The next regime in Iraq is, eh, the Ba'ath party?

A few thousand top trained soldiers from the old regime of course, fail to win over the Americans in Iraq. But they may not need that either. For how long will Washington keep 130.000 soldiers in its experimental Middle East laboratory? And how long will they have any forces there at all?

The exit strategy is ready. Now the whole process is turned upside down. Democracy should not be introduced in logical stages where the constitution comes first and the elections afterwards. Instead, it will be introduced by decree, on July 1 next year. Then the Americans will "end their occupation." Power will be left to a provisional government which will then introduce democracy.

If they bother. Or can.

The new strategy means that the civilian American administration under the leadership of L. Paul Bremer 3rd (!) Is withdrawn. But the soldiers will stay, at least some of them. From July 1, they will be "invited" by the new Iraqi government. It is reminiscent of the satellite states of Eastern Europe in the 50s and 60s, whose governments "invited" the Soviets both in time and out of time.

How many soldiers will remain in Iraq after July 1, and for how long? Nothing is said and no one knows. But another certainty lies deep within the Iraqi people: when the Americans are out, nothing prevents Saddam from being inside. Who can stop him then?

Leviathan on camp feet

OK. History never repeats itself, maybe not even as a farce. For Saddam Hussein is possibly a lost force. At least it is certain that his monster sons have died and that both the one and the other in the "deck" have been arrested.

But that's theory. For the Iraqis who are on the ground in their own country, the reality is quite different. For what they see is that the Americans are on their way out and that the interim government has no power to take over. And then it's just a matter of who goes in and fills the vacuum.

It is important to stick to one aspect. A majority of Iraqis had no intention of fighting the invasion forces when the country was stormed in March. They may not have been overly excited, but not explicitly hostile.

Another point that is at least as important: a majority of Iraqis want the Americans to stay. Opinion polls conducted in Baghdad show that six out of ten fear a premature US withdrawal. Shia Muslims in the south have failed to respond to religious hate propaganda that has prompted them to fight against the unfaithful. The Kurds in the north have embraced the Americans from the first moment.

Still, it went wrong, not because of dissatisfied Iraqis who suddenly stormed out with weapons in hand, aimed at the occupying forces. It went wrong because "someone" from the old regime – with or without terrorists in its midst – chose to start the war again. In recent days, the low-intensity war and terror have grown into a classic military confrontation in which the Americans, for the first time since April 9, use satellite-guided missiles against the enemy.

It is an old story how Ba'athist-les-terrorists, or vice versa, succeeded in their ingenious strategy against the UN, the Red Cross and the United States' allies. It became too dangerous on the ground in Iraq, and the latest is that Japan and South Korea have also slammed the door on the United States.

It's starting to get too hot around the ears in the US as well. It started to get hotter already this summer, before the shooting down of helicopters started. Now the United States is desperately looking for an opening. Therefore, democracy per. decree.

From being ambivalently skeptical, bordering on reluctantly hopeful, Iraqis are now dripping with contempt when talking about the world's last superpower. For Leviathan on clay feet can obviously only be a superpower two years at a time, in between elections, to put it that way. By July 1, the Americans will have done what they swore they would not do: leave the Iraqis with the hot potato in their lap.

Those who do not mind burning themselves will pick it up.

The dilemma of memories

One could imagine a slightly different development in Iraq. For what would the Iraqis have done, faced with the threat of a new Ba'ath dictatorship, if they had been sure that the Americans intended to finish the job?

On the one hand: an occupation regime that behaves completely differently than the Iraqis had thought; in line with the ideas of notorious Colonel Bryan P. McCoy, in place as early as March: “War is a cruel thing. The crueler it gets, the faster it will be over. "This war will be over when the flies wander into the eyeballs of the last one who defended Saddam Hussein."

War is a dirty affair, and Daham Kassim in the city of Nassiriya knows it well. It was March 25…

“I was going to take my wife and four children out of town. At the last bridge before the desert, the Americans stood with their tanks. I did not see them until I was 60 meters away. I see my wife being hit first, in the chest, in the legs and in the arms. But she's not dead. I am also struck; in the chest and in the legs I too. Mawra at nine and Zehra at three are already dead. Mohammed at six dies five minutes later. My last living child, Zainab, five, is being transported to a military hospital where she will undergo surgery. She survives the wounds, but dies of cold the same night. We had been thrown out of bed in the hospital and had to lie in the open air. We did not even get a blanket. ”

"The worst," Daham told the French newspaper Le Monde, with 'preferred face, so that he will not break out in hulking,' 'was that neither my wife nor I could hold her when she died. We were unable to move due to our own injuries. "

The occupation was definitely different from what the Iraqis expected.

On the other hand: the memories of a genocide regime trying to return to power; who take up arms against the occupiers and their collaborators and who do everything for the people to believe that they are on their way back. Who, if any, would one support?

There are small signs that many would volunteer for the occupying forces, based on the thesis: first baath, then the United States. The information is uncertain because it is based on US sources. But never have so many Iraqis taken on security duties as in recent weeks, it is said from Bremer's staff. It has almost exploded, says Coalition Provisional Authority to American newspapers.

It's a thought experiment, what would happen if… But as usual, the United States has started sawing over the branch they are sitting on. Because now they're going out. And if there is one thing a people do not dare, it is to help an occupation regime that will surrender afterwards. But why can't Iraqis trust the United States when they say they "want to stay in Iraq as long as necessary?"

Cracks in the hood

Because there is no reason to trust them. History speaks against the Americans. It is only ten years since they ran off with their tails between their legs from another country because 18 small soldiers had been pulled dead through the mud in Mogadishu.

The country was Somalia, and the year was 1993.

Right from the start; from March when the war slowly ate up through the country, the Iraqis have lighted with lights and lanterns for signs of cracks in the hood. They have found them too. A politician there. A senator there. A random statement from a defense minister. An unfortunate remark from a president.

The unrest turned into doubts that turned into resignation or anger. The conclusion was clear early on: it was not at all certain that the United States had the will to defeat Saddam and his forces militarily. It was also not certain that they had the ability or the will to crush all the country's terrorists, imprison those who should be imprisoned, put in place a capable regime and leave behind a country where harmony prevailed and democracy was secured.

Eventually, the resignation and the mind turned to certain knowledge: the Americans wanted to send the Iraq file into cyberspace without even making sure that the UN took over in the vacuum that would surely follow.

Instead, the United States relied on the interim government; the so-called governing council, which has fallen behind the Americans with its constant attempts to transfer power to itself. We can, says the steering council, take responsibility for the security of this country. Leave things to us, and all will be well.

This is the same line that France has taken. And that has made it easy for Americans. Now they can give in and leave the building of democracy to the super-council of exiled Iraqis and Muslim leaders they have installed. It should be done as follows:

A preliminary constitution for Iraq will be drawn up. A Legislative Assembly will then be established, appointed by the local councils that were once appointed by the United States. This "parliament" will then put together a provisional government. The next step will be to elect a Constituent Assembly, something the people will do. It is a gift package for Shia Muslims, which will have a far greater influence in a Constituent Assembly elected by the people rather than by the Americans, since Shia Muslims make up 60 percent of the Iraqi population.

Formally, the end result of this process is that the steering council ceases to exist. But it gives low odds to predict that the men and women in this council will more or less go straight into the provisional government. Not least because the ethnic and religious solitaire in the steering committee is neatly finished.

And after that? Done – come and dry! Democracy has been introduced. There will not even be a defeat for the United States, because they just want to say that "we did what we came for." And besides: we did what the world wanted us to do: we withdrew.

The victors not only type the story. They define it too. The charges will, of course, hail; that the United States created a civil war in Iraq and a new "safe haven" for terrorists. Men "who cares." And far more important: Who wants the real power in the country?

The outer edges of the variable

The variable is the number of American soldiers. 130.000 soldiers: The fighting between the occupying forces and the Ba'athists is approaching a real war. The puppet government has the formal power, but rests on American bayonets.

Such a war does not need to be clarified. It can – theoretically – last for decades because the previous regime is not strong enough to win, and because the United States is not strong enough to crush the opposition.

It has not happened in history yet that a great power has won over a guerrilla. Sometimes the guerrillas have won over the great power, but that is only because the price for the superior party has become too high; not that it has necessarily lost militarily.

This is exactly the strategy that Saddam and his "old comrade" are pursuing. And it works. For the paradox is that the Americans hardly lose people on the ground in Iraq at all, compared to other wars. (In Vietnam, 60.000 men went) But it is already beginning political the price to get too high.

And then you are at the other outer edge of the variable. 0 soldiers: Option A: The strongest party in Iraq takes power. It is the Ba'ath party, with its effective organization, its political base in the Sunni triangle, and its loyal security forces.

Option B: There will be a civil war. Simply; between one or more parties.

And who wins such a war? Not the interim government, with its like-minded politicians. Not the Shiites, with their lack of coordination. Not the Kurds, who are not interested in the rest of Iraq. Not the Sunnis – in and of themselves; men baath party.

The story is a difficult thing. Perhaps developments in Iraq will take a completely different path. The point is that the Iraqis thinking that this is how it can go. And it is dramatic for the relationship between a people and an occupation regime.