US pre-war plans in Iraq went wrong

Where plans went wrong:

The US-British forces quickly dismantled in early April Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime and thought of smooth sailing with their pre-war plans. The planners anticipated problems but the fact is they anticipated wrong ones.. It was reported that 70 per cent of the pre-war planning was related to humanitarian needs. The post-war issues, such as refugees, hunger and disease that occupied the minds of the US-British governments never surfaced.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

New and unexpected issues have emerged in post-war Iraq such as security, lack of oil, electricity and water. To all these added a misjudgment of the US administrator Paul Bremer. He demobilised the old Iraqi army as part of a sweeping plan to eradicate the Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. Violent street protests quickly forced him to reverse that policy, promising that some 250,000 Iraqi officers would receive a monthly salary for the indefinite future.

The US has been spending about US$ 1 billion a week for its soldiers. The cost does not include the running of the administration in the occupied country and it was reported that rebuilding the country could cost an additional billion dollar a month. Then there is the question of Iraq's enormous debts and in recent days the major creditors agreed to restructure about US$ 21 billion worth, but estimates of the total external debt, including war reparations to Kuwait, run well over US$ 100 billion dollars. Iraq can only raise such huge capital from commercial financial market but until Iraq is stabilised, no financial institution will lend money.

The US thought that a major component of the expenses in post-war Iraq would come from oil exports in Iraq ( the country is endowed with the second largest oil reserves in the world). Now it is reported that source of funds from oil for rebuilding Iraq is running at less than 15 per cent of what was projected. The US civil administrator estimated that the loss of pipeline would cost Iraq US$ 10 million a day.

The occupation forces did not anticipate looting, smuggling of oil. Pipelines are being sabotaged. Millions of dollars worth of equipment and materials were destroyed or stolen after the fall of Saddam Hussein. It was reported that geological data, seismic maps collected on more than 200,000 kilometres of land in Iraq at an estimated US$ 15,000 per kilometer were looted. The bottom line is that Iraq's oil industry is in a state of chaos and anarchy. In fact Iraq is importing oil from Kuwait and elsewhere.

Security situation in Iraq

Security situation is alarming in Iraq. In recent days the devastating bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad, the destruction of oil pipelines and water mains appear to demonstrate that no foreigner or Iraqi collaborator with the US is safe. Almost one US soldier a day is being killed in Iraq. The body bags now started to arrive in the US and the Americans are not obviously happy about it. They started to question for the first time the reasons for America's unilateral intervention in Iraq as presence weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that was the primary reason for attacking has not yet been found.

Although its dictatorial regime has gone, social evils, such as drug abuse, street gangs, lawlessness and car-hijacking are the norms of the day. Iraqis are confused, frustrated and desperate for law and order. Water, petrol and electricity are scarce for Iraqi people. They see that the occupation forces live in the Saddam Hussein's palaces while their houses had been destroyed. The so-called "liberators" of Iraqi people have become targets for attacks.

The deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons did not reduce, as expected, the attacks on the US soldiers. The US reportedly now believes that an alliance known as "Jaish Mohammad" is believed to be responsible for increasingly sophisticated attacks on US troops. London's the Sunday Times, reported that terrorists from Arab countries have formed the alliance with former intelligence agents of Saddam Hussein to fight their common enemy, the US forces. In recent months it has been reportedly able to smuggle millions of dollars of weapons and hundreds of Arab fighters in Iraq. Any member of the alliance who is able to kill a US soldier reportedly receives US$1,000 dollars.

Problems due to UN's disapproval of war

Since the Iraqi war was conducted without UN authority, political observers believe that most problems in post-war Iraq largely emanate from the nature of war. Stability in Iraq can be achieved only with UN legitimacy. Without UN's mandate, the US cannot expect other countries to send their troops or to foot the bill for Iraq. America's unilateralist policy appears to be a recipe for all troubles in the post-war Iraq.

The problem with unilateralism is that in the long run it is often unrealistic in a multi-lateral world as most of the issues of international community, such as arms control, disarmament, global environment, prevention of deadly diseases and world trade are being dealt with by the world's multilateral institutions. Now the US is reportedly re-thinking to induce other countries to send their troops in Iraq because it has been too difficult and costly for the US-British alone to handle post-war Iraq. But unless there is a major role for the UN, no country seems to be prepared to dispatch their soldiers to Iraq. In fact at present those few countries which were at one stage willing to send their troops have suspended their decision after the attack on UN HQ in Iraq. Poland that sent troops is considering pulling out its soldiers from Iraq.

