COLUMN: What’s being done in Iraq – Part 2
In a representative democracy such as ours, one is privileged to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints by a number of differing and opposing sources and “authorities.” The conflict in Iraq is no exception; in fact, it has more often than not offered polarizing perspectives on the developments there and here at home. It is not surprising then to hear one side praising its historical achievements and the other touting its monumental failures. The truth, very likely, is found somewhere in the middle, where most Americans stand.
Beginning with achievements, two are perhaps the current administration’s most notable ones since the conflict began a year ago. First, there is the ouster and capture of Saddam Hussein, a tyrant and a dictator, whose regime is credited with torturing, imprisoning, raping, maiming, and killing hundreds of thousands of people.
Saddam’s capture sent a clear and loud message to other dictators in the region and in the world of the consequences of their actions if they continue down that path. According to the administration, Libya’s Qhaddafi seems to have gotten that message and has decided to reform and abandon his plans for obtaining weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
The second is the gathering of a representative and diverse group of Iraqi religious and secular leaders who just last week signed into law a provisional constitution that fused western values with Islamic principles. The understanding and hope is that such a constitution will pave the way for parliamentary and presidential elections in a new democratic Iraq. Moreover, the constitutional and electoral process will give much-needed legitimacy to a new Iraqi government and the American “liberation.”
Despite these achievements, there has been much apprehension with regards to the administration’s justification for the war, its handling of the post-war situation, and its strategy (or lack thereof) for the future of Iraq. Recent statements, first by Spain, and later by Poland (two of our staunchest allies in Iraq) have revived criticism that Bush misled America’s allies regarding WMD. Poland’s president was quoted last week saying that while he was not contemplating taking his troops out of Iraq (like the Spanish premier-elect has said), he was greatly disappointed by what has turned out to be misleading intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.
Since the occupation of Iraq, it has become painfully evident the administration has been ill-prepared and ill-equipped for the task of building a nation. Despite the literally dozens of studies and recommendations provided by various think tanks and government agencies (such as the Future of Iraq study conducted by the State Department), the administration chose to ignore worst-case scenarios, and instead opted out for rosy scenarios presented by the likes of Wolfowitz, Feith, and Pearl which turned out to be a disaster.
Whereas most schools have been reopened, electricity is more on than off, and oil production is close to its pre-war quotas, the lack of security is inhibiting the return to normalcy and economic well-being, which are critical ingredients for the success of the U.S. strategy in Iraq. The U.S. forces and Iraqi citizens are faced with daily attacks from guerrillas and suicide bombings that signal to the Iraqi population, especially to the Shi’a majority, the inability of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to deliver on their promises. It is not surprising then, that some Shi’a and Kurdish leaders have begun to take matters into their own hands by policing their “territories” with their own paramilitary groups.
With the administration’s failure to provide a cohesive post-war reconstruction strategy, many are now wondering what its strategy for the future of Iraq is or might be. Will the mounting number of U.S. and allied civilian and military casualties in Iraq dampen the resolve of the Allies to see their Iraqi project through to the end? Should the United States allow the United Nations to play a more significant role in Iraq? These are all questions that the administration no doubt is considering.
Moreover, Bush is no longer counting on his “credentials” as a war president to get a second chance at nation building, considering the electoral loss of the conservative party in Spain.
Medlir Mema is a senior majoring in political science. Comments can be sent to melirm@cc.usu.edu.