One Genocide that Wasn’t

[Welcome Gateway Pundit readers; Scroll down for updates]

This site devotes most of its energy to bringing attention to a genocide that our news media, mostly for reasons not to their credit, generally fail to cover. Just for a moment, I’d like to pause to celebrate a genocide from which the world might just have been spared:

Iraq on Saturday held its most peaceful election since the fall of Saddam. The vote to pick regional councils in 14 of the country’s 18 provinces passed without a single major attack being reported. [Reuters]

It’s a curious choice of words: “the most peaceful election since the fall of Saddam.” Unless one accepts Saddam Hussein’s definition of the word “election” at face value, one might as well say, at the very least, “since the rise of Saddam,” and by a series of extensions, since the very beginning of the world’s oldest civilization.

This peaceful, free election coincides with a drop in both U.S. and Iraqi civilian casualties “to the lowest level since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.” Last month’s Iraqi civilian death toll of 138 civilians is approximately one-fourth of the toll in the same month last year. Even the January 2008 toll was greatly reduced from that of previous years. Four U.S. soldiers died in Iraq in January. Not one single major attack was reported to have disrupted the election. A world that had once expressed so much sympathy and solidarity with the Iraqi people ought to be heaving a great sigh of relief today, and a far greater one than the sparse coverage of this hopeful and triumphant event suggests.

In some areas, the peace is still fragile. There are still over 100,000 Americans helping to protect Iraq’s security, and it is reasonable to ask whether the success of this election means that the country’s ancient hatreds are merely contained for a moment, or whether the danger of mass slaughter has receded. If what we are seeing is a mere interlude, we would expect sectarian parties to have significantly depressed turnout with violence and boycotts, or to have gained at the polls. But neither of those things happened:

Allies of Iraq’s U.S.-backed prime minister appeared Sunday to have made gains in the provincial elections, rewarding groups credited with reining in insurgents and militias, according to unofficial projections.

Initial results from Saturday’s landmark voting are not expected for days. But reports by Iraqi media and interviews by The Associated Press suggest candidates backing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had strong showings in the crucial Shiite heartland in southern Iraq.

If the indications prove true, it would strengthen al-Maliki’s hand ahead of national elections later this year and reflect a shift away from the more religious parties dominating the country.

Nationwide turnout was 51 percent, said Faraj al-Haidari, chairman of the election commission. It ranged from 40 percent in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province in western Iraq to 65 percent in the Salahuddin province, which includes the hometown of Saddam Hussein.

Final figures were not yet ready for the Baghdad area, but al-Haidari said initial reports placed it at about 40 percent.

Al-Maliki’s supporters appeared to hold the lead in many areas of the south, including the key city of Basra and the Shiite spiritual center of Najaf, according to Iraq’s private Al-Sharqiya television. The trend was supported by voter comments in Basra and other areas.

Many voters praised last year’s government-backed crackdown that broke the Shiite militia control in Basra and other areas.

“Al-Maliki ended the militiamen’s reign of terror,” said Faisal Hamadi, 58, after voting in Basra. “For this he deserves our vote.”

Gains by al-Maliki’s allies would come directly at the expense of the biggest Shiite party, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, which is a senior partner in the government but has hinted it could make a bid to take the leadership in national elections later this year.

The Supreme Council has a strong base among Shiite religious authorities — who are seen with suspicion by some Iraqis because of perceived ties to neighboring Iran and claims they fueled sectarian violence.

In the western Anbar province, Sunni tribesmen also are hoping to ride public support for their role in fighting insurgents.

The so-called Awakening Councils, which rose up against al-Qaida in Iraq and other factions in late 2006, are credited with leading a turning point of the war. The tribal leaders are now seeking to capture seats on the provincial councils, which control spending, jobs and other important regional influence.

Sunnis widely boycotted the last provincial elections in 2005 because of fears of reprisals from insurgents and opposition to the U.S. occupation.

The elections took place without serious violence and were hailed as a major achievement by Iraqi officials seeking a return to stability nearly six years after the U.S.-led invasion. [AP]

Instead, former insurgents have laid down their arms and become candidates. The Times of London tells the story of one of them, and quotes a few of his countrymen who are voting for peace and prosperity, rather than to loot and plunder old foes:

Anmar al-Naqib, the 36-year-old owner of a clothes shop in the predominantly Shi’ite district of Khadimiya, in northern Baghdad, was voting for Maliki’s Dawa party.

“We’ve seen a massive improvement in security, and I’m now going to extend my trust and vote for him in the hope that he can deliver on the other issues, such as services and reconstruction,” he said.