America's concerns including global terrorism are now inextricably linked with multilateral actions. Jakarta bombing on 5th August seems to prove that invasion of Iraq failed to reduce the threat of terrorism that has become an international issue. Each country has to find new ways to raise the quality of intelligence gathering and sharing. The recent arrest in the US of a British arms dealer of Indian origin trying to sell a surface-to-air missile to an undercover agent was possible due to the intelligence sharing among the FBI, Russia's FSB and British intelligence. As "no man is an island", so also America is part of international community.

Political problems with Shi'ites

Besides these difficult issues, Iraq's majority Shi'ite community want the occupation forces to leave Iraq quickly and leave the question of governance to the Iraqi people. ( 54-65% of the Iraq's 23 million people are Shi'ite while 32-42% are Sunni Muslims). Of immediate concern to the US is the attitude of the Shi'ite Ulemas ( religious scholars) to the former's presence as an occupying force. There are a number of senior Ulemas whose views are highly critical in this regard. Within the hierarchy of Shi'ites the most highly qualified Ulemas (Ayatullahs) have great influence over their followers.

The only Ayatullah living in Iraq is the Grand Ayatullah Ali Sistani who possesses impeccable scholarly credentials. Ayatullah Sistani was neutral during the war but has so far refused to meet the US administration in Baghdad and his subsequent pronouncements will be crucial in determining the attitude of a large part of the Shi'ite community towards the occupying power.

Another Shi'ite movement, called Sadr Movement, led by the young scholar Muqtada al-Sadr has emerged. He is in his 30 and is charismatic with a large following. The Sadr Movement is gaining widespread acceptance among the urban poor, and has recognised Ayatullah Kazim al-Ha'iri, an Iraqi national living in the Iranian city of Qum.

Another Ulema Ayatullah Baqir al-Hakim is the chairperson of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and on 24 August he was a target for assassination for his support for toppling the Saddam Hussein regime. While Ayatullah Hakim provided support for the US during the war, he publicly opposed the formation of any US-led interim administration. SCIRI's position appears to be that it is willing to work with the occupying power for the economic reconstruction but not on a political basis.

The Shi'ia Ulemas are reportedly split between three methods of government in Iraq; (a) clerical rule like that of Iran, (b) a less public role but more advisory role in government in accordance with teachings of Islam and (c) a politically neutral approach as advocated by Sistani. Despite their differences, it seems that Islamic precepts would underline the basics of government. In the end, the attitude of majority Shi'ite community towards nature and type of government in Iraq will largely be determined by Shi'ite religious scholars.

In this connection it is relevant to quote what Pakistani Islamic scholar late Moulana Maududi said: " The theocracy built up by Islam is not ruled by any particular religious class but by the whole community of Muslims including the rank and file. The entire Muslim population runs the state in accordance with the Book of God and the practice of His prophet. If I were permitted to coin a new term, I would describe this system of government as 'theo-democracy'.

One thing the Shi'ite groups are all united on is a rejection of the US as an occupation force in the country. Although happy at the demise of the Sunni-dominated Saddam Hussein regime, all Shi'ite Ulemas, both inside and outside Iraq, are less disposed to a political role for the US or its Iraqi exile allies. Political observers believe that Shi'ite resistance to the US presence will grow the longer US forces remain in the country. If that occurs, history will judge whether America's pre-emptive war on Iraq was prudent and wise. If the end of it all is the anarchy in Iraq where its citizens know no security, are starved on electricity and petrol, US's adventure in Iraq is a big, big gamble for neo-conservatives of the Bush administration.

Conclusion

Republican Senator from Indiana, Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visited Iraq and appeared to be worried that the American people were being blindfolded to the true costs in blood and money of a war that had not yet ended. He reportedly said: " This idea that we will be in Iraq just as long as we need to and not a day more, is rubbish! We are going to be there for a long time... Where does the money come from? How is it to be disbursed and by whom?" These are the questions to which majority Americans want answers from the Bush administration.

A noted British journalist Robert Fisk recently wrote: " The Americans can reconstruct the dead faces of Saddam's two sons, but they can't reconstruct Iraq". It is worthwhile to remember that the Soviet Union quickly took Kabul in 1979, only to face a decade of warfare before withdrawing in defeat in 1989 from Afghanistan.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.