Destruction of Iraqi state

A Kurdish state in the north, a Shia one in the south, and a Sunni state in the middle is the general expectation. It is strange that no Muslim state opposes or supports this "inevitability." No major power -- US, EU, Russia, China, and Japan -- appears to be worried. Are they all reconciled to Iraq's demise?

Let's recall how the civil war started. The Anglo-American occupation evoked a secular Iraqi resistance; led by Baathists it had Shias of Muqtada al-Sadr faction. It was a nationalistic response to foreign occupation. How did this nationalistic resistance in the most secular Arab state become a Sunni spree of Shia killings?

Sunnis have ruled Iraqi Shias who are much larger in numbers. Foreign occupiers' promise of democracy could have made Sunnis angry or despondent. But resorting to attacking holy Shia mausoleums and mosques was sure to infuriate the majority community.

Despite the Sunni experience of governing Shias, how could they initiate a counterproductive civil war? Which Iraqi Sunni interest will be served by the collapse of Iraq's unity or integrity? While Shias and Kurdis would cherish their "liberation" and inherit oil-bearing regions, the Sunnis would lose oil income. Is the Iraqi Sunni leadership so bereft of common sense?

There was not a shred of evidence to link Saddam Hussain with al-Qaeda, or to al-Qaeda's presence in secular Baathist Iraq. Everyone knows about al-Qaeda's killings by suicide bombings, ambushes, and mining of roads. Where did the al-Qaeda fanatics come from in Iraq?

They are not purely a post-Saddam Iraqi phenomenon. The growth of fanatical movements that produce suicide bombers takes time. Iraq could not have produced an army of suicide bombers or sectarian fanatics in two years or less. They could only come from outside, as Zarqawi came from Jordan, where his family is safe and secure.

The al-Qaeda campaign has used tons of expensive material that a civilian cannot buy off the shelf. Any colonel can guess how much money will buy this huge amount of expensive material; perhaps billions of dollars to pay for volunteers who die or are maimed and, above all, to organize the safe transportation of men and material into an American-occupied Iraq. The logistics chain must be a marvel of organization.

The Americans say that they are keeping a hawk's eye on all money transfers from Muslims to Muslims the world over. No Muslim can send substantial amounts to another Muslim address without Uncle Sam knowing about it. They must know by now who is funding and supplying al-Qaeda. But they have not disclosed it. Why?

How do such huge quantities of explosives, arms, money, other supplies and men enter Iraq? Can't they break the chain at some point? Iraq is surrounded by pro-American Sunni states, except Iran (which, being Shia-ruled, can scarcely be a friend or supplier of al-Qaeda). There is something decidedly odd about how the Bush administration acts in Iraq.

The American media has begun asking these questions. Sure enough, Saddam, ruthless dictator though he was, did not possess any WMD, and was not linked to al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks. Why was Bush so anxious to attack Iraq? Which American interest demanded it, other than thirst for oil and the neo-con idea of remaking Middle East?

Neo-con thinking aims at a universal American empire, and enhancing the security of Israel. As for democracy, well one look at the map will convince anyone that America badly needs all kinds of dictators, the more ruthless the better. Saddam was kept supplied for eight years when he fought Iran. Which Arab autocrat is not always busy in suppressing opposition? Democracy promotion is only rhetoric

The American government is supposedly very well-informed, what with the plethora of think tanks, excellent universities and institutes; major government departments have their own area experts. How can a modern government deliberately undertake a military invasion of an important oil-producing country without sufficient knowledge about it, or clarity of one's own purpose.

The point is, to repeat, what did American area experts (in the think tanks, CIA, State and Defence Departments, not to mention National Security Council) say about the consequences of occupying Iraq. Did they really expect common Iraqis to shower rose petals on American soldiers after they had been bombed into homelessness. Sure, US academics could not have foreseen the al-Qaeda actions inside Iraq, but what about CIA, State and NSC experts? They are supposed to have the knowledge of White House designs and the area's realities. Didn't they know that Iraq is a brittle state created by the British out of the Ottoman Empire's three provinces, each with a separate ethnic identity? In a grave crisis it will disintegrate.

What can be a greater crisis than invasion, occupation, nationalistic resistance and sectarian strife that look likely to last God knows how long. No meaningful effort is being made to save Iraq. No one is trying to persuade the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias to live in a revived Iraqi state. It seems that the international community, including the UN, are sure of Iraq's demise. The US had the primary responsibility of preventing Shia-Sunni conflict killing in Iraq, despite their strange failure in preventing al-Qaeda from entering Iraq and embarking on a campaign of mayhem.

But the demise of a non-traditional Arab state, Iraq, will hugely benefit another unnatural state: Israel. Iraq was the most anti-Israeli state, and was sustaining anti-Israel resistance by various Palestinian groups. Destruction of Iraq will be a boon for Israel's long-term security.

Who knows that the Israeli's will not embark on the final stages of their designs on the Palestinians. The likelihood is that they will complete the ethnic cleansing they started in 1948, one way or another. They have already broken the back of the Palestinian Authority, and may have set the Palestinians on a course that will prevent any Palestinian unity. American policy apparently approves of what Israel does.

Iraq's disappearance will raise the stature of Iran. Iraq was the strongest Arab state that, up to a significant extent, balanced Iran. Another salient feature of Iraq's demise will be the creation of another purely Shia state, contiguous to Iran. Chances are that both Shia states will, at least for some time, work together, and may pick up the thread from western observers to strive for an arc of Shia power in west Asia.

That creates a dilemma for the US: the leitmotif of US foreign policy is promotion of conservative regimes everywhere. In this case, the entire Shia power is sure to be a conservative force. As such it will be worthy of American support. But it will also be hostile to Israel, America's darling. Which it will choose is the dilemma.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.