|
|
|
An
extra 120 British troops flew to Iraq. |
Over
the weekend, an extra 120 British troops, having been stationed
in Cyprus, flew to Iraq to bolster UK forces in Basra – while
as many as another 2,000 soldiers may be sent to further
reinforce depleted and demoralized forces. Meanwhile, Iraq
continues to spiral into chaos and disorder.
According
to notes leaked to British newspaper The Daily Telegraph at the
end of last week, the UK’s Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said
that failure to send additional military support to Iraq could
lead to a “strategic failure” in the efforts to maintain
security in the country, with the situation “deteriorating.”
He proposed that an extra 5,000 UK troops should be in place by
the start of Ramadan in late October.
This
comes as the US moves towards asking the United Nations to
approve the creation of a multinational force in Iraq in return
for ceding some, but certainly nowhere near enough, of its
political authority in the war-ravaged country, so as to satisfy
the international community.
Many
would say that the rest of the world should stand its ground and
let America get on with it. Against world opinion George W. Bush
created this mess, let him deal with it. And if it disrupts his
chances of being re-elected, so much the better. But these
people are missing the bigger picture: Bush and America are not
the central issue – achieving long-term peace and stability as
quickly as possible and better short-term conditions for
ordinary Iraqis should be the main focus.
For
sure, the UN should now be fully involved for the sake of the
people of Iraq. Many will argue that the coalition, with
flagrant disregard for the authority of the UN, decided to go to
war unilaterally and created this mess. Why should the rest of
the world now co-finance sorting it out?
Although
many strongly feel that the US should clean up the mess it has
created, nations such as France and Russia who were vehemently
opposed to the initial military action are now willing to send
troops as peacekeepers, but only under the right preconditions
and full UN authority. Regardless of whether it was right or
wrong to go to war, there is now a common obligation to the
people of Iraq and the Middle East.
Despite
the arguments over the legitimacy of the war, humanity and
compassion have now come into play. Whether or not they agreed
with the war, the future of the Iraqi people is now at the
forefront of the international community’s mind; but it seems
that the stubbornness of the US over its authority in the
country is hindering moves to solve the deepening crisis.
The
American deal, recently rejected by France and Germany, reads
like a request for resources so that Americans can keep hold of
their power, not a real plea to help the Iraqi people.
The
world needs to hurry up and put the Iraqis in a position to
police and govern themselves as soon as possible. High on the
list of priorities should be the restoration of water supplies,
the contamination of which after eleven years of sanctions
continues to claim the lives of thousands of Iraqi children. The
international community can not just walk away in the face of
American obstinacy once again when Iraq now needs its help more
than ever.
The
US and UK governments are possibly aware that they have
committed themselves in Iraq and can not back down now without
causing great harm both to the long-suffering people of Iraq and
to their already damaged international reputation. But the
efforts exerted to maintain security in Iraq by the US and
Britain – that are obstinate and stubborn over their authority
– are not enough.
It
is somewhat unacceptable and disgraceful for the US to suggest
that some of its tasks would be “offloaded” on the UN
without any real control being ceded to the latter – as was
proposed in Security
Council Resolution 1483, where the UN is subsidiary
to the occupying powers. Clearly, under these conditions, any
country that puts its troops into Iraq under the UN banner will
be effectively providing the Americans with more resources at
their disposal.
The
US is actually trying to shirk the responsibility for the mess
it has created. It is clear that asking for UN involvement now
is an attempt by the US to reduce the costs of the occupation
while maintaining its rule over the country, the occupation of
which is putting an economic strain on the world’s only
superpower.
Indeed,
as American troops are killed almost on a daily basis, it seems
that the Bush administration has one eye on the upcoming US
elections, cynics may argue. If the body count of US military
personnel continues to rise, public opinion in the US will begin
to turn against Bush and he could face losing the next election;
whereas by getting other countries to share the body count, he
will slightly increase his chances of getting re-elected and
thus the chance to launch another far-away military adventure.
The
eventual goal of the forces in Iraq is rebuilding the country.
The US is effectively failing to achieve this goal, as it has
run out of money, is running out of support; and its continued
occupation of Iraq is only serving to anger the Iraqis. UN
troops should replace the US and UK forces in Iraq, rather than
work under them, and Iraq should be put under the control of a
UN-elected multinational authority. The UN should hold out for a
deal that will benefit the Iraqi people, not just US interests.
Thus, the US should at the very least agree to hand over
complete control to the UN, or it will risk further isolating
itself from the international community; and the very future of
Iraq will be at stake.
Experts
on the Arab world should be employed in key positions. (From the
outset of this tragic war, the US and the UK have not only acted
short-sightedly by failing to plan for a post-war peace, but
they have also failed to understand the Arab mindset, hence the
present situation.)
One
suggestion is that the UN could involve Muslim countries in the
process as Muslim countries would be seen by the Iraqis as
“brothers” coming to the aid of their fellow Muslims. The US
has requested troops from Turkey, but while Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan has said that his country may be prepared to
contribute 10,000 troops to a UN-backed force, this issue will
still have to be debated by the Turkish parliament.
Many
countries that are willing to send troops to Iraq would not do
so until there is a clear program (timetable) stipulating when
America will leave Iraq and how soon an elected Iraqi government
can be established.
In
fact, for the coalition, the problem in Iraq is not merely a
military one – it will not be solved by sending more American
and British troops. The coalition forces do not even know who
their enemy is at the moment. The Iraqis generally consider the
presence of US and British soldiers in their country as an
occupation, and Arabs are proud people who do not wish to be
occupied by a military force. They will not just sit and watch
the Americans parading along their streets. No matter how many
US or British soldiers are in Iraq, stability cannot be imposed
on Iraqis by an occupying force.
The
UN will have to be involved in order to sort out the mess
created by the US and Britain with their woeful
short-sightedness in both war and peace.
Jamie
Barton is a UK-based freelance journalist and writer
specialising in terrorism and international issues. Jamie Barton
welcomes your comments on his articles at mail@jamiebarton.co.uk.
For other articles visit www.jamiebarton.co.uk
|
