Iraq moves into uncharted territory

Both President Bush and Secretary Rice believe that 'insurgents' are 'losing steam' as a political force and that adoption of the constitutional draft will conclusively move Iraq towards prosperity and democracy. They are confident that the ability of the Opposition to kill and maim will gradually be contained. They feel that the ensuing political process will end chaos and restore discipline-- at least sufficient enough for the USA to start repatriating their troops back home. There is a contingency plan (as explained by General Schoomaker on 21 August) that the US Army might maintain the current number of soldiers for four more years, but it is being hoped that it will not be necessary.

Unfortunately, such optimism appears to be more of a mirage than reality -- at least for the moment. It is true that Secretary Rice because of her socio-metric overlay and proximity to the powers-that-be within the White House has made the State Department, comparatively, a more important factor in decision making. However, soothing public friction between the USA and its historical allies is one thing and bringing stability within Iraq is another.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Despite some agreement on basic principles, little substantive progress has been made on the thorny questions of reconfiguring the electoral process to ensure greater Sunni representation in the government or getting Iraq's Arab neighbours to negotiate a settlement with hard-line Sunni groups. In addition to this, there are the issues of self-determination in the Kurdish zone, distribution of oil-income, decentralisation of governance within a federal system and lastly the future role of Islamic clerics within the socio-political-legal dynamics. It must not also be overlooked that though the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (the biggest Shiite political party) supports federalism, it is opposed not only by the major Sunni figures but also by Prime Minister al-Jaafari's Dawa party and the movement of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

These significant elements have probably led Senator Joseph Bidden, the top Democrat on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee to state on 15 August, that judging by the way things were unfolding in Iraq, democracy 'will not happen in my lifetime.'

US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad has been playing a central role in trying to bring rival Iraqi political groups together. His efforts were nevertheless insufficient in getting the constitutional drafting process completed by the due date of 15 August. A constitutional draft of sorts will eventually be submitted for referendum. It is expected to open the door to new legislative elections by the end of this year.

The US Administration's active intervention in the constitution formulation has underlined its current anxiety and unease. Nearly 1850 US troops have been killed in Iraq since March, 2003 (when the war began). A recent 'Newsweek' survey has also indicated that around 61 per cent of Americans disapprove of how President Bush is handling Iraq. Cindy Sheehan's (the mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq in April 2004) presence and protest outside Bush's vacation home in Crawford, Texas has also lent urgency to the situation. It has galvanised national attention and will certainly not help the White House cause.

One thing remains starkly clear. The trauma of violent response continues in Iraq. This is borne out by the statement made by a US Commander on 12 August that the number of road side bomb attacks against American convoys in Iraq had doubled in the past year to about 30 per week. Most of the detonations are also apparently being carried out by remote control. Terror is not only stalking the streets of Baghdad. It is walking with impunity in most districts of the country.

This is a phenomenon which demands not only the crafting of a constitution but also greater understanding, patience and a deeper spirit of reconciliation.

This is important, given the fact that unrest and disaffection are best settled politically rather than militarily. Taking on board Sunni sentiments, in the long run, will pay dividends and enable USA to exit from Iraq with some modicum of dignity.

It also assumes that much more significance given the impact of continuing unrest within Iraq on the neighbouring region.

The 'Coalition of the willing' needs to remember that their original hypotheses for going into Iraq -- the presence of weapons of mass destruction -- turned out to be a hoax. This has affected their credibility. Now the spin doctors are talking of the need for democracy and political reform. God knows that, at least in this, they are correct. However, the quest for a proper exit and ensuring continuity of US interests will not be that easy.

'USA Today'/CNN/Gallup Poll have come up with a sobering statistic last month. They found in their survey that a majority of Americans believe that the USA cannot win the war nor establish a democratic government in that country. I will not say that the 'Vietnam rose' has started to bloom in continental USA. It is, however, true that various leaders all over the world, as well as common folk in the USA, are expressing their anxiety.

A poll carried out on 9 August by CNN has underlined that (by a margin of 57 to 34 per cent) most Americans believe that the Iraq war has made their country more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. For the first time a record 33 per cent have also suggested that all troops should be pulled out of Iraq. I am certain that the US Administration is following these changes in the public mood with great care.

Unfortunately, one does hear very much about the efforts being undertaken in that war-ravaged country by the United Nations. It is true that, consistent with UN Security Council resolution 1546, some coordination is being attempted by the UN. However, quite clearly, it is not enough. They have provided some support to the constitutional committee, but active inter-action is hardly evident. Some UN officials have suggested that there could have been greater involvement of the UN, had such a chance been given to them, particularly with regard to the decision-making process. The transitional government in Iraq and the 'Coalition of the willing' will know better. All I can note, as an observer, is that, if this is the case, then, the existing policy is wrong. The US would do itself a favour by facilitating a wider role for the UN mechanism in Iraq and giving them the opportunity to be seen as an active partner of the emerging Iraqi leadership.

Playing hard-ball the Kissinger way, according to some, is not longer the best approach. The former Secretary of State might still believe in the axiom that 'guerillas win if they do not lose' and that 'stalemate is unacceptable'. He might also think that 'victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.' However, these sentiments do not quite mirror the growing 'emotional exhaustion' within the US over Iraq. His views should consequently be best treated with caution.

President Clinton, on 11 August, in his intellectual manner has also tried to simplify the scenario. He feels that the US should strive to help create an Iraq that is 'free independent and at peace.' He has also described that task ahead in very simple terms -- 'They are trying to come up with a constitution and we are trying to train the security and military forces. If we can do that, our people can come home.'

What the former President has over looked is the complexity and the difficult terrain that characterises Iraqi politics today. Fundamental divides remain. Conflicting aspirations, based on sectarian religious persuasions and desire for greater political autonomy have not yet been resolved. Extremists continue to draw attention through terrorist acts aimed at inflicting maximum damage irrespective of the nature of the target. The indigenous security apparatus is also far from ready and capable in being able to contain the continuing threat to internal stability in Iraq.

In the meantime, the world is getting restive about continued occupation. An example of this was the statement of Russian President Putin on 18 August calling for an international conference on Iraq by year's end and a timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq. Through this Russia is probably trying to boost its credentials in the Middle East as a member of the international Quartet. It also implies general concern about the presence of 'occupying forces'. The silence of Arab countries and others from the region on Putin's comment is an indirect vote in favour.

Conditions on the ground can only improve when the neo-con policy makers in the US Administration, particularly in the Departments of State and Defence realise that the process of political reform can move ahead solely through consolidation of multilateral engagement. It is here that Secretary Rice can lay an effective role.

In this context, it would be that much better not generating more avenues of tension in the neighborhood. Threats of armed intervention in other countries of the region will only exacerbate a bad situation further. The military and political tracks are so entwined that problems on one can easily derail the other.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador -- any response to mzamir@dhaka.net