Aug. 15, 2004 20:34 | Updated Aug. 15, 2004 21:47Iraq's Arafat...

Aug. 15, 2004 20:34 | Updated Aug. 15, 2004 21:47
Iraq's Arafat


What is a country to do when it has tried to finesse its way out of a military conflict, only to be faced with a stronger, more-entrenched enemy? Let us just say that we have sympathy with the US-Iraqi dilemma over terrorist-cum-cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

The Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, has been turning up the heat on Sadr's stronghold in Najaf. Following American bombings from the air and some fighting on the ground, Allawi called off a major American ground offensive to "clear" Sadr's militia, preferring to have Iraqi troops lead the fight.

Aside from the fighting peppered with cease-fires and terrorists hiding behind civilians and in mosques, what made all this look especially familiar to Israeli eyes was the bombing of Sadr's house. This reminds us of the ever-tightening circles drawn around Yasser Arafat's Mukata headquarters, leading to the Palestinian leader's essential imprisonment.

The analogy between Arafat and Sadr is obviously an imperfect one. Though Arafat has embraced the path of terror that he claimed to have forsworn, he did so not as a renegade but as a leader anointed, however undemocratically, by his own people and the international community. Sadr is an offshoot who is tactically and strategically at odds with the recognized leader of Iraqi Shi'ites, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, not to mention the interim Iraqi government.

The similarity lies in the fact that Sadr, though from a lesser position of power, stands astride the future of Iraqis the way Arafat thwarts fundamental change for Palestinians. If Sadr's militia is not crushed, Allawi knows that the prospects for a secular Shi'ite-led Iraqi democracy may be threatened not only by Iranian-style clerical rule, but by Ba'athist remnants and perhaps even by Kurdish separatists.

The tactical dilemma posed by Sadr is also familiar. Our government has found that, as Arafat's realm was limited to a few rooms in the Mukata, Israel succeeded in demonstrating both how much power it had over Arafat and its own powerlessness to impose a decisive conclusion. By the same token, bombing Sadr's house and even wounding him does not necessarily mean that he is closer to being brought to justice, as the US promised would happen four months ago.

We have learned, largely at America's knee, a tightening of the noose is not the same as capturing the quarry. In the more than two years since President George W. Bush called for a new Palestinian leadership, more and more Palestinians, Europeans, and Israelis have come to agree that Arafat is hopelessly corrupt and will neither share power nor reach any fundamental agreement with Israel.

Yet Arafat continues to be sustained by Palestinian taxes collected and remitted to him by Israel, European aid, and American (and perhaps even Israeli) disinterest in facing the consequences of his removal.

The case of Arafat should be seen as a cautionary tale for those who believe that Sadr can be hemmed in, deterred, or coopted. An Iraqi judge has issued a warrant for Sadr's arrest, for the murder of a prominent moderate Shi'ite cleric just after the fall of Saddam last year. The new Iraq is supposed to be about freedom and democracy, the rule of law, and an end to terror – both against Iraqis and abroad. Sadr stands for the opposite of all that.

Allawi seems to have come to the conclusion that, as difficult as confronting Sadr is now (including the danger of undermining his own popularity), the dangers of not doing so are much greater.

The road to something resembling democracy in Iraq is likely to be a rocky one. The temporary closure of the offices of the Arabic Al-Jazeera network and the questionable charges levelled against Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi, each of which smack of the silencing of free speech and political rivalry, do not bode well for the future.

It is worth distinguishing, however, between the missteps that can be corrected and existential threats to the prospects for a better future in Iraq and the region. Though it may take some time for violent threats, like Sadr and the remnants of Saddam's regime, to be defeated, this is the only foundation on which other elements of democracy can be built. The price of avoiding such difficult confrontations, as Israelis have only slowly and perhaps not fully realized, tends to be even higher.