|
IRAQ: What went wrong?
(Analysis and Perspective)
Girish Bhaskar
The recent war in Iraq is being
hailed as the swiftest military victory in history.
The war was over in six weeks. Realistically,
it was a one sided war. America possessed all
the high tech weaponry and Iraqi air defense system
was thoroughly decimated by the relentless attack
by coalition forces over a period of ten years.
The Iraqi armed forces surrendered en mass rather
than put up a fight. On May 1st President George
W Bush declared victory and thanked the American
military for freeing Iraqis from the tyranny of
Saddam Hussein. But the developments in Iraq since
then have given Americans pause.
The US attack on Iraq was initiated based on controversial
Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike. Hawkish administration
officials including Vice President Dick Cheney,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz were the lead architects
of this foreign policy. Conservative columnists
have been spreading disinformation to fit the
agenda. Writing in Wall Street Journal, editor
emeritus, Robert Bartley opined, " I continue
to believe it 's likely that Saddam Hussein was
complicit in the airline hijackings, but lay that
aside. No serious observer can believe that we
would have invaded Iraq if there had been no hijacking".
Earlier he tried to connect Iraq with the anthrax
attack on US in '01. The problem with the above
assertions is that the US intelligence agencies
could not find any shred of evidence to such links.
Great Britain and US went to Iraq against the
wishes of the United Nations. The main reason
given for going to war in Iraq was the American
and British Intelligence reports suggesting Saddam
Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
(WMD). This included large quantities of biological,
chemical and nuclear weapons. A case was made
that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the free
world. Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a
graphic picture of the locations were these weapons
are made and stored. But four and a half months
after the war, large group of American weapons
inspectors could not even find a trace of WMD.
How could this have happened? There are a few
theories swirling around this enigma. 1) Saddam
Hussein was exaggerating his possession of WMD.
It is clear that Saddam possessed large quantities
of Chemical and biological weapons at the time
of the first Gulf war ('91) all of which were
destroyed by the UN weapons inspectors. 2) Bush
administration and Blair Government were exaggerating
the grave threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Saddam
was seen as a threat to peace in the Middle East
and a decision was made at the highest levels
of Government that he must go. Either go voluntarily
or be removed from power 3) the intelligence community
did not know for sure the WMD capabilities of
Saddam Hussein. Giving credibility to this reasoning
is that the intelligence community could not predict
the collapse of the Soviet Union or the 9/11 attacks
on '01 in US. The truth is likely to be all of
the above.
It is embarrassing for the US administration,
which went to war to find weapons of mass destruction
to now resort to words of mass distortion (WMD).
To defend its position the administration now
says, it does not matter whether we find weapons
of mass destruction. Saddam is gone from his tyrannical
power and Iraqis are free. Before going to war,
the world community urged caution. Pope John Paul
weighed in to prevent what he called an "immoral
" war. But by then President Bush had made
up his mind and declared UN irrelevant and could
not delay any more because of the impending desert
heat.
Immediately after the war, there
was an opportunity for the global community to
patch up the bitter differences and work together
to rebuild Iraq. But American intransigence prevented
such an out come. The US fully wanted to control
the military and the political process in Iraq.
This in essence gave control of the Iraqi oil
and the reconstruction of Iraq to US companies.
Lucrative contract to rebuild the oil fields went
Kellogg Brown and Root for $2 billion. Other construction
contract went to Bechtel Corporation for $800
million. A contract for reforming the Iraqi school
system went to a Washington DC company (64 million).
The belief then was Iraqi oil production will
soon reach its peak level and it will be able
to pay for the developments in Iraq. But things
did not pan out as the administration managers
had hoped for. Initial sporadic attacks were dismissed
as the work of disgruntled Saddam followers. Then
began to emerge a pattern of systematic, sustained
attacks against the US and British forces. The
hit and run operations appeared like Guerrilla
attacks. The inchoate guerrilla movement is likely
to gather momentum in the coming months.
Iraq today is a lawless society.
There is no effective police force. And the coalition
forces disbanded Saddams armed forces immediately
after the war. Those opposing the US presence
in Iraq bombed Jordanian Embassy, United Nations
base in Baghdad and Imam Ali shrine in the Shiite
Muslim holy city of Najaf. There is no reason
to believe that the guerrilla attacks will cease
any time soon. The opposition building in Iraq
appears to be from Saddam remnants and disparate
groups from neighboring countries. There is no
better theatre than Iraq for the Al - Qaeda. Saddam
remnants to take on the Americans and passionate
Islamic Jihadis from the Islamic world do the
same. Iraq has long borders with Iran, Saudi Arabia
and Syria. Virulent anti American sentiments prevail
in these countries. It is hard to prevent militants
entering Iraq through these porous borders. How
the events in Iraq will shape in the ensuing months
to a large extent depends on one country: Iran.
With sixty percent of the Iraqi population professing
Shiite Islam, Iran holds considerable sway on
this population. The fact that Iran does not have
diplomatic relations with US and Iran's quest
to develop atomic weapons will only complicate
the murky situation in the coming months.
There are many other imponderables
that would affect the dynamics in Iraq. Already
a chorus of vehement protests, of the way the
US administration is managing the events in Iraq,
by the democratic presidential candidates have
put the administration on the defensive. Only
a few months ago, President Bush appeared invincible.
Riding high after the war, his job approval rating
peaked 79%. Today it has dropped to 52%. The US
economy coming out of recession has not produced
any new jobs. Budget deficit is expected to grow
to $475 billion. Father Bush won the first Gulf
war with flying colors. But as the economy soured,
so did his reelection chances. Increasing casualties
to US forces in Iraq and the slow recovery of
the economy make President Bush appear vulnerable.
The sooner the management of the
country is entrusted with the Iraqis, the better
for the peace in the region. Experts have suggested
American presence is needed for at least four
years. Even though US is now appealing to UN members
to step in to contribute money and manpower, the
events in the past few weeks have made UN members
reticent. UN members will balk at the idea of
Americans controlling the military and political
power in Iraq.
As the presidential election heats
up in the ensuing months, President Bush's Iraq
policy will come under close scrutiny. There is
a tendency to depict the Iraq mess, as spat between
conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats.
The emphasis on weapons of mass destruction is
now supplanted by war on global terrorism, of
which "Iraq has suddenly emerged as the epicenter".
What is at stake here is the credibility of the
United States and its long cherished idealism.
Perhaps the American initiative
in Iraq is part of a new political strategy in
Washington to herald an era of democracy to the
volatile Middle East region. But no one knows
for sure how lengthy such an adventure will be.
Writing a book review on Lord Curson, the celebrated
British Viceroy in India from 1899 - 1905, David
Gilmore an American wrote "All those Americans
who wish to elevate their country from a republic
to an empire should read this book, which superbly
illuminates the opportunities, the glories and
the pitfalls of such an endeavor". The analogy
between India then and Iraq today seems specious.
Iraq now has an educated populace and an incipient
organized armed resistance movement, which will
make American efforts difficult.
|
