Why Baghdad is so important
With all the talk recently of re-shaping the war in Iraq, there’s been renewed talk of the importance of Baghdad (and here) as key to the success of the country and as key to success in winning the war in Iraq.
But is Baghdad really that important to the future of Iraq?
The short answer is yes.
The long answer is, well, longer. However, it boils down to a few key concepts.
Baghdad is the heart of Iraq. Not Basra, not Najaf, not Irbil — Baghdad. The city, the Baghdad region, has been a center in the Arab world for thousands of years, arguably on par with Alexandria. Baghdad, where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run close, has long been seen as being equal to the Nile basis for accomplishment and advancements. To Arabs and to Iraqis, Baghdad means much.
And the city has also been the focal point for the Sunni. From ancient times through the Ottoman empire, Iraq’s seat of power, under the dominance of the local Sunnis, has been Baghdad. Survival, success, and the future of the Sunni tribes has been linked to the success and longevity of the city. Without Baghdad, they have nothing.
Couple this with my two war theory — the Sunni / Shi’a fight in Iraq as well as the Long War battlefield there — and Baghdad begins to take on a doubly important role.
The Sunni cannot afford to lose control of Baghdad, of the heart and soul of Iraq, because it is with Baghdad that their future lies. Outnumbered by the Shi’a by about two to one, loss of control of Baghdad to the Shi’a would seal the fate of the Sunni to that of being the second-class tribes in a country filled with people itching for retribution.
The loss of Baghdad would also play into the recruiting efforts of Al Qaeda and the Salafist movement. Any Sunni angered by the loss of Baghdad and the loss of Sunni prestige will likely feel cornered, with no redress for their lot in life. And would likely be willing to take up arms against the Shi’a / secular government of Iraq, but also against the US and the Crusaders that made it happen.
So, is there a way to win?
Short answer? Dunno.
Good ol’ Democracy is likely going to leave Baghdad under the control of the Shi’a — they are, after all, something in the neighborhood of 60% of the population. That has been fueling the fighting spirit in the Sunni — well, that and all of the retribution the Shi’a seem to have been carrying out.
But dividing the country into three parts, and giving Baghdad and the region to the Sunni, has serious problems, too. Oil, being one of them. All of the oil is in the south or up in the hills with the Kurds — Baghdad would be theirs, but the Sunni would have no cash cow with which to sustain their region. Likewise, creation of autonomous regions within Iraq would likely be the deathblow for Iraq as a republic. The Kurds would likely use the chance to break ties with the federal government and go it alone and independently, and the Shi’a, well, the Shi’a could do whatever they wanted, too. And yes, that could include the rise of a theocracy in southern Iraq.
I suppose the last alternative would be for the Sunni to outright re-take control of the country. The Al Qaeda would like that, especially if the Sunni established a proper Sunni regime based on the Salafist teachings. Either way, the Sunni would likely have to rely on force to keep control — which would, I am guessing, not sit well with the US.
Oh, I take that back. There is one more option — a secular state, filled with citizens of Iraq who view themselves as Iraqis and not as Sunni or Shi’a or Kurd. Iraqis, nationalists, believers in the greatness of the Iraqi state. Of course, there’s never been such a person, which is probably why the US is finding that this option, well, isn’t an option, even though it is often touted as the ideal.
Catch-22. The Shi’a keep control, but the Sunni stay pissed and keep on fighting (and fostering support for Al Qaeda). The Sunni get control, and the country explodes or goes back under an iron fist.
I think, though, that I know how it’s going to end, at least for the United States.
Have you seen the TV show COPS? Ever seen one of those domestic violence calls, where the police go to a home after reports of one spouse beating up the other ones, only to find when they get there that both spouses are more interested in punching and kicking the cops? There’s that look on the cop’s face, the look that says, “I am so tempted to leave them here, to let them just duke it amongst themselves….”
I am coming to think that this is how it is going to end for the United States. Why are both sides beating me in the head, when I could just step out and let them duke it out, fair and square.
And if it hasn’t happened by then, the elections in 2008 might just be that point.