Condelezza Rice seems to think that a civil war in Iraq will spawn more civil wars throughout the region because, goes her theory, Al Qaeda wants that type of unrest to further its goals. On its face this scenario is scary but Rice gives no explanation on how such conclusions were reached (which isn’t an oddity in modern politics and with this administration in particular). Other pundits however have expressed similar concerns but in the real world sound bites do not a policy make and blaming Al-Qaeda for everything and assuming all things run though Al-Qaeda in the Middle East is simply not the case.
As usual
Originally Posted at Voices In The Wilderness
All Welcomed to join
We can all breathes a sigh of relief knowing that the middle East will not explode into a series of civil wars. There really is no support for that wild eyed idea. Shia Minorities in Saudi Arabia will not take up arms simply because Sunnis and Shias in Iraq cannot find common grounds on how to best distribute oil resources. This is not to say that the Middle East will not be a very fluid environment should civil war brake out in Iraq (For the record I don’t see that possibility as being a foregone conclusion). Should we see a civil war in Iraq it should be clear to anyone on the outside that the Sunnis have no chance of victory without outside aide (Interestingly enough a similar reality brought Saddam Hussein into power and ultimately sustained his power). Saudi Arabia is worried that a Shiite dominated Iraq with close ties to Iran could spark unrest among its Shiite minority as well as embolden the Iraq-Iran coalition to force major chances in the Saudi Kingdom. Signs of this possibility were seen following the January election in Iraq
For the first time in 70 years, the Shiites of eastern Saudi Arabia, the only part of the kingdom where they are a majority, are preparing to win a small measure of political power. Inspired by the Shiites’ success in Iraq’s elections, Shiite leaders here say they intend to sweep to victory in municipal voting scheduled for Thursday and begin using the authority of elective office to push for equal rights. The voting also will likely result in at least some Shiite representation on two nearby councils.
The prospect of even incremental Shiite political gain has alarmed Sunni Muslim leaders across the Middle East, who fear that long-suppressed Shiite communities such as this one astride the kingdom’s lifeblood oil industry will push for an ever-greater role in government. Sunni heads of state have warned the Bush administration that the democratic reform it is encouraging in Iraq and Saudi Arabia could result in a unified “crescent” of Shiite political power stretching from here through Lebanon, Iraq and into Iran.
emphasis mine
Needless to say this will be fought tooth and nail by the Sauds primarily through funding, military expertise, training and safe havens for the Sunni resistance in Iraq. The Bathist regime in Syria may conceivably be strong supporters of the Iran friendly Shiites in Iraq (contrary to the American administrations claim that they are currently funding the Iraqi resistance) and the Turks, which may be the exception in terms of military intervention, will no doubt play a major role in quelling the Kurds in the North who will no doubt try to destabilize Turkey. What we have therefore is a major conflict among Muslim sects in Iraq; each sect will have their backing from one or more nation states. Shiites will be supported by Iran and possibly Syria, Sunnis will be supported by Saudi Arabia and the stateless Kurds will have the support of militias in Turkey which will consequently force Turkey to respond with tremendous force as is their practice. The wild card in this situation truly is the, “Coalition of the willing”. Under normal circumstances a nation who has no kin link to the primary participants in the civil war would not be involved but because of the American and western interest in the region they will be forced to finance one side or the other. The Bush administration has said little of its plan to deal with the outbreak of a civil war, and one can easily make the claim based solely on precedence that there is no plan, but it hard to imagine western nations supporting the Iranian backed Shiites who already have the upper hand in terms of numbers and military might. Having said that Bush’s most recent statements draw pause:
…
VARGAS: What is the policy if, in fact, a civil war should break out or the sectarian violence continues? Are you willing to sacrifice American lives to get the Sunnis and the Shiites to stop killing each other?BUSH:
…
The presence of the U.S. troops is there to protect as many Iraqis as we possibly can from thugs and violence, but it’s also to help the Iraqis protect themselves, and we’re making progress in terms of standing up to these Iraqi troops so they can deal with, deal with these incidents of violence.VARGAS: But what is the plan if the sectarian violence continues? I mean, do the U.S. troops take a larger role? Do they step in more actively to stop the violence?
BUSH: No. The troops are chasing down terrorists. They’re protecting themselves and protecting the people, and — but a major function is to train the Iraqis so they can do the work. I mean the ultimate success in Iraq — and I believe we’re going to be successful — is for the Iraqi citizens to continue to demand unity.
Emphasis Mine
I am not sure if this is policy or just another George W. misspeak but training the Iraqi military which (and I don’t have the numbers) are most probably run and controlled by Shiites in a civil is a HUGE mistake and horrifically shortsighted.
Admittedly the above is just one scenario that can be played out. Syria being a Sunnis state could just as easily decide to fund the Sunnis resistance though given the current strategic pacts they have with Iran I see this as unlikely at least on any large scale. The idea, however, remains unchanged. Civil war in Iraq will be nothing less than a fight for the leadership of the Islamic civilization.
Islam is probably the largest civilization in the world without a core state and if they are to be a major player in the world they will eventually need to crown a core state for the civilization and a civil war in Iraq will play a major role in finalizing the hegemony structure of the Islamic world. Although Sunni Muslims vastly outnumber Shiites in the Islamic world I think that will play little if any role of the final decision of whom the core state of the civilization will ultimately be.
Samuel P. Huntington outlined the need for a core state for Islam in his book, “Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”, and he ruled out the Saudi Arabia because
Its relatively small population and geographical vulnerability make it dependent on the West for its security.
Just as relevant today was his dismissal of Pakistan as a potential core State
…
Pakistan has size, population, and military prowess, and its leaders have fairly consistently tried to claim a role as a promoter of cooperation among Islamic states and the speaker for Islam to the rest of the world. Pakistan is, however, relatively poor and suffers serious internal ethnic and regional divisions, a record of political instability, and a fixation on the problem of its security vis-à-vis India, which accounts in large part for its interest in developing close relations with other Islamic countries, as well as non-Muslim powers like China and the United States.
p. 178
Huntington explored the possibility that Turkey could become the core state of the Islamic world however this remains a distant dream unless Turkey decides to de-westernize and abandon its not deeply rooted history of secularism. While Islam has become more relevant to Turkey’s political affairs it remains a nation far to secular, at the moment, to be considered for the role of Islam’s core state.
Iran was ruled out because of the fact that they remain a minority in terms of the culture and the religious sect, Persian and Shia respectively. I would suggest that should Iran successfully defend the Shiites in Iraq, possibly in spite of the western funded Sunnis (in addition to the funding that Saudi Arabia will no doubt give them) there is a good chance that they will have not only the obvious military advantage in the heart of the Islamic world but good strategic positioning ironically enough because of American intervention in two nation states that were previously known to be hostile towards Iran (Taliban and Saddam led Iraq).
Iran has not held back the fact that they want to lead a worldwide Islamic revolution and the first step to that end is uniting the Islamic world. Civil war in Iraq may be the solution to that centuries long impasse.
