Democracy in Iraq?

by Stephen J. Sniegoski, USA

War Party critic Georgie Anne Geyer writes: ‘Instead of the instant-coffee democracy the American policy-makers wished to encourage (“impose’ is no longer a nice word), this week a million fanatic and newly empowered Shiites in the country marched to their ancient shrines of Najaf and Karbala, telling the Americans, “Thanks, but now get out!”’[1]

She implies that the members of the War Party were utopian in their thinking about democracy in Iraq. In reality, the members of the War Party, at least the leading figures such as Richard Perle, knew exactly what they were doing. Likudnik strategists going back to Oded Yinon sought to destabilize the Middle East for the benefit of Israel. Democracy was not in the picture.

Let’s just summarize again Oded Yinon’s significant article, entitled ‘A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,’ which appeared in the World Zionist Organization’s periodical Kivunim in February 1982. In summarizing this strategy in his The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, the late Israel Shahak observed that Yinon’s essay ‘represents … the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states.’ Shahak continued: ‘To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.’

About Iraq, Yinon wrote: ‘Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.’[2] This is a pretty realistic assessment of the fragility of Saddam’s Iraq, but no expectation of democracy.

Now Yinon was an Israeli Likudnik; but what were neocnservatives saying about democracy for Iraq? A clear illustration of the neoconservative thinking on war on Iraq was a 1996 paper developed by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and others, published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, entitled ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.’ The work called for Israel to ‘shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.’ Israeli military strategic actions would serve as a ‘prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.’ Regarding Iraq, the proposal thought in terms of a Hashemite restoration, because of the Hashemites appeal to the majority Shi’ite population of Iraq. The paper writes: ‘The predominantly Shia[3] population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizbollah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which - and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows - is King Hussein [now deceased].’ Note, that as in the Yinon article, the focus of the ‘Clean Break’ piece is strictly concerned with Israeli strategic interests, with no relationship to democracy whatsoever. In fact, it strays so far from proposing democracy as to call for the establishment of royalty in Iraq.[4]

To be truthful the leading neoconservative thinkers never claimed that the US would find instant democracy after toppling Saddam. The idea of instant democracy was simply propaganda for American gentiles of average and dull-normal IQ levels who rely for information on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others of that ilk. In reality, the intellectual neocons generally argued that it was necessary for the US to ‘educate’ the Iraqis in the principles of democracy during a long period of US occupation. In short, Iraq would be an American controlled puppet state. As neocon Bruce Fein put it: ‘At this time in Iraq’s grim history, order and security are more critical than liberty and deliberation; clarity and decisiveness more urgent than nuance and political ballet.’ He went on: ‘President Bush should thus state unequivocally that the United States will govern Iraq as a trustee on behalf of its 23 million citizens until the conditions for a stable democracy have taken root.’ And this US trusteeship would entail detentions without charges; secret trials based on hearsay evidence with no appeals; a mandatory death penalty; and ‘unforgiving’ sentences imposed on those Iraqis who discourage cooperation with United States.[5]

As a matter of fact, behind the scenes, it was apparent that the War Party leadership was making plans for post-war Iraq that belied the democracy rhetoric. Pro-Zionist U.S. Congessman Tom Lantos put it candidly in calming the worries of an Israeli member of the Knesset: ‘You won’t have any problem with Saddam. We’ll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we’ll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you.’[6]