13.01.2007

In order to answer the questions of whether America has won or lost in Iraq or to what degree America has won or lost, it is necessary to look at why American invaded Iraq. America had three main targets in occupying Iraq: (1) To guarantee America’s absolute dominance in the 21st century. Since Islam and even the present condition of the Islamic world are an important obstacle to this goal, to turn it into a Protestant Islam by means of isolating it from the social, economic and political dimensions shaped by the belief in Unity that commands independence and opposes every kind of exploitation and oppression; to divide the Islamic world one more time by separating it into smaller states on ethnic and sectarian bases. (2) For the sake of America’s dominance in the world and, of course, for the interests of oil companies of which members at the highest level of the current Republican administration are partners, to takeover and keep, at the highest level, control of Asia and Africa’s oil and energy fields, particularly in the Middle East. (3) To get an absolute guarantee of Israel’s security.

In order to attain these three goals that led America to an invasion of Iraq and which are known by almost everyone, it was absolutely necessary to divide Iraq. As Alev Alatli put forth with its historical basis in a detailed manner on the Commentary page of Zaman on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, Iraq has been a target country of the West since the beginning of the 20th century to date due to its oil and geo-strategic position. Just as its borders were artificially drawn, it is an artificial government for a people who never became a “nation,” and it is being evaluated in three pieces in terms of the states of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. The people are Sunni and Shiite Arabs on a sectarian basis and Arabic (Sunni and Shiite) and Kurdish (Sunni) on an ethnic basis. However, due to the Muslim identity given by Islam that sees ethnic discrimination as a disease of ignorance, there have been no serious problems between Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds for centuries in the area. Contrary to this, as in other parts of the Islamic world, in Iraq elements tied to Shiism, which comprise the main reason for opposition, always came as a separate group. What was predominant in the administration of the Iraq Baath Party and Saddam in particular was not Islam or Sunnism, but nothing other than the rule of a clique under the supposed appearance of Arab nationalism.

Unfortunately, as a society our memory is very weak. While looking at Iraq, we forget about Afghanistan. Giving an extraordinary struggle against the Russians, Afghani warriors began fighting among themselves after the Russians pulled out of the country. Unfortunately, internal disputes are always a cause of trial and a weak point for Muslims, as our Prophet warned in a hadith. When Afghani warriors failed this test, the Taliban were flooded on the market and the American invasion followed. At this moment, the same scenario is being set up in Iraq. Since legal division is not possible at this time and because it does not serve the purposes of the invaders, Iraq is being divided de facto both on an ethnic and sectarian basis. Saddam was hung to inflame this de facto separation even more. And this division is going to throw the whole region, first of all Turkey, into the fire and Turkey will be pushed toward conflict not only in the Southeastern region but in all of Turkey. Regardless of what promises America makes, as long as the PKK, which was created for this purpose, is thought to serve this purpose, it will continue to exist. As a country we are struggling internally with domestic political disputes and religious-national values in the name of secularism-nationalism, and we are busy with the weakening of our belief, culture, society and life fabric on the EU journey. As long as we continue to be absorbed with these and the Islamic world continues to be busy with similar disputes and internal conflicts, saying that America has lost in Iraq goes no further than the usual heroic “winning the battle” rhetoric.