Iraq’s Future

Like 2004, Iraq remained in the news all throughout 2005. As we look back to the year 2005, we must assess the role that Iraq played in international affairs, with special respect to the United States.

Speaking generally, 2005 was not only a bad year for Iraq, but also for the United States. More than two thousand five hundred American soldiers have been killed (figures until 18-06-06) and many more than fifteen thousand wounded. President Bush’s hackneyed interpretations and flabby policies and decision making (along with the way he and his administration dealt with the situation coming out after Katrina’s strike) have caused his approval ratings plummet down to less than thirty five percent. The war in Iraq has already cost the Americans more than two hundred and fifty billion dollars already.

The year in Iraq(2005) started with an electoral vote which had sworn in an unconstitutional transitional government at a time when the disaster and bloodshed caused by American operations in the cities of Fallujah, Najaf and Kerbala were still very much alive in the hearts and minds of people. The outcome of the ‘elections’ was certainly not what the Americans would have wished to see.


Throughout the year, the United States ground forces encountered about sixty to seventy attacks daily from those whom they call insurgents. The body bags that started to arrive home, only made sure about one thing, support for the war continued to dwindle. At home, military recruiters found it increasingly difficult to get new recruits because of growing public and political resistance to the war. Recruiters had taken to schools last year and were preparing children by teaching them how to launch hand grenades by using baseball kits as a sit in. Parental opposition to this had increased dramatically. Damien Cave puts this in the following words: -

“Two years into the war in Iraq, as the Army marines struggle to refill their ranks, parents have to become boulders of opposition that recruiters cannot remove.” (1)


The opposition to the War in Iraq was fuelled by a man who came out of no where, Michael Moore. Iraq today is in many ways worse than what it was during the heyday of Saddam Hussein. Power supplies remain inadequate, public security is in jeopardy, unemployment is on the rise and there has been no positive move towards genuine democracy. In fact, today Iraq provides a safe ground for training of terrorists. A problematic Iraq, would not only be a threat to the Middle East or the United States, but to the whole international community. 2005 was another bad year for a transitional Iraq.

The much trumpeted ‘newly trained Iraqi Army’ came into the limelight this year. It however has so far proven to be as incompetent as Iraq’s American occupiers. The Iraqi ‘Army’ continues to rely heavily on American arms, weapons, ammunition and support and according to many analysts; this scenario might not change significantly for the next five years, or perhaps more.

Throughout the year 2005, the news coming out of Iraq was usually at the displeasure of the military authorities in Iraq and the Bush administration at home. Iraq has not only been a failure from the military point of view, but also from a political point of view. What the Bush administration continuously ignored was the idea that politics and diplomacy can be used to solve issues of military significance, but the military cannot be used to solve issues of political importance. As the Bush administration resorted to the latter, Iraq, which was essentially a political matter, has turned out to be yet another Vietnam for the American forces. Analysts often argued that military might was not often paralleled by a corresponding political crusade. Although the elections of January 2005 were not an outright failure, but we cannot jump on to a reasonable conclusion about the democratic and political situation in Iraq on the basis of these elections. People of Iraq might be more free and independent than they ever were during Saddam’s rule, but this controlled freedom has come with a cost that the people of Iraq did not want to pay. This controlled freedom was obtained at the cost of around many thousands of lives, a jeopardising security situation and foreign control of Iraq’s oil.

Democracy is a form of social governance based on the will of the majority. Today, not only the people of Iraq, but also the American people, especially senior American people, especially senior politicians like Senators, John Murtha, John Kerry and John McCain want the troops home safely. Given this case, it would be adequate to ask the question that why does President Bush fail to present the American people with a coherent withdrawal plan? Jonathan Altar writes in Newsweek

“Instead of cut and run versus more of the same, we need a few imaginative third way alternatives.” (2)


Here, the question is what type of alternatives? Neither can Bush quit Iraq all of a sudden, neither are Muslim countries willing to supply troops who would be working under US command, nor would a phased withdrawal be any safer. Neither can American troops get out of Iraq and staying in there is increasing the all out costs of war. Many senior politicians and journalists have asked for a phased withdrawal. Here we must discuss both sides of the idea of this ‘phased’ withdrawal. A phased withdrawal would surely not be safe and secure. If the American forces begin a phased withdrawal sometime in 2006 or 2007, what surely seems to be the case is that the Iraqi Army would take up what the Americans are currently doing. However, the former is increasingly inadequately trained and would require round the clock American support for some time to come. Another grave problem is that many in the ill trained Iraqi army have links to Al-Qaeda and other armed militias in Iraq. These links certainly make sure that if given a free hand at this moment, the Iraqi ‘Security’ forces would further deteriorate the security and law and order situation in that country. The overall end result could well be a national civil war across Iraq which could now become the second cancer in the Middle East body, the first one being Israel.

The other reason due to which a phased withdrawal would not be safe and secure, