|
Post-Saddam
Iraq… Where To?
|
|
|
Mud
covers the statue of Former President Saddam Hussein at the
Saddam Center of Art in Baghdad. |
With the toppling of Saddam
Hussein’s regime, eyes now turn to the transitional phase of the
Iraqi government. Citing developments already taking place on the
ground, one of the scenarios envisioned was published almost a month
before the invasion by the Washington Post under the title
“Full
U.S. Control Planned for Iraq: American Would Oversee Rebuilding.”
On
February 21, 2003, the paper reported that Washington planned to
“take complete, unilateral control of Iraq in the post-Saddam
era.” Citing unnamed US officials, the Post asserted that
“an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named US civilian
would direct the reconstruction of Iraq and the creation of a
representative Iraqi government,” according to a finalized
blueprint.
Looking
at the situation now, it is safe to conclude that the reported plan
is the actual one being adopted so far. Now, we have a retired US
general Jay Garner, at the helm of the so-called interim government
to be installed in Baghdad.
Applicable
or Problematic?
Judging on the steps already taken and the events in the making,
post-Saddam Iraq appears to be more problematic than Washington
expected, raising many questions on the applicability of the US
scenario.
According
to the Post report, “in the early days of military action,
US forces following behind those in combat would distribute food and
other relief items and begin needed reconstruction. The goal was to
make sure that the Iraqi people immediately considered
themselves better off than they were the day before the war, and
attribute their improved circumstances directly to the United
States.”
|
|
|
Controlling
post-Saddam Iraq appears to be more difficult than
previously speculated. |
More
than a month after the invasion started on March 20, with all Iraqi
land under the control of US-led forces, it became clear that the
first phase of the reported plans has completely failed. The
Americans lost the support of the Iraqis the minute they started
bombing their cities and villages, including food warehouses,
shooting at civilian cars and tearing down water and electricity
stations.
As
for the second phase of the reported plan, it is apparent that, on
the ground, there are more problems facing US forces than previously
expected, given the very complicated nature of the Iraqi population
structure. The Kurds in the north have their own ambitions. They
have been enjoying a great deal of autonomy since the end of the
Gulf War in 1991 and the imposition of the no-fly zones.
They
will not expect anything less than that autonomy, if not more. They
may even be pushing for a separate state at a later stage. Even if
this is not likely, some sort of self-determination will be the
least the Kurds are expected to settle for. What if their ambitions
contradicted with US scenarios? Will there be military clashes?
Kurds
will accept nothing less than full autonomy. |
|
On
Sunday, April 20, the Kurdish Parliament, meeting in Arbil, heard
assurances from retired US general Bruce Moore, who will administer
northern Iraq, that his team would focus on humanitarian aid and
would not act as a military or civilian administration.
Moore,
the head of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance for Northern
Iraq, denied that his administration would act as a provisional
government; but rather it would be in power “temporarily” until
an Iraqi government takes over after the stability of the situation
there.
Key
pro-US figures are being targeted. |
|
“Temporarily”
of course is a very broad term that depends on many factors, on top
of which is the US agenda: Is it being implemented on the ground? Is
it contradicting other agendas set up by local Kurdish leaders on
the one hand, and others by any future central government in Baghdad
on the other? That remains to be seen.
The
Shiites in the south, mainly in Basra and in Baghdad itself, are
another strong element and are very effective in determining any
future government in Iraq. Here, we can look at some facts and
incidents that already took place during the past few days before
trying to read likely future developments.
|
|
|
A
file photo of Abdul Majid al-Khoei, assassinated in An-Najaf |
On Thursday, April 10, the pro-US Iraqi Shiite leader Abdul Majid
al-Khoei was
assassinated in the Shiite holy city of An-Najaf in central
Iraq.
Assailants
armed with knives attacked al-Khoei inside Imam Ali Mosque in An-Najaf
- one of the holiest sites for Shiite Muslims.
Al-Khoei
had been in the mosque with four friends when he noticed another
cleric, Haydar Kilidar, was coming under attack. Al-Khoei attempted
to protect Sheikh Kilidar but was himself attacked by the crowd.
There
had been speculation that al-Khoei, who repeatedly called for Shiite
cooperation with the United States, had gone back to An-Najaf two
weeks ago from London with help from US forces.
His
return signaled a US attempt to promote a "pro-American"
current as Saddam Hussein's regime collapsed. Al-Khoei's association
with the occupation forces had provoked the attack.
Two
days later, a number of armed people belonging to the nascent
National Front for the Liberation of Iraq (NFLI) tried Friday, April
11, to
assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, one of the prominent exile leaders
and head of the Iraqi National Council (INC), in the southern city
of An-Nasiriyah.
“They
attacked a camp of Chalabi’s devotees, leaving a number of them
killed,” Abdul Amir El-Rakabi, an Iraqi exile, told
IslamOnline.net on Saturday, April 12. They narrowly missed Chalabi,”
he added.
So
far, there have been reportedly nine attempts on Chalabi’s life.
He is the most powerful US-backed Iraqi exile leader tipped to be
the “Iraqi Karzai” – a reference to Hamid Karzai who led the
Afghani-puppet regime after the US assault on Afghanistan.
What
If?
What
if free elections produce a regime that is not US friendly? |
|
Judging
upon the above, it would not be premature to say that problems are
already coming out to face Washington in Iraq, or rather to hinder
the smooth application of Uncle Sam’s plan. However, further
points need to be taken into account.
First,
it is important to keep an eye on the way in which the US is going
to draw the shape and form of any future Iraqi government. Of
significance here is a statement by US Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld on Monday, April 21, commenting on a New York report
pointing to possible four long-term US military bases in Iraq to be
guaranteed with any future government.
"I
would personally say a friendly Iraq that is not led by a Saddam
Hussein would be a reason why we could have fewer forces in the
region, not more, just logically," he said.
The
question here becomes; what does “friendly Iraq” mean? What if
free elections produce a regime that is not “friendly”?
Second,
what about regional players? Turkey keeps its eye on the Kurds, Iran
remains a strong Shiite presence neighboring Shiite majority Iraq,
and Gulf States still want to see a Sunni-dominated government. What
is to be done with surfacing clashing interests?
The
US proved, by invading and occupying Iraq – against the will of
the international community – that it is capable of imposing its
own agenda, regardless of any legal, moral, ethical or human
obligations.
Khaled
Mamdouh is an editor and staff writer in the News Desk of
IslamOnline. He is also a radio announcer, journalist and translator
for several Arabic magazines.
|
