Neighboring states, rather than American forces, are the ones responsible for the massacres in Iraq. The Baathists, whose leader, Mohammed Younes al-Ahmad, resides in Damascus, are the guilty ones. This is according to the confessions of a detainee, broadcast by state television. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirmed that political disputes are responsible for everything. We can ask: which disputes, pitting who against who, for they are many. There are disputes over shares of power and patronage among the ruling parties, and disputes within each one. There are other disputes, between the authorities and armed groups, between Sunnis and Shiites, between Arabs and Kurds, between the Iraqi Army and the Peshmerga, between pro-Americans and pro-Iranians, between secularists and Islamists, between the tribes and al-Qaeda, between the central government in Baghdad and the autonomous (separatist) rule in Erbil, between the resigned presidential secret police chief, Mohammed Shahwani (who stayed in his post at the request of the US, during Bremer's days), etc. etc. The most recent explosive dispute has been between the Islamic Dawa Party, headed by al-Maliki, and the Supreme Council, headed by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, i.e. between different Shiites factions. Al-Maliki is demanding that he, or one of his cronies in his party, become prime minister after the general elections. The Supreme Council, with the Kurds showing solidarity, are playing it democratically. It insists on the vote results determining the prime minister. As for the secret, no one is revealing what it is. If we review the proposals of both men, the dispute is not between two Shiite leaders from the same sect. the two men agree on seeing the leading political post remain with the Shiites. However, after al-Maliki proved his skill, saw his party win in recent provincial elections, obstructed al-Hakim's efforts to form a federal region in the center and south of the country, and rejected the Kurds' demands to take sovereign decisions, the dispute intensified between the two sides. Al-Maliki became an enemy of democracy. The accusations mounted against him, and there were allegations that he had returned Baathists to decision-making positions in the army and the state. What is funny is that neither of the men or parties has set the reason for the dispute on the table, so that Iraqis can decide. Where are the Americans in this? Naturally, Washington does not see its interest in any strong government or state that takes Iranian interests or relations with Syria into consideration. Furthermore, it is not in America's interest to see strongly centralized rule that defines Baghdad's role in the region. Therefore, it stands with al-Hakim's federalism. It support groups opposed to the central government. The same goes for Iran, which wields the most influence and seeks to distance any group or party that opposes its policies on the regime. In Iraq (like Lebanon), there is a failed state and a political class concerned only with gaining the biggest piece of the pie, by stoking sectarian and religious conflict and being inspired, in its' actions, by foreign countries, whether near or far. The disputes between al-Hakim and al-Maliki, meanwhile, are merely prayers for that inspiration.
