Saddam's Foreboding Last Words
by LT. COLONEL JAMES G. ZUMWALT, USMC (RET)
June 21, 2011
Moqtata al-Sadr.
The final drawdown of US forces in Iraq is scheduled for year’s end. What fate awaits Iraq’s democracy?
In the early coal mining days, miners took a canary into the bowels of the earth, closely watching it as a sign danger may be lurking within. A dying canary signaled gas in the air, causing miners to abandon the mine. In Iraq, we must watch for similar signs indicating whether a budding democracy is dying.
Despite the US role in toppling Saddam Hussein and its efforts in laying a foundation for democracy in Iraq, Washington does not wield the most foreign influence there.
Iraq is one of only four Muslim countries in the world boasting a majority population of the minority Shiite sect. Iraq is bordered by Iran—another country also boasting a minority Shiite majority. The eight year war (1980-1988) fought between these two countries stemmed from Saddam’s rule of Iraq as a Sunni. Thus, the Iran-Iraq war was perceived as a Shia-Sunni conflict, especially since other Sunni nations contributed financially to Baghdad’s war chest. The lack of motivation by predominantly Shiite Iraqis to fight predominantly Shiite Iranians may well be why that conflict raged on for so long with neither side really making substantial battlefield gains.
Iraq’s eastern border marries up with Iran’s western one, enabling Terhan to exert great influence there, especially in the south. It is here the anti-US Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr also wields influence. The son of a Grand Ayatollah whose defiance of Saddam led to his death in 1999, al-Sadr filled the void left by his father, taking on this role after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. His violent militant followers initially created considerable problems for both US forces and the Iraqi government. However, he later toned down, taking refuge in Iran to study at the Shiite theological center of Qom. He returned to Iraq last January after a three plus year hiatus. Most likely, his sabbatical was at Tehran’s call as he lacked the religious foundation to lay claim to his father’s following. It also gave Tehran an opportunity to mold al-Sadr in the image of Iran’s own extremist cultist clerics who believe the world is soon to receive the 12th Imam—currently in a state of occultation but destined to return to Earth to subject it to Islamic law.
The biggest danger to Iraq’s democracy is Iran’s theocracy. Tehran has done everything in its power to disrupt stability in Iraq by supporting both Shiite and Sunni (al-Qaeda) militants. Iranian explosive devices in Iraq are responsible for the loss of thousands of American and Iraqi lives. Iranian influence intimidates Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Two initial signs—i.e., the “canary in the Iraqi mineshaft” forewarning that democracy there is dying—will signal Iranian influence is filling the void left by a US withdrawal.
The first will be the Iraqi government’s failure to extend a US force presence beyond 2011. Clearly, Tehran wants the US out of Iraq so its al-Sadr puppet can go to work for Iran without US interference. It is similar to the master plan Tehran used in Lebanon—establishing the terrorist group Hezbollah there (and now in Venezuela) to do Iran’s bidding.
The second sign will be to watch the fate that befalls a group of Iranians, residing in Iraq, who have been opposed to Tehran’s theocrats since 1979. Known as MEK, the group took up residence in Iraq under Saddam who welcomed “the enemy of my enemy as my friend.”
MEK has inflicted more damage on Iran’s mullahs than anyone else. Because of this, they are determined to destroy MEK. Ironically, Iran has succeeded in getting the US to assist in doing this by manipulating administrations of both political parties. In 1997, President Clinton labeled MEK a terrorist organization as Tehran promised better relations if Washington did so. (This was followed by the EU and UK also labeling MEK as such, only to withdraw their terrorist designations years later after recognizing Tehran’s manipulation.) In 2003, Tehran falsely promised to stay out of Iraq if the US invaded, on condition President Bush agreed to disarm MEK. The US abided by the bargain; Iran did not.
An unarmed MEK now resides at Camp Ashraf in Iraq, along the Iranian border. As the occupying force that disarmed MEK, Washington has an obligation under the Geneva Conventions to afford them “protected persons” status. But on several occasions, al-Maliki has managed to manipulate US forces into inaction as Iraqi forces attacked Camp Ashraf, shooting its unarmed residents like fish in a barrel. Each attack has left dozens of the Iranian dissidents dead. Following a complete US withdrawal at the end of 2011, the annihilation of MEK’s remaining residents—or their involuntary expulsion to Iran—will be yet another sign of Iraq’s democracy’s is in its death throes.
Saddam’s last words, uttered moments before he was hung in December 2006, may prove foreboding as to the Iraqi democracy’s fate. An executioner yelled out “long live Moqtada al-Sadr.” The sneering dictator repeated the cleric’s name in a mocking tone. As brutal a leader as he was, Saddam may well have recognized in his final moments that the worst for Iraq was yet to come.
Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.), is a retired Marine infantry officer who served in the Vietnam war, the US invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war. He is the author of "Bare Feet, Iron Will--Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields" and the e-book "Living the Juche Lie: North Korea's Kim Dynasty." He frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues.
blog comments powered by Disqus