Iraq Invasion – Stopping Saddam or Stopping the Islamic Revival? 3

We will without doubt be hearing how the Iraq Invasion in 2003 was a failure and mismanagement by Tony Blair now that the Chilcot Report has affirmed what we already knew was an unfounded case for WMD’s. However, this article will give you an entirely different narrative to what you may find on the mainstream news channels and papers.

The Iraq Invasion was a failure only in terms of establishing Iraq as the model democratic nation in the Middle East for the rest of the nearby Muslim countries to follow suit, and this was undoubtedly “Plan A” for Iraq under the Greater Middle East Initiative of 2004. However, this does not mean there was not a “Plan B”. In fact when John Kerry mentioned Plan B for Syria he was not only speaking of Syria but rather a Plan B in moving towards Plan A, democratisation and secularisation of the Middle East.

The Islamic sentiment during the latter years of Saddam’s reign was strong and this is evident from the fact that he used this sentiment a number of times, whether that be falsely claiming that he is a descendent of the Prophet ﷺ or filling his speeches with references to the Qur’an. The only reason one would feel obliged to ride the Islamic wave would be due to the fact the people held Islam as more than just a mere religion. Especially when we know that the Ba’ath party was not born on religious grounds but on a secular one.

If Saddam had stepped down without a fight and left U.S. and Britain to install a new leader, they would have undeniably had to replace him with a leader that called for Islam. This is due to the fact the peoples thoughts and emotions were leaning towards Islam at this time.

This is definitely apparent when we look at the way in which Saddam held to power. He used government money to promote mandatory Qur’an studies in school. He built training centres for Imams including Saddam University of Islamic Studies. Radio stations were being dedicated to airing Qur’anic lessons and alcohol banned in restaurants. Ba’ath party members were made to take courses in Qur’an and Saddam was being shown in prayer in the media. There was a rise in mosque attendance and more women began to dress more modestly – especially  considering the fact that Baghdad was the most secular of all the surrounding areas before. With all of these actions he felt that the population would support him from any incoming foreign invasion or occupation.

Plan B is in fact the steps preceding Plan A. Plan B is to engulf the Middle East in bloody sectarian conflict whereby a Muslim is recognised based on their affiliations to a certain sect (Shia, Sunni) rather than their religion. It is to partition the Middle East with more than just a mere line in the sand, but rather a deep bloody scar that will not heal with time.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that:

“what we’re seeing here in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one.” 

They wish for a New Middle East that will not see Islam as its solution because Islam will be seen as something barbaric and unable to govern, as is the case with post-Iraq ISIS.  They wish to show that political parties that have any connection to Islam are simply incapable of handling the power and with one fell swoop can be destroyed.

It is through destruction and chaos that the West will start to prop-up and fund secular democratic groups as an alternative to the mayhem that they have endured. They hope that the majority would seek stability and safety rather than revolutions and uprisings.

It was not a failure for the West in Iraq but a pre-requisite to entering the Middle East, inserting their influence and averting the Islamic revival which would unmistakably challenge their dominance at a world stage.

The Chilcot Inquiry will later be seen as a waste of public money and a way to appease the mass that were against the war from the very beginning. They wish to pull the wool over the peoples eyes, so that the real motive is left unrevealed. It is surely easier to lay the blame on one individual rather than the ideology itself.

This article featured on

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

3 thoughts on “Iraq Invasion – Stopping Saddam or Stopping the Islamic Revival?

  • Abu Khalil

    تقبل الله منا ومنكم صالح الأعمال وحقق آمالنا.
    Interesting post although when you think about it there needs to be a physical activity on the ground that moves people towards Islam.

    If I’m correct in my assumption before the demise of the many dictators in the Muslim world the level of change that pushes people toward Islam was more of a reaction than a result of an interaction of thoughts.

    The Iraqis today are probably bitter because of what they’ve lost materially but when you talk to most of them their alternative to their current life today is to be back to life with saddam!

    I wonder if also part of the major plans is to isolate the use of public resources to fund the coming implementation of these plans in the Middle East using Saudi oil?

    The government has introduced measures to isolate the public from using oil income which at the moment is generating low revenue and foreign policy in the western world has always been financed through the use of muslim resources, hence you’ll find the chilcot thing didn’t not mention the billions of dollars squandered and never trickled to the public!

    As Muslims when we look at history we can see how the events that took place can help us shape our future assuming we are in touch with that aspect of our belief. For example, the situation between the Aus and the Khazraj brought them to Islam which gave them a positive role to play within its society.

    I’m not saying that we need to create the same environment, the environment already exists but perhaps when we focus on places that are not only scathing with animosity toward one another and filled with ideas foreign from Islam change can be less reactionary.

    • Kam

      Salaam Abu Khalil,

      I agree that certain actions by the West had caused a reaction in the Muslim Ummah, especially with 9/11.

      And the demise of many of the leaders in the Muslim world was manufactured by the West under the term the ‘Arab Spring’. The youth movements were mobilised by the West and the media stations targeted certain individuals.

      However, the fact that the West are having to make these changes are signs that they are weary of the revival and therefore a country in turmoil is better than a country in prosperity.

      Prosperity allows the Muslims to educate themselves and turn to Islam whereas turmoil leaves them busy seeking safety, shelter and food – not to mention stoking sectarianism for future destruction.

      • Abu Khalil

        You might be right brother who knows what’s to come from Yemen for example because all the countries in the gulf around are seeped in prosperity and in terms of effort they (Yemenis) are more susceptible to the call.

        That’s not to say that the Muslims in the other countries are blind to what’s happening.

        All of them point out the contradictions in how the current situation in the us where the cops take out the blacks while the us are playing in the Middle East getting one group to take out the other group.

        Like the Quraish, some of these people can only be won over when they see the spoils of Islam , unfortunately.

        And there’s nothing wrong with that.

        But the current situation is terrible!