Allan Topol is a partner in a large Washington-based international law firm. He has a science and engineering degree from Carnegie Mellon, and a law degree from Yale University. For almost 40 years, he has been involved in issues at the height of the Washington power structure.
He is also a national bestselling novelist, using the thriller genre to explore international geopolitical and military issues. His new novel, ENEMY OF MY ENEMY, dealing with an American pilot shot down over Eastern Turkey and Russian nuclear weapons, was released February 1, 2005.
His 2001 novel, SPY DANCE, is about a former CIA agent on the run and Saudi Arabian oil. His 2003 novel, DARK AMBITION, deals with the corruption of power in Washington and China's threatening posture toward Taiwan. In January 2004, his new novel CONSPIRACY was released dealing with a foreign leader's attempt to influence an American presidential election and the possibility of renewed militarism in Japan.
Allan Topol contact info:
Allan Topol Website
Email Allan Topol
Allan Topol Books:
Spy Dance
Dark Ambition
Conspiracy
Allan Topol Archives
Military Opinions Index
Discussion
Board
Have an opinion on this article? Sound off.
|
|
|
|
|
Your Two Cents
Submit your stories, news items, or a benefits update -- and help Military.com bring the best, most important stories to your fellow servicemembers, veterans, and family members. Contribute here
|
|
|
August 17, 2005
[Have an opinion about the issues discussed in this column? Sound
off here.]
If and when a constitution is agreed upon in Baghdad, it will not mean that a single democratic nation will rise from the ashes of Saddam Hussein's police state. The signs are already crystal clear. Fissure into separate Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish entities is inevitable.
For months, the words federalism and autonomy have been euphemisms for this process. The United States has been pushing hard, prodding the constitutional draftsmen to insist on unity. We've been like the builders of a sea wall, resisting the incursion of the waves. All of that was brought home with a vengeance last week with a statement from one of Iraq's most powerful Shiite politicians.
Abdul al Hakim threw a live grenade on the table as the constitution drafting process was nearing its completion. In a speech, Hakim supported other Shiite leaders demanding autonomy for southern Iraq. This region, inhabited almost exclusively by Shiites, also happens to be the locale of about eighty percent of the country's oil.
In view of Hakim's words, the constitution will not be worth the paper it's written on. It seems likely that the demands for southern Shiite autonomy will continue in the weeks and months ahead. If Hakim's position becomes the dominant view of the Shiites, who are about sixty percent of the population, then the result will not be a single democratic Iraq as the Bush administration hopes. At best, there will be a federation of autonomous regions, some controlled by Shiites, others by Sunnis and still others by Kurds. All of this will be accompanied by endless squabbling over oil revenues. At worst, there will be three nations and a civil war. Sounds like the breakup of Yugoslavia all over again.
Sunni leaders objected to Hakim's demand and decried the idea of a confederation, which would lead to a break up of Iraq. They insisted that they want to “preserve the unity of Iraq.” There is amore than a little irony to the Sunnis' position. They were the ones who boycotted the election, and initially, the constitutional process. It is from their ranks that most of the insurgents have come.
Officials in Washington are equally horrified by the prospect raised by Hakim's words. But it's time to be realistic. Iraq was never a single democratic country. It consisted of three groups of people, who have hated each other for centuries, held together by a colonial ruler or a tyrannical despot.
In addition to historical animosity, there are fundamental differences dividing the three communities. The Kurds are far more secular and resisting a central role for Islam. The Shiites are demanding a theocracy. The Sunnis have been the upper class, but they don't have the oil.
If the inevitable occurs and the country fragments, there will be endless hand wringing in Washington. Critics of the Bush administration will once again unsheathe their stilettos, this time to claim that the United States destroyed a perfectly sound and viable country. This is total rot. Preemptively, the point should be made that terror was the mortar holding the Iraqi country together.
The disintegration of Iraq will be fraught with peril for the United States. The oil rich Shiite south is likely to be a close allay of Iran. Baghdad will be the source of constant skirmishes as Jerusalem has been.
There is a valuable lesson, which has been repeated over and over again in the last sixty years, but we never seem to get it. Whether it's the Indian subcontinent, Cypress, Israel, Lebanon, or Yugoslavia, the conclusion is the same. People divided by ethnicity or religion, with deep-seated hatreds, will not agree to live together peacefully in the same political entity.
This conclusion may not be PC, but it is true. Naively, we assume that because Irish and Italians in Boston, and other ethnic groups in American cities learned to live peacefully together it will happen in places like Iraq. It won't!
The solution on the Indian subcontinent is two states: Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. In Israel, Prime Minister Sharon has seen the light. He's building a fence on the west bank and removing the Jews from Gaza.
The disintegration of Iraq won't happen overnight. Right now the U.S. military is the glue holding the country together. It may work as long as we're there, although even that's questionable. Once we leave the cracks will turn into fissures, then a full-scale division.
 Email
this page to friends RSS feed
© 2005 Allan Topol. All opinions expressed
in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those
of Military.com.
|
