A Puppet Government In Iraq Equals Disaster for the US
“The will of the people… is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” –Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236
A few weeks ago, President Bush put the interim Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, on public display. Allawi, for his part, in essence told us everything was just great in Iraq. Everything is under control; Iraq is returning to normal, he said.
Well isn’t that simply wonderful? And just in time for the US presidential election, too.
Not that the timing is more than providential, but what really amazes me is that some people are actually buying into the fiction of an independent “Iraqi Government.” Because that’s nonsense – what we have now in Iraq is a puppet government, pure and simple, completely controlled by the US. Nothing more, nothing less.
As such, it’s extremely unlikely that things are even remotely “just great” and returning to normal in Iraq. Because puppet governments don’t work. They didn’t work, for example, in Vietnam, and they won’t work in Iraq.
Why not? Let’s look at some facts:
In Iraq, Shi’a Muslims comprise over 65% of the population; Sunni Muslims about 37%. Christians constitute a much smaller minority.
Through the Ba’ath Party, Sunni Muslims have ruthlessly controlled Iraq, subjugating the Shi’a as well as all the other religious minorities since 1963. Much of that time, the Ba’ath Party worked hand in hand with the CIA, including during most of Saddam’s reign – Saddam really didn’t fall from grace with the CIA or the US generally, until after he invaded Kuwait in 1990. That, of course, precipitated the First Gulf War.
Then came the current war.
I won’t go into a discussion of the present war in Iraq. Let me say only that there was no just cause for invading Iraq. There are no weapons of mass destruction; no ties between Saddam and al Qaeda; there was no reason at all for going to war. None.
Saddam Hussein was certainly a despicable, evil, tyrant, but he really wasn’t in a position to harm anyone outside Iraq.
Since the start of this un-just war, the US has been careful to showcase the pretense of coalition building; and more recently, careful to not ostensibly ignore the Shi’a Muslims in forming the new interim Iraqi government. But the appointment of Allawi as Prime Minister is nothing more than a sham contrived as an attempt to placate the Shi’a.
Because Allawi is clearly our man, bought and paid for.
Our Man In Baghdad
Iyad Allawi, a secular Shi’a who was once a member of the Ba’ath Party under Saddam Hussein, split from Saddam in 1978 and since that time is alleged to have had strong, long-standing ties to the CIA. For example, his organization, the Iraqi National Accord, is known to be funded by the CIA.
Because of the reported CIA ties – which are common knowledge in Iraq – and his overall closeness with the Americans, Allawi is quite unpopular in Iraq. A poll conducted last May by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS) asked Iraqis to rank 17 prominent religious and political leaders. Allawi finished in 16th place.
Many fear the danger is that with Allawi at the head, the whole government will be tainted by association. I suspect that is a vast understatement of the problem.
History is a good indicator as to the likely success of these machinations by the US.
And interestingly, the similarities to the situation in Vietnam are numerous.
The Vietnam Saga
In Vietnam, dating from the 1950’s, France and later the United States, propped up a total of around a dozen puppet governments.
None of those governments ever gained popular support from the people – and it was chiefly because of that lack of support that most of the different governments failed.
In Vietnam, the big issue for the United States was communism – the “terrorists” of the 50’s and 60’s. According to the doctrine established by President Eisenhower – called the “Domino Theory” – if Vietnam fell to the communists, then the whole of Southeast Asia was in jeopardy.
Following the close of the Second World War, France wanted to re-assume control of Vietnam – it had been a French colony since the mid-nineteenth century. France looked to the United States for support in the re-establishment of the colony, which it claimed was integral to its recovery as a nation.
The United States was in an uncomfortable position because during the war, it had actively supported a local rebel group – the Vietminh, formed in 1941 – who fought against the Japanese, and against the Vichy French government (which had collaborated with the Japanese during the occupation).
The Vietminh was led by a communist educated in London, Paris and Moscow, Ho Chi Minh.
Following the departure of the Japanese in the fall of 1945, the Vietminh declared Vietnam an independent sovereign nation with its capital in Hanoi, and set up an interim government with Ho Chi Minh as the head. Based on the close ties they had established with us during the war, they too looked to the United States for help.
The United States was in a quandary. Ho Chi Minh may have worked for us during the war, but the economic revival of Europe was one of the number-one, top goals of the time.
And so, under tremendous pressure from Great Britain and France and other countries, the US turned its back on Ho Chi Minh, and stood idle allowing the French to reestablish their colony in Vietnam in 1946.
Thus started the First Indochina War.
To give their colonial occupation legitimacy, in 1949, the French installed a puppet government headed by the former Emperor of Vietnam, Bao Dai – a westernized playboy who had no real influence. Ngo Dinh Diem became Premier.
Diem was more popular than Bao Dai. Diem was an aristocratic Catholic from Central Vietnam, a supposed nationalist, with no real ties to the French.
The United States contributed heavy financial support during this period. By some estimates, the US may have financed as much as 80% of the costs of the French war in Vietnam.
As time went by, the French controlled less and less of the country. Finally, in late 1953, after a prolonged siege, the French suffered a major defeat at Dien Bien Phu. They decided it was finally time to get out.
At the Geneva Conference in 1954, a cease-fire agreement was worked out which partitioned Vietnam into two separate countries. The North was controlled by the Vietminh.
The Bao Dai government controlled the South – although that was short-lived.
Diem soon rigged an election where Bao Dai was overthrown, and then proclaimed himself President. Diem, who enjoyed a very close relationship with the CIA, was aggressively and ruthlessly anti-communist, and employed many of the same tactics as Saddam Hussein to stay in power (although Diem wasn’t even as good a player as Saddam).
The United States Gets Involved
After France had completed pulling its troops out in 1956, the first US military advisors arrived in strength, ostensibly to train the South Vietnamese Army. For the period from 1956 through the early sixties, they maintained a relatively low profile.
In this early period, the Diem regime was quite successful in military operations against the Vietminh.
To counter Diem’s successes, the Vietminh responded by establishing an umbrella organization, the National Liberation Front (NLF) – also derisively known as the Viet Cong – to operate in South Vietnam.
While set-up by the North Vietnamese, the NLF was ostensibly a partisan nationalistic organization with membership open to any and all who opposed Diem – not just communists. In practice, its membership was widely comprised of groups from most of the political and religious spectrum of South Vietnam.
The NLF’s main goals were to overthrow Diem – whom they perceived to be an American, colonial, puppet – and to “institute a largely liberal and democratic regime.” This held great appeal for the people of South Vietnam.
Historically, Vietnam had been under foreign rule for much of the last couple thousand years. Most of that time was spent under Chinese rule, but from the mid-nineteenth century, Vietnam had existed as a French colony. The sentiment for self-rule was quite strong among the Vietnamese.
The NLF played on these sentiments and was very successful in unifying the local population, in opposition to Diem and the United States.
The Diem government’s final downfall came in 1963 after Diem attempted to establish Catholicism as the national religion in the predominately Buddhist country. In Vietnam, Buddhists comprised as much as 70% of the population at that time, Catholics less than 10%.
This and other repressive, dictatorial, measures instituted by Diem sparked massive protests from Buddhist and many other groups, including students and intellectuals. Many Buddhist monks actually set themselves on fire in protest. At the same time, the NLF had come to control greater and greater portions of the country.
The Diem government became an embarrassment to the United States.
Unable to get Diem to agree to reforms, and figuring that South Vietnam was teetering on the verge of total collapse, the United States gave its tacit approval to a coup led by some of the top generals in the South Vietnamese Army. Diem and his brother were assassinated.
Following that, there were a series of new, less popular governments all heavily propped up by the United States.
And from that time on, by necessity, the American involvement in Vietnam grew and grew.
In 1964, citing an attack in international waters by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on two American destroyers, the Maddox and the C. Turner Joy, President Lyndon Johnson succeeded in having congress pass the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution, which essentially allowed him to wage all-out war against North Vietnam – without having actually declared war.
The number of American troops in Vietnam had been steadily climbing. In 1961, there were about 900 American advisors in South Vietnam; by 1964, this had risen to around 11,000 soldiers. By the end of 1965, this jumped to nearly 200,000 US combat troops on the ground in Vietnam. By 1968, US troop strength would peak at over 536,000.
Though these years, the US anti-war movement gained momentum, and began to have effect. Sentiment at home eventually turned heavily against the war. Because of this vast decline in public support, the United States was forced to pursue a peace with the North Vietnamese. The number of American troops began to be reduced in 1969. The war began to wind down.
Following the final withdrawal of American troops in March 1973, the last government of South Vietnam – now without American support to prop it up – fell in April 1975.
