"But in the coming years, Iraq's fragile cohesion could oblige the Americans to spring into action. A civil war in a country with enormous energy resources would be an international nightmare."
As Prime Minister Maliki described
it earlier, today is the end of the “occupation of Iraq.” Tomorrow, the American
military will not longer patrol Baghdad or other Iraqi cities. After midnight
tonight, their military duties will be taken over by Iraqi units.
This must be the beginning of the full
recovery of Iraq's sovereignty. By August 31, 2010, the last American fighting
units will have left the country. The last minute of the final day of patrol in
Baghdad claimed the lives of four American soldiers. If all else goes according
plan, they will be remembered as the last victims of a war of liberation that
turned into a guerilla occupation.
Just last week, Prime Minister
Maliki christened June 30th a day of “great victory” comparable to the “Great
Iraqi Revolution” of 1920.
That revolt, of both Shiites and
Sunnis, was aimed at their British rulers. It grew into a kind of guerilla war,
particularly with the Kurds , who attempted to realize their aspirations for
nationhood - withdrawing only after an extraordinarily violent response from
the British. Ninety years later, the Kurds are again playing a crucial role, deciding
whether this plan for withdrawal will result in a stable and sovereign Iraq.
The Sunni minority that has
traditionally dominated Iraq isn't likely to factor in, and now stands in the
shadow of the Shiite majority. Over the past few weeks, the number killed in
violent attacks has risen - and that violence will not diminish. Elections must
be held within the next six months, so the struggle for power and therefore sources
of revenue will escalate at every level. The stakes can only grow. Today, Iraq began
auctioning leases for eight enormous oil and gas fields. It is hoped that due
to these transactions, cash flows into the political arena will rise
spectacularly.
The power struggle over oil and
gas extends to Kurdistan. To be specific, the position of the oil-rich city of
Kirkuk is contested by all parties - and to such an extent that a violent
conflict cannot be ruled out. The Kurds, who have far-reaching autonomy in
their own area, claim Kirkuk. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government doesn't want to
give up Kirkuk's oil fields, so has stationed troops there.
That's dangerous, because the key
issues since 2003 have yet to be resolved: whether the nation's energy
resources belong to the state or regions; or if the state should take on a federal
structure and how the boundary lines would be drawn in that case. This has yet to
be unequivocally and constitutionally determined.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Thanks to the "surge" and
the beginning of the American withdrawal, the country appears to have a minimum
of peace. But even after six years - not by any stretch of the imagination - is
there is a coherent national political entity.
One way or another, that fragile
cohesion could oblige the Americans to spring into action in the coming years. A
civil war in a country with enormous energy resources would be an international
nightmare. Maliki's analogy to 1920 is fitting in that
sense. A “Great Revolution” may end up having counterproductive effects.