However, Abdalah al-Anbari, 44, who has a jewellery shop nearby, said: “We’re looking for change. Sectarianism and leaders in turbans are over. The country and its people are tired. [Times Online]

… said Mr. Anbari, apparently without deliberate irony. But is there any serious question that had we lost our nerve in 2006 or 2007, genocide would have been the likely consequence?

There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there. It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions…. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they’re asking the wrong question…. We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade. [Barack Obama, July 19, 2007]

Had we fled then, in the conditions that prevailed at that time, Iraq would almost certainly have descended into something combining the worst of 1970’s Cambodia, 1980’s Lebanon, 1990’s Afghanistan, and Palestine as it will probably always be. It could have invited a wider regional conflict involving Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf states. It could have created a multi-generational flow of bitter, radicalized refugees into Iraq’s neighbors, Europe, and beyond. Just as the slaughter in Bosnia eventually drew in foreign intervention, America and other nations would have been drawn back in to try to contain a much larger crisis, but with the probable encumbrance of the United Nations.

It is an easy thing to oppose genocide in principle, less so to oppose it by means that are expensive, heart-rending, and costly in national capital. History records no instance of a genocide that was stopped by a drum circle. Without question, our terrible intelligence failures and the counterproductive tactics with which the war was initially prosecuted cost our nation greatly in lives, money, and credibility. It will never be possible to say what to too many is foregone — whether the the war was worth fighting. It is impossible to answer the question without knowing history in the alternative — when and how Saddam would have continued his well established practices of sponsoring terrorism and using weapons of mass destruction on innocents. Intelligence is fallible, but historical fact is unassailable, and one cannot seriously doubt that he would have done so again.

So even our new president has conceded how things would have turned out had America followed his advice, or that of our new secretary of state, when that advice was at the height of its political appeal. For reasons that have been debated to extinction, our political class voted by an overwhelming margin to invade Iraq, and later found it convenient or opportunistic to flee for the exits when doing so would have come with an incalculable cost in lives and global security. There is plenty to condemn George W. Bush for, but it should be to his everlasting credit that his most stubborn decision — the decision to stand in the way of the breaking ranks of politicians, generals, and “elder statesmen” — may well have saved the lives of millions.

For the sake of humankind, and for the great sacrifice with we purchased which this chance at peace and security, pray we don’t blow it now.

Update: From the AP’s Brian Murphy comes more indication that Iraqis voted against sectarianism, disorder, and Iranian influence.

The broad message — built on Iraqi media projections and postelection interviews — was that the eventual results would punish religious-leaning factions such as the Supreme Council that are blamed for stoking sectarian violence, and reward secular parties seen capable of holding Iraq’s relative calm.

The outcome of the provincial races will not directly effect Iraq’s national policies or its balance between Washington’s global power and Iran’s regional muscle. But Shiite political trends are critically important in Iraq, where majority Shiites now hold sway after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated regime.

“There is a backlash from Iraqis against sectarian and religious politics,” said Mustafa al-Ani, an Iraqi political analyst based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. [AP, Brian Murphy]

The big loser looks to be the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), whose armed militia, known as the Badr Brigades, had dominated much of southern Iraq until 2007, when Iraqi forces surprised everyone, including the Americans, by seizing control of Basra and other militia-controlled cities. The Badr Brigades, which were created, trained, and funded by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, had frequently clashed with British forces in Basra. The British had ceded the city to them to avoid casualties, and the Badr Brigades had imposed Iran’s authoritarian view of Islam until the Iraqi Army’s return. In the Iraqi parliamenent, the SIIC had allied itself with the ruling party, but advocated a semi-independent Shi’ite region within Iraq that probably would have come under Iranian domination. That vision looks less likely today:

The Supreme Council, meanwhile, appeared to stagger under the weight of negative baggage.

It was accused of failing to deliver improvements to public services in the south. Also, its deep ties to Iran began to rub against Iraqis’ nationalist sentiments.

The Supreme Council’s leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, spent decades in Iran during Saddam’s rule and was allowed an office-villa in downtown Tehran. After Saddam’s fall, the Supreme Council was Iran’s main political conduit into Iraq even though the group also developed ties with Washington.

Iran now could face limits on its influence in the south with the Supreme Council forced into a coalition or second-tier status — and also confront resistance from a stronger al-Maliki government seeking to curb Tehran’s inroads.

A Supreme Council lawmaker, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, acknowledged the election mood was against them.

“We controlled most provinces in the south, so we were blamed for whatever went wrong there,” he said.

None of the reports I’ve seen mentioned the Mehdi Militia or its allies. I have to think that means that their influence is no longer significant enough to mention.