake again.

Rene L. Gonzalez Berrios M.A.
Political Science / Univ. of Massachusetts
Gonzalez is a Doctoral Candidate in Comparative Politics at the University of Massachusetts
He may be contacted by email at: renegonzalez7@hotmail.com