Crisis in Syria
Iraqis, Looking Across Border, See Replays of Past and Fears for the Future (September 6, 2013)
Ayman Oghanna for The New York Times
Shiites demonstrated last week in Baghdad against the possibility of an American military strike against the Syrian government.
By TIM ARANGO
Published: September 5, 2013
BAGHDAD — Abu Mohaned spent Tuesday night washing the bodies of victims
of that evening’s car bombs, preparing them for burial. When a couple of
roadside bombs went off the next day, he did the same thing.
Tracking the Syrian Crisis
The Times is providing updates, analysis and public reaction from around the world.
Multimedia
Related
-
News Analysis: White House Looks to Syria Vote as Rudder for Rest of Term (September 6, 2013)
-
New U.S. Envoy to U.N. Strongly Condemns Russia (September 6, 2013)
When he is not here, tending to the dead, he says, he is in Syria
fighting to defend the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Both
duties, he says, are in many respects part of the same fight — burying
Shiites killed in sectarian fighting in Iraq, and blocking radical
Sunnis from taking control of Syria.
Now that the United States is considering missile strikes on Syria,
Iraqi Shiites like Abu Mohaned say they see history repeating itself —
even if across a border — and they are prepared to once again take on a
familiar adversary. If the United States strikes Syria, Iraqi Shiites
will see it as their fight, too, and pour across the border to assist
Mr. Assad, many people here said.
“No honorable man will accept what the Americans want to do in Syria,”
Abu Mohaned said, reflecting the view of Iraq’s Shiite majority who see
any threat to Mr. Assad as an intervention on the side of a Sunni-led,
Qaeda-aligned rebellion.
As the debate over military action in Syria has unfolded in the West,
Iraq’s own painful history with American military intervention, and the
false intelligence put forward to justify it, has provided a
counternarrative to those who support intervention. Haunted by the
intelligence failures, the British Parliament voted against strikes on Syria.
For the same reason, the American public, polls show, is also hesitant to back a new military strike in the Middle East.
For Iraqis, the fate of the two countries is seen as inextricably
intertwined, and thus they believe they have a great deal at stake in
what decision is made in Washington. The war in Iraq has already
inflamed sectarian tensions, emboldening Sunni extremists to raise the
tempo of attacks against the Shiite-dominated government, while also
motivating Shiite men, with support from Iran, to travel to Syria to
fight alongside the government forces and their ally, the Lebanese
Shiite group Hezbollah.
“America wants to help the extremists to control Syria, but they are
wrong because we will defend our sect,” said Abu Mohaned, who vowed that
any American military action would inspire Iraqi Shiites to send
fighters and weapons into Syria. “They will commit a big mistake if they
think it will be easy to strike Syria and change everything. We all
have faith that God is on our side, and we will show them that the
Shiites in all the world are able to fight their proxies from Al Qaeda
and Nusra and the hated Free Syrian Army.”
Iran has sent members of its paramilitary Quds Force to Syria, and
Qassim Suleimani, the force’s commander, who has orchestrated the Shiite
violence in Iraq from Tehran and expanded Iran’s role in Baghdad, has
provided military aid for Mr. Assad, according to American officials.
The sort of limited strikes against Mr. Assad that President Obama has
proposed remind many Iraqis not of the 2003 invasion but of the
intermittent strikes against Saddam Hussein’s government in the late
1990s. Many Iraqis remember those strikes, undertaken by the Clinton
administration, as having little effect on Mr. Hussein’s brutality and
only adding to the misery of the population.
“In Iraq, we lived the experience of the international sanctions and the
disciplining of the former dictatorial regime by missile strikes, from
time to time, against the facilities and infrastructure of the Iraqi
state,” wrote Fakri Karim, editor of the newspaper Al Mada, this week.
Those strikes, he said, resulted in only “more misery and
impoverishment, and the disintegration of the social fabric.” He added,
“What the regime won was more indulging in the humiliation of citizens,
and the starving and flattening of their aspirations.”
And even some Iraqi Sunnis, who otherwise are rooting for a rebel
victory in Syria, see potential American involvement as only adding to
the chaos, in Syria and in Iraq.
“If Syria is bombed, it means things will get worse in Iraq,” said Adbul
al-Adhami, 56, a Sunni businessman in Baghdad. “The Shiite militias
will threaten any American interest in Iraq.”
The State Department, meanwhile, said Thursday that terrorist activity
and violence in Iraq was “at levels unseen since 2008,” and updated its travel warning to Americans.
“U.S. citizens in Iraq remain at high risk for kidnapping and terrorist violence,” it said.
Sunnis also say that any military action against Mr. Assad would weaken
him and strengthen the rebels — an outcome they ostensibly desire. But
they worry about the consequences, too, saying it could ricochet back to
Iraq by hardening the line taken by the Shiite prime minister, Nuri
Kamal al-Maliki, and resurgent Shiite militias here, against Iraq’s
Sunni population.
Already, with the rise in violence here perpetuated by Sunni extremists,
Mr. Maliki’s security forces have cracked down on Sunni areas,
arresting hundreds, according to activist groups, with no ties to
terrorism. Shiite militias, in turn, have remobilized, and in some areas
have recently been blamed for displacing large numbers of Sunnis.
“Bombing Bashar will increase the hatred from Maliki and his militias
against the Sunnis in Iraq as revenge,” said Noor Hammid, 32, a
schoolteacher who lives in a Sunni district of Baghdad. “Shiites will
feel that they lost their fight in Syria, which will cut the Shiite
chain of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.”
American diplomats here also worry that if their government attacks
Syria, the effect will be to aggravate the already tense relationship
between Iraq and the United States.
When the Syrian uprising turned violent more than two years ago,
American officials here, trying to nurture a new relationship based on
diplomatic ties with a country emerging from a long occupation, pushed
the Iraqis to see the conflict in Syria as they did: that the rebels
represented the democratic aspirations of the people and that Mr. Assad
must go.
As Qaeda-allied rebels took on a growing role in Syria, that case became
harder to make. And while the Iraqi government has maintained in public
that it is neutral on Syria, and wishes only for a political solution,
the reality is that the Shiite ruling class here is rooting for an Assad
victory.
Last week, as the debate over possible military strikes on Syria
intensified in Washington, Mr. Maliki met here with the American
ambassador, Robert S. Beecroft, to voice his opposition.
Afterward, in an interview, Ali al-Mousawi, Mr. Maliki’s spokesman, summarized the exchange.
“We told him that such action, as we see it, will not help the Syrian
people, and that the regime in Syria will not be affected by such a
strike,” said Mr. Mousawi. “But Assad may gain more benefits, support
and legitimacy. Therefore, we think that the biggest losers are going to
be the people of Syria and the neighboring countries.”
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário