Iraq war: A new bin Laden?
DEFENSE SECRETARY Donald Rumsfeld told Congress that the proposed war in Iraq is closely connected to the global war on terrorism. He is right, but for all the wrong reasons. What he and other policymakers have failed to acknowledge is that, as in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 Gulf War, a large American military presence in Iraq runs a very grave risk of giving birth to another Osama bin Laden, this time one from the Shiite sect of Islam. Indeed, war in Iraq could perpetuate the War on Terrorism beyond anyone's wildest imaginations. We know from past experience that even when American troops arrive in the Middle East with the most honorable of intentions, they eventually become the target of hostility and contempt. This contradiction may seem incomprehensible at first. But one must remember that for much of the Arab world, the wounds of British and French occupation after World War I are still raw. In 1991, it didn't matter to many Sunni Muslims that the American-led coalition protected Saudi Arabia and freed Kuwait from Iraqi oppression. What mattered, especially after the liberation of Kuwait, was the animosity and fear generated by the prospect of yet another permanent Western military presence in close proximity to the holy city of Mecca. No one benefited from this perceived threat to Mecca more than Osama bin Laden. It gave him an easily identifiable and emotionally charged cause around which to rally support from his fellow Sunni Muslims. The Bush administration's proposed invasion of Iraq could create an identical chain of events in a Shiite context. On one of the main roads between the American bases in Saudi Arabia and the Iraqi capital lies Karbala, a city of huge historical significance for Shiite Muslims. It is where Hussein ibn 'Ali, the third Shiite imam and grandson of the Prophet Muhammed, died in 680 A.D. after a siege by Sunni forces. For many Shiites, his burial site is a symbolic pilgrimage destination that rivals Mecca in religious importance. Karbala, located strategically about 50 miles south of Baghdad and a short distance from the major road and rail routes running along the Euphrates River, is a likely rallying point for a large-scale ground attack on the Iraqi capital. But, like the dangers of placing U.S. troops near Mecca, any American presence around Karbala would create anti-American animosity of catastrophic proportions. First, the U.S. effort to topple Saddam Hussein would immediately lose legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqi Shiites, who comprise a slim majority of the Iraqi population. Even if Saddam fell from power, the stability of any future U.S.-supported Iraqi government would be severely jeopardized. Second, Iraq's next-door neighbor Iran is close to 90 percent Shiite. While U.S.-Iran relations have been frigid since President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, they would deteriorate to an all-time low if American forces patrolled Karbala's holy sites. Bahrain, the home of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, also has a large Shiite majority that would likely become very volatile. The two main ingredients that bin Laden needed to build his al Qaeda network were a little money and a lot of anger. An American presence in Karbala will cause an alarming degree of resentment. Shiite communities in Iraq, Iran, Bahrain and elsewhere will view U.S. soldiers not as liberators of an oppressed people, but as invaders of a holy city. The door will be wide open for anyone with sufficient financing to channel that anger and build a Shiite version of al Qaeda. Secretary Rumsfeld was right. The war on Iraq is closely related to the war on terrorism. Closer than anyone thinks. Syed Waqar Hasib is a native San Franciscan pursuing a joint J.D. at UC Hastings and an M.A. in international affairs at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. |