Ran across an article on Vetvoice discussing the irony of the Dawa party bombing the US embassy twenty-five years ago, yet the ruling party in Iraq today. As usual, LeJeune doesn’t spend much time drawing conclusions, but lays out the facts for you to draw your own.
Unfortunately, it’s still widely regarded as unpatriotic in the USA to draw comparisons between the well-loved revolutionaries of our own history and today’s terrorists/freedom-fighters in Iraq. And to a point I agree: our revolutionaries were fighting for the Enlightenment ideals of life, liberty, and property, while often the factions in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to be fighting to unite the region under the banner of Islam.
I find those two ideals to be the polar opposite of one another: one fighting for the right for free people to choose their own religion, and one fighting to have their religion rule the area.
That said, however, their methods are not unalike. The fact is, although the term for guerrilla warfare has only existed a few hundred years, humans have always fought one another, and it’s certain we’ve been using these kinds of ambush tactics for a smaller force fighting a larger one for millennia, if not longer.
What I’m interested in is how yesterday’s terrorists are today’s politicians.
No, I’m not talking about Barack Obama. The fact is, only a few extremist, fringe elements attempt to paint Obama himself as a terrorist. His choice of friends and financiers, of course, might be legitimately questioned, but not the man himself.
That’s where it gets interesting.
The Islamic Dawa Party was brought into being in the 1960’s with the express goals of creating “a party and a movement which would promote Islamic values and ethics, political awareness, combat secularism and communism, and create an Islamic state in Iraq.” For background, however, at the time the party was formed, secularism was nearly synonymous with socialism and Arab nationalism. The Dawa party was backed by Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, and was responsible for a large number of terrorist attacks on Iraq at the time in an attempt to depose secular leader Saddam Hussein.
The attacks on the embassies were later repudiated by Al-Dawa, who claimed they were perpetuated in their name by rogue agents hijacked as proxies for the state of Iran. There is some truth to this claim, but as always it’s murky when it comes to politics. Hezbollah supported numerous attacks in the name of freeing Al-Dawa prisoners related to the attacks in Kuwait. Some say that the invasion of Kuwait — and subsequent freeing of Al-Dawa prisoners, either by escape or prisoner trade with Hussein — was part of the agreement brokered by the USA for the invasion of Kuwait. Which might explain Saddam’s surprise that the US took an interest, when he thought he had tacit acceptance of the invasion by a long-time ally.
Anyway, that’s just about ancient history. At this point, I wonder what Maliki’s connections are to historical terrorism by agents claiming to represent Al-Dawa? Directly, as far as I can tell, there are none except fomenting rebellion in the name of Islam against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in the 1970s, and supporting Iranian efforts during the Iran-Iraq war. He has strong ties with Hezbollah, and Syrian and Iranian leadership, built while in exile in Syria and later Iran. To gain and hold leadership, he’s had to coordinate with parties hostile to his aims. I think this makes Maliki a communicator and coalition-builder… but not a terrorist, though factions within the organizations he works with have engaged in terrorist actions.
To me, it seems obvious that the bombings were part of the Iran-Iraq war that inflamed the region. Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost, and for many in the area the impact was as profound as World War I had been on the psyche of Europe. The Iran/Iraq border is huge. Trench warfare and gas attacks were the modus operandi.
To Maliki, the eventual finding, trial, and execution of Hussein were a vindication of all he had worked for for twenty-seven years. Finally, the man responsible for his exile had seen justice.
I don’t see a good guy or a bad guy. I see a complex man who has lived in many places and necessarily made many compromises to rise to a position of power and see his aims met. That said, however, he is a militant anti-secularist, in favor of religious leadership of the region. Which means that my conscience tells me I should oppose his leadership in favor of secular — not Islamic — democracy in the state.
I guess I would not have been willing to make the compromises needed to maintain power in newly-liberated Iraq. And in fact, in a choice between McCain and Obama, I believe Obama will foster better relations with Iraq, because he has shown a similar tenacity to Maliki: an ability to accept compromises in order to preserve a fragile peace and get the job done.
Anyway, I rambled a bit. Sorry about that. In this world of shades of gray, it’s really hard to get a good grasp on what side I should be on when the sides change so often.