The cost was more than 50,000 American lives mostly over a period of about 10 years.
These lives were completely lost in vain; their loss did not change the eventual outcome of the Vietnamese political situation by one iota; they merely stalled it off for a period of time.
The Current War In Iraq
The current situation in Iraq is not really all that different.
At this point, we’re a little over a year into our occupation of Iraq. We’ve lost more than 1,000 American lives. The fighting intensifies on a daily basis.
The fact that we invaded another sovereign country without just and sufficient cause is an ugly, horrendous blot on the good name of the United States of America. It makes me terribly ashamed to be an American. However, since the invasion is a fait d’accompli, we now must deal responsibly with its aftermath and try to minimize the damage – to the extent that is possible.
We’ve set goals for the country, setting them on the path to the establishment of a westernized democracy, and eventual independence.
The question we need to ask, is if we continue our occupation for another 8-10 years or whatever, will Iraq ever become an actual democracy?
I believe the correct answer to that question is no.
The territory of Iraq is roughly the same geographic region as ancient Mesopotamia – often called the “cradle of civilization.” The Iraqis have several thousand years of their own history to draw guidance from. But at no time during those thousands of years of a long and very illustrious history, has there ever been a democracy in Iraq. The simple notion of a democracy is quite foreign to Iraqi citizens. From their standpoint, they don’t understand it, don’t need it, and don’t want it.
And with thousands of years of local history at their disposal, they also have extremely long memories. They refer to us, for example, as the “Crusaders.” We’re looked on as invaders, not liberators. Which may in part explain why we’re meeting so much resistance.
And that resistance is growing.
The insurgency we have at present in Iraq closely borders on a civil war. The insurgency escalates on a daily basis, with mostly Sunni but also Shi’a forces battling the Americans, as well as occasionally battling each other.
The only success we can truly claim is that we have indeed unified the different religious factions – in fighting us, their common enemy.
Given the fact that the Shi’a ‘s comprise over 65% of the population, it’s almost certain they will eventually end up dominant in the government. And given the nature of their religion and their long history, the country could quite possibly evolve into a religious theocracy or monarchy, where the Shi’a are in control.
But of course, this is intolerable to the US policy makers. Monarchies and religious theocracies are not exactly en vogue. And no one wants another Iran. And that is our dilemma.
So to counter this, what are we trying to do? Through different subterfuges, we arrange for a government packed with our own people and headed by a secular Shi’a with no popular support and who has strong ties to the CIA. Does this sound somewhat familiar?
Really.
The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions
Who exactly are we trying to fool?
This plan is no more likely to succeed than any of the dozen different puppet governments we propped up in Vietnam.
The are only two ways an unpopular minority government can stay in power: the way Saddam Hussein stayed in power – by ruthlessly killing all those who opposed him and by subjugating the population; or, with the help and support of a large occupying army – as it was in Vietnam, and as currently exists in Iraq.
This is a fool’s quest.
We have no business trying to impose artificial westernized styles of government on the people of Iraq. If a clear majority of the country wants a religious theocracy or monarchy or whatever, then so be it – that’s what they should have – and will have as soon as we’re finally gone.
Because you can’t change what is inevitable. It didn’t work in Vietnam, it’s not working in Afghanistan, and it won’t work in Iraq.
The will of the American people to spend the lives of our sons and daughters in this hopeless pursuit of a democratic, westernized Iraq will eventually waver, just as it did in our supposed battle against communism in Vietnam; the sight of our sons and daughters coming home in flag-draped coffins, wears thin the shouts of patriotic zeal in this, our mad ques
to rid the world of the “terrorist threat,” personified by Saddam Hussein.
The only responsible course is to allow real, honest, free elections in Iraq and let the chips fall where they will. If it results in a government dominated by the Shi’a, then we must accept that.
“Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will; and externally to transact business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses, whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, President, or whatever it be. The only thing essential is, the will of the nation.” – Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1792. ME 9:7
Following the elections, we must quickly withdraw all American troops from Iraq.
All our current occupation does is forestall the puppet government’s almost certain, eventual collapse. The only thing the presence of our troops does is to exacerbate the existing problems. They serve no useful purpose at all. They must come home at once.
Because no puppet government will ever prevail in Iraq.
I just hope we don’t have to spend another 50,000 American lives – in vain – before people accept this truth.