Fallujah? Where's that?

I am about to begin my final term at university and cannot stop thinking about the ominous dissertation. For months I have been unsettled with my topic of ‘International Aid against Localised Aid and its Effect on Conflict Resolution’, partly due to this blog. Evidently, aid is a factor in conflict resolution but I wanted to write a dissertation which could illustrate how to resolve conflict in a state and then maybe the world. Yes, that is a pretty big task (and I am becoming slightly insane over it) but I feel that conflict has a framework just like any other political process. Each community must be assessed on its individual characteristics but most sources and resolutions of conflict will be apparent within its turmoil. Should conflict be resolved? That is a question for another day but it definitely needs answering.

However, with conflict dominating our news channels every day I thought I would have a go at writing a document that hopes to offer a framework for resolving it. It will not be the final answer, but maybe it will offer a step for another to offer a resolution.

So, that is the update on what I am up to, a warning to expect some more articles based on this theme and a plea for any point of views on the matter. All opinions welcome.

To kick start this attempt Iraq offers a perfect example.

Fallujah is Oh So Close.

Recently, the city of Fallujah has been working itself on to every news channel across the world. I know what you are thinking, it is a random city in Iraq that some insurgents have taken over. We have heard it all before. Stop. This city is only one hour’s drive from Baghdad. It is like insurgents taking over Oxford if it was a few miles near to London... that is too close.

Tad small, I would suggest googling it yourself if you are that interested!

The Centre

Utilising Clausewitz’s approach we can conclude that Baghdad is the centre of Iraq and that the centre of a state should be its safest region? It is after all the main residence of government officials and its’security forces. Subsequently, it is worrying that insurgents can strike at Baghdad, with over 19 killed on Sunday in bomb attacks, and occupy the south part of a city an hour away.

‘Mission Accomplished in Iraq’ said George Bush. I think not, as security in the region reaches a new low.

So why Fallujah? And what can be done to resolve the conflict?

Why?

Writing out ‘why Fallujah?' would take some time so succinctly it is the ‘Jerusalem’ of Iraq and symbol of resistance for all Sunni Arabs. Recently, the Shia minority government arrested a Sunni MP in the region and broke up the protest camp in Ramadi, seen as the ‘headquarters for the leadership of al-Qaeda’. This led Sunni tribesmen to begin working with al-Qaeda to bring down the government. So, the government naturally decides that bombarding Fallujah, the ‘Jerusalem’ and the ‘city of mosques and minarets’, is the best course of action.

'The City of Mosques and Minarets'

I spy with my political eye something beginning with... sectarian violence.

It is not a game, it is the conceivable future. Fueling the conflict is a majority/minority divide.

The Shias are the ruling party but before the Sunnis ruled under Saddam Hussein. This change in government fuels a feeling that all peaceful opportunities to effect change and gain a share of the economic benefits are blocked so they resort to violence, particularly as they regard the balance of power within the society as unstable. Violence is currently the language of diplomacy.

It is partly based on the truth and predominately based on assumption.

America

When Iraq is discussed America's controversial war is usually the second topic. However, I am going to be controversial. 

With regard to Fallujah the Americans did something right, in fact they hit it on the nail. Instead of fighting al-Qaeda on their own they fought with the Sunnis against this extremism.  By supporting Sahwa, or Awakening Councils, disturbed by al-Qaeda’s extremist policy and brutal methods, the extremists were pushed back from Baghdad. Perhaps they adopted this policy because Fallujah was the focus of some of the fiercest fighting in Iraq and thus the Americans truly understood the dangers associated with this city. Or they wanted to distract the Sunnis against fighting the Shia. Either way, go Team America!

Fierce fighting in the region gained it particular consideration in American policy.

However, when the Americans left the Shia government stopped supporting the Sahwa enabling al-Qaeda to stir up anti-government resentment and strengthen its position with fighters from the present conflict in Syria. They are almost certainly using non-lethal supplies, discussed in my early blog entitled Syria and the Global Arms Trade, given to them by the West. This is mainly why the West has been reluctant to openly provide arms.

Resolution

Resolving the conflict in this region is not easy. If it was it would not have gone on for this long. Religious differences are cited as serving to prolong violence but are often a channel through which people express their disparity with the current government. Religious differences did not prevent the Americans working with the Sunnis to rid the region of al-Qaeda. Yet, the Shia governments marginalization of the Sunnis will not help the matter. Fullujah may be retaken, but at what cost? How many years of violence will be added by another heavy handed approach. Attempting to separate the Sunnis from al-Qaeda presents an option that has a hope of resolving violence for the long-term and pushing the Sunnis and Shias into political dialogue. Rather then targeting the Sunnis they need to engage them politically and push back al-Qaeda from the centre of Iraq.