|
|
|
By
May 20, coalition forces in Iraq lost 96 men and women. |
On
April 9th, US forces helped Iraqis pull down a statue
of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein which stood guard (in fear and
intimidation, perhaps) over Al-Firdous Square in Central
Baghdad.
On
May 1st, US President George Bush stood atop the
aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in a military flight suit
and announced that the military phase of operations in Iraq had
come to an end, effectively proclaiming that the US was
victorious in its month-old war in Iraq.
By May 20th, however, and within six weeks of the
toppling of the Saddam statue, coalition forces in Iraq lost 96
men and women to deadly combat or accidental death. The victory
was beginning to shape itself into a classic guerilla war with
ambushes, roadside bombs and kidnappings. The media began to
refer to the dreaded (V)ietnam word and the detested (q)uagmire
word.
The
US administration knew fully well it could not repatriate its
troops - to leave Iraq in its current disarray would mean the
war was fought in vain. However, the nearly daily deaths of US
military service personnel would not be tolerated for long by an
increasingly-skeptical American public.
Although
the logical course of action may have pointed to the United
Nations deployment of the blue helmets to police Iraq, the Bush
administration continued to sideline the international body. In
the precursor leading to the invasion of Iraq, a virtual war
ensued between the United Nations and the Bush White House.
International
law and global consensus were side-stepped for national
security. The Bush administration, with its cabal of neo-cons
who had so vehemently chanted the United Nations requiem were
not about to go back into its halls and ask for help.
The
US victory in Iraq began to shape itself into a classic
guerilla war. |
|
Consequently,
on May 22nd, the US announced that it was seeking to
internationalize the presence of troops in Iraq. To
leading Democrats like Richard Byrd of West Virginia, this was
not enough. Many Senators revealed
that they had been receiving emails and letters from some of the
US troops stationed in Iraq, urging a return home. With daily
attacks costing US forces a toll in equipment, human resources
and morale, US military planners were desperately looking for a
way out. With US forces in various military operations around
the world, the chance of relieving troops with a fresh batch
looked relatively slim.
Current
relief efforts for military garrisons in Afghanistan are also
under way. Three thousand eight hundred Canadian troops are due
to take up position in Kabul and the surrounding areas, thereby
lifting some of the pressure on US forces.
On
May 23rd, Poland, a former East Bloc Warsaw Pact
Soviet satellite, publicly announced that it would chip into the
international force and alleviate the burdens the Iraq war is
taking on US forces. Poland formally petitioned support from
other NATO members in helping to lead a European force of 9,200
that includes the Ukraine, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania,
Slovakia, and Romania, as well as countries like Mongolia and
Fiji.
However,
9,200 troops are not nearly enough to help the Americans take a
breather, say military analysts. In fact, the projected number
of 20-30,000 troops is still not enough to relieve the pressure
the US forces face. Currently, there are 175,000 troops in Iraq,
11,000 of which are British, and 2,000 Australian.
The
situation continued to worsen.
|
|
|
Hungarian
soldiers to be deployed in Iraq |
By
the end of June, the US Department of Defense and the Pentagon
had drawn up a list of 70 nations to help “police and
stabilize” Iraq. Most refused outright, with others
stonewalling in an effort to get some trade benefits with the
US. To date, however, 24 countries have made a firm commitment
with a further 12 promising to consider the matter.
It
is worth considering that three of the most significant nations
to commit troops to Iraq joined NATO a mere three years ago,
with another seven of the 24 waiting to join NATO in the coming
years. That these are all former Soviet satellites bartering for
US economic gratitude is not coincidental.
In
early July, newspapers in India reported that the country had
come under considerable pressure from the US to deploy between
11 and 15 thousand troops in Iraq. India stalled. The entire war
effort was highly unpopular in India and the public felt that
sending an army to Iraq would be a de facto awarding of
legitimacy to a war that was fought outside international norms.
Long-time
ally to India, Russia, leaned on India and reminded it that
international law, in addition to India’s long non-aligned
standing in the world, dictate that any commitment from India
should fall within the protectorate of the United Nations.
India
balked and declined the US request.
The
talk of international armies led Iraqi resistance groups to vow
they would destroy all foreign fighters on their soil. “By
God, we will fight and destroy them from which ever country they
come, even the United Nations,” said a statement broadcast on
a popular Arab news channel.
On
July 31st, the Netherlands announced it was sending a
contingent of 1,100 troops to relieve the demoralized US
troops in Iraq. The Dutch decision sent ripples of anger through
European capitals. The Germans and the French, who were already
angered by the Polish involvement outside the reins of the
United Nations, see the Dutch move as breaking ranks from a
united Europe and more to do with securing lucrative oil deals
in Iraq than genuine care for the future of Iraq.
The
Dutch contingent announced they would wear patches clearly
reading “NETHERLANDS” in a bid to distinguish them from US
forces. It remains to be seen how Iraqi resistance fighters will
take the time to read, let alone understand what they are
reading.
(It
is worth noting that KLM Royal Dutch Airlines recently announced
that it had added Baghdad onto its list of destinations
worldwide.)
On
August 1st, mortar rounds fell in a Polish base; no
injuries were reported.
On
August 2nd, a Japanese expeditionary force, led by a
former Japanese foreign minister, visited Iraq to pave the way
for a Japanese military contribution to Iraq. Although, Japan
has not yet formally announced a firm commitment, analysts
believe it is certain to do so despite a growing public fury
against the initiative.
Washington’s
hopes that some of its Arab allies would contribute military
forces to stabilizing Iraq were dashed on August 5th when Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo refused outright to
send their troops.
This
initiative “cannot be considered in the current
circumstances,” Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said.
In
a further blow, the Arab ministers refused to recognize the
US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council.
Despite
economic pressures and arm-twisting, the US is finding it hard
to persuade other countries to contribute to the policing of
Iraq. The British government, however, believes that the
challenges might have to do with the lack of United Nations
blessing. Sources indicate that the British are trying to lean
on the US to go back to the Security Council and issue a
resolution on Iraq.
It
is likely that another bout of contested negotiations will
dominate any new United Nations resolution for the Iraq
situation.
Firas
Al-Atraqchi
is a Canadian journalist of Iraqi heritage. Holding an MA in
Journalism and Mass Communication, he has eleven years of
experience covering Middle East issues, oil and gas markets, and
the telecom industry. You can reach him at firas6544@rogers.com
|
