Legacy I: Iraq
AS every government prepares to leave office, we ask what has been accomplished and what has failed. This is the first then of a series of articles on the legacy left by George W Bush. Although he has a few months of his term remaining the main actions are complete. The first covers the most notorious action undertaken by President Bush, the attack on Iraq. The legacy question should focus on the end position not the beginning.
One has to face the facts -- George W. Bush has won the war in Iraq! This statement may startle many readers who have not been following events, but it seems to me accurate given what has happened in the last few months. Civil peace is emerging and the violent enemies of the Iraqi state are losing their effectiveness. Civil society is turning against them and supporting the military forces of the United States and the Iraq government, particularly those of the United States.
The Iraqi government is becoming more forthright and determined to go forward with its agenda of governing and development. The economic situation is improving. The delivery of electricity and water is improving. Iraqis who left the country are beginning to return. There is no doubt that there has been a dramatic turn around. Most commentators doubt that sustainable change has taken place, but this reflects their bias and unwillingness to admit they were wrong. Most indicators now point towards success of the United States. Pessimists now focus on the situation after the United States leaves. Much of the coverage of Iraq in the United States press seems determined to ignore reality. But the United States is not going to leave anytime soon. Success is the only justification if one is the aggressor.
I put aside a number of important questions that everyone likes to shout about: Was the war justified? (Certainly not.) Were too many people killed to justify the outcome even if successful? (Yes.) Was the United States military too violent, using excessive power? (Yes.) Was the cost of the war so high as to have a serious impact on the American economy? (Yes.) Did the Bush administration really believe in Weapons of Mass Destruction argument for war or was this just cover for another motive? (They believed it.)
All of these questions are different from the question: "Has the war been won by Mr. Bush?" I make the claim that Mr. Bush, with his determined leadership of the United States and the Iraq government, has won! I failed to understand how strong willed Bush would prove to be.
How can I possibly claim this? Let us look at the three main groups in Iraq: The Kurds are happily building their own society; so long as there is reasonable acceptance of their autonomy and an acceptable resolution of the distribution of the oil profits there is no reason to expect any trouble from this group. But the Kurds see the Americans as their protectors and want the American military around.
Next, the Sunni, who led the insurgency against the Iraqi government and the United States, have largely switched sides with the emergence of the Sunni Awakening. This is partly due to the willingness of the United States military to support them, but largely, I believe, as Saudi Arabia called for the shift in allegiance, provided financial incentives and promised to protect them in the future. I guess the Sunni also decided that they were not going to succeed in their effort to drive the Americans out so it was better to come to terms and join them. The Sunni view is clear enough; so long as the Americans are around we are content that the Shiites will not overwhelm us.
Finally, the largest group, the Shiites: the Iraqi government is essentially controlled by the Shiites and the PM Maliki is certainly determined to protect Shiite interests as well as to further his own political base. The PM is moving successfully against Shiite militia who oppose him and is making clear that he rules the country. His confidence is rising with the growing competence of the Iraqi army, improved tactics of Americans and the tremendous improvements in tactical intelligence; he is taking control with a firmer hand. The PM has a close, if quiet, relationship with the Americans.
In fact none of the three groups wants the Americans to leave. Each fears the consequences. Each has found a way to get ahead so long as the Americans are present to maintain reasonable peace and security. The terrorists groups and some of the Shiite militia are increasingly isolated. The great fear of any insurgent group is that the people will turn against them; the insurgents' ability to make threats or claim to be fighting against oppression results in people unwilling to help the government to identify and track down members of the insurgency.
But once the general population comes to believe that there is going to be effective protection for them, they will begin to inform on the insurgents and in no time the leaders and other cadres will be caught. That is the change now taking place in Iraq. I do not mean to suggest that there will not be continuing violence and trouble in Iraq. But there is a great difference from one year ago and an even greater difference from three years ago.
Slowly the Iraq economy is coming to life as the electricity and water supplies work better and peace makes economic activity possible. The volume of oil produced is rising. The government of Iraq is now moving towards rehabilitation of its oil fields and will soon be starting on exploration and development of potential large fields. This work has been delayed for years by the battle between the insurgents and the Iraqi and United States government. Within the improved security framework work can now go forward rapidly. Of course, US companies are going to benefit. But not at the expense of the Iraq -- rather at the expense of other oil companies.
A long term treaty between Iraqi and the United States is being negotiated and while there will be a lot of arguments before its conclusion, almost certainly an agreement will be reached. This will enable the United States to station military forces in Iraq, to intervene to help the Iraqi government on request, and set up some system for dealing with crimes committed by American soldiers. Whatever the words, the reality will be continued, quiet presence of the US military.
If the United States remains for a sustained period in Iraq that nation will experience a rebirth of economy, culture, and science. If the United States withdraws rapidly it will trigger a gradual increase in violence leading to civil war until a new military dictator takes over, and the poor Iraqi people descend into poverty and deprivation.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments