Sunday, May 25, 2003

Where the US went wrong

THE US went wrong from the word go when it gave more
weight to its military might than a pacifist approach
of political persuasion in post-war Iraq. Today, it
faces a deep quagmire unless it moves fast against
lost time to stabilise the Iraqis' most basic needs --
personal safety, electricity, water, health care, job
security and regular salaries.
This is the finding of international and regional
experts who are alarmed over the deteriorating
situation in Iraq, where the US military is getting
more aggressive every day in the face of mounting
resistance attacks.
The American military action freed the Iraqis from the
oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein but pushed them into
a much worse situation that the Saddam days in terms
of daily life. The US forces gave prime consideration
to securing oilfields and installations and ignored -
and thereby seen as having encouraged - widespread
looting, robberies rape and murder throughout the
country. In fact, accusasions that the invading force
was more interested Iraq's oil than the welfare of the
Iraqis were heard even on April 9, the day Baghdad
fell to the US force.
The American actions since then have convinced a
majority of Iraqis that the US was not their liberator
beyond the point of removing the Saddam regime to
serve American interests that have little to do with
caring for the people of Iraq or respecting their
rights.
In Baghdad and other Iraqi towns male members of
families keep watch with guns and take shifts to
sleep, fearing armed robbers. Without their guns they
feel naked, but the US forces insist that everyone
surrender their weapons; not many have met a US-set
deadline for giving up their guns.
It is indeed a festering sore. The US forces is not
only offering safety and protection to the people of
Iraq but is also seeking to deprive Iraqis of the
means to protect themselves.
Power and water supplies are erratic; cost of living
is shooting up and there is no regular pay, and many
families are worse off than the Saddam days when the
regime used to supply monthly rations.
If there was any inkling of an American inclination to
look at ways to address the situation, that is fast
disappearing with the US force's preoccupation dealing
with Iraqi resistance; and if the situation continues,
the vicious circle would only intensify and the US
"administration" of Iraq would prove to be
catastrophic for all.
The declared American drive to set up an interim Iraqi
committee to help govern the country has been a source
of consolation for many Iraqis who welcomed the
involvement of their own people in running the
country. But, the emerging undercurrents in the
intense jockeying for power based on ethnic
considerations and diverse ideologies have convinced
them that having an effective Iraqi say in Iraqi
affairs is not seen anywhere in the near future.
Telecommunications are almost non-existent; the sense
of normality offered by radio and television is
lacking in view of the frequent outages.
The Iraqi frustration is also fuelled by the focus
given to American corporates in reconstruction of
their country. They might not have adequate commercial
foundations and equipment to undertake the job, but
they are incensed by the feeling that Americans are
fleecing their country and their resources and keeping
out all others. Even at that, there is little to show
on the ground that any reconstruction worth the name
is under way.
A recent report prepared by Joost Hiltermann of the
International Crisis Group underlines the mistakes
that the American committed and are continuing to
commit in post-war Iraq.
One of the highlights of the report is the summary
disbandment of the Baathist Party overlooking the
three distinct kinds of Baathists -- diehard Saddam
loyalists, those who joined the party out of
expediency, and ideological followers.
According to the ICG, the vast majority of civil
servants, police, judges, engineers and others belong
to the second category and have the skills to make the
country run again, but they are being sidelines and
indeed taken to task for their past affiliation with
the party.
"By banning all of them without distinction," the US
rulers of Iraq have "ostracised a vital group - and
may even end up uniting opposition to the occupation
rather than alienating the Saddam loyalists," says the
report.
It calls on the US to "seriously reconsider this
order and return qualified senior managers to their
positions if they do not have a proven record of
corruption or abuse."
Disbanding the Iraqi military without offering its
personnel alternative means to make a living was
another major mistake of the Americans, according to
the ICG. As a result, tens of thousands of young men
were turned into the streets without employment,
leaving them the option of a life of crime or joining
resistance groups which give them something to do
rather than wander around in search of non-existent
jobs.
"What is puzzling is that so little advance
preparation appears to have been made for dealing with
the problems that have arisen in Baghdad," says
Hilterman. "Many if not most of them should have been
anticipated based on years of experience with
post-conflict transitions elsewhere.
"The Iraqis' faith in their new rulers is being
undermined by ad hoc decision making, lack of cultural
sensitivity and apparent neglect of the problems that
rile them most. Urgent and focused action is needed if
this discontent is not to be transformed into
widespread and active opposition in the coming
months," warns Hilterman.