Baghdad a beautiful city of historic lore is presently in ruins. Saddam modernised it with broad avenues, stately buildings and statues a plenty (mostly his own). The American invasion reduced it to rubble and now his loyalists have the streets flowing in blood. Hardly a day passes without 5 to 50 Baghdadis losing their lives.
As far as Zarqawi and his zealots are concerned the Shia population and the Iraqi police bear the brunt of bombings but the collateral damage kills indiscriminately any citizen who happens to be in the vicinity.
One wonders at the failure of American troops and the Iraqi security forces to prevent the ongoing massacre. It seems that the insurgents have inexhaustible manpower of suicide bombers.
Thus far the Iraqi government and the Shia population has held back to react in retaliation for fear of civil war. Talabani the Kurdish president wants to appeal to moderate Sunnis to intervene and is prepared to talk to insurgents too with a view to bring about a halt to the bloodshed. But I doubt if he would succeed unless the neighbouring Arab countries who are hitherto silent spectators intervene to bring the insurgents to negotiating table.
What puzzles me is that when the Americans were able to apprehend Saddam, many of his lieutenants killed his sons when the locals were not supporting, how is it that with the Iraqi government on their side and the people in general wanting end to the ongoing violence, the US troops have not been able to apprehend or eliminate Abu-Musab who personifies the fight? May be Bush should give up insistence on staying till complete victory is achieved and announce a date of withdrawal as soon as permanent parliament is elected in December/January.
It would allow wavering supporters of al Qaeda to break ties with Zarqawi and bring about his fall. In this connection it should be noted that only last week at a conference in Cairo Shias, Sunnis and Kurds along with Arabs in the middle-east demanded a time table for withdrawal of American troops.
Combined with prevailing public opinion in US, there is good reason for Bush to bend. Kurds the third party to the melee in Iraq are getting fed up with Shia-Sunni struggle for supremacy.
They are not Arabs and have always been wanting independence with a State of their own. It is, therefore, feared that if things do not work out in the near future and the strife escalates causing a serious fall out, they may try to breakaway. In such an eventuality the consequences would be unpredictable, putting Iraq from frying pan to the fire. Turkey and Iran would be averse to an independent Kurdish State for reasons of their own and America would not like to endorse it for the international complications it would cause.
I hope Iraqis are conscious of the fact and the major parties would sink their differences to keep Iraq intact so as to maintain its territorial integrity. Iran's reaction to the developments in Iraq is mooted.
The two countries fought a bloody war for 8 years from 1980-1988 when Iraqi Shias inexplicably remained with Saddam dubbed a Great Satan by Ayatullah Khomeini. Presently America alleges that Iran is supplying arms and ammunition to foment trouble across the borders, but Iraqi policy is to maintain good terms with the Shia neighbour.
For the first time in 40 years an Iraqi head of State visited Iran when president Talabani called on Tehran and was received by Ahmedinejad. Let us see what comes out of the meeting. Syria despite all denials, if not directly assisting has remained a sanctuary for the terrorists in Iraq. Now that it is under pressure over the assassination of Hariri Lebanon's ex-president.
Asad would have to be more circumspect and hold back his hand in order to keep the likely UN imposed sanctions at bay.
Bush is under increasing pressure from the American politicians and population to end the war as early as possible but it is easily said than done.
Comments
Comments are closed.