High-Stakes Showdown In Fallujah

Fenton: Battle Has Major Ramifications For Future Of Iraq

(CBS)  Tom Fenton, in his fourth decade with CBS News, has been the network's Senior European Correspondent since 1979. He comments on international events from his "Listening Post" in London, and other parts of the world as well.

---

The battle of Fallujah is more than an operation to put down a local insurgency. It is a turning point in the struggle by the United States and the Interim Iraqi Government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to consolidate the country and hold peaceful elections.

It is the first major show of force since the United States (at least formally) turned over control of the country to the interim government. As such, it is being watched by all the major players, inside Iraq and in the region, as a clue to the future.

Fallujah has been more than a haven for insurgents. It sits astride the route between Iraq’s western border and Baghdad, a major supply line for rebel fighters and material. Its tactical importance is great, but its symbolic importance is even greater.

Local tribal leaders throughout Iraq will see it as an indication of the determination of the American and coalition forces to re-establish order before the crucial January elections.

Control of Iraq’s fractious population is the key to the future. Iraq is an amalgam of tribal and religious groups that Saddam Hussein held together by brute force and terror. Allawi also believes that force is needed to keep the country from falling apart.

The fragmentation of Iraq is a clear and present danger. Since the fall of Saddam, three main groups have emerged as the key players, each with its own subdivisions and with a different vision of the future of Iraq.

In the north, the Kurds are determined not to relinquish the local autonomy they enjoyed during the 1990s, and some of their leaders are pushing for total independence.

In the south, the Shiite community – which makes up 80 percent of the population – will settle for nothing less than control of the country through democratic elections.

And squeezed between them in the "Sunni Triangle," where the Sunnis who used to run the country under Saddam are reluctant to accept either Shiite domination or Kurdish autonomy. Most of Iraq’s oil wealth lies in the Kurdish north and Shiite south.

What are the chances of Iraq holding together as a united country? That will depend to a large extent on whether rebellious areas such as Fallujuh can be permanently pacified.

"Pacification" is a two-edged sword. Heavy-handed tactics by American troops will undoubtedly increase Iraqi resentment of the occupation, but allowing local insurgencies to fester also encourages more rebellion. The Bush administration sees the answer as the creation of Iraqi police and military forces to take over control of the country. It is important for the United States to show that it intends to leave the country as soon as Iraqi security arrangements are in place.

In the meantime, the problem is complicated by the fact that Iraq’s neighbors have an interest in the outcome of the struggle. Iraq’s borders are porous. Some of the tribal lands in the south extend into Syria and Saudi Arabia. The resistance of towns such as Fallujah has been a rallying cry for anti-American Arab nationalists throughout the Middle East.

And, let’s face it, few of the despotic Arab states in the region, who control their own restive populations through undemocratic means, will be cheering on the sidelines if Iraq really does become the first truly democratic Arab state in the Middle East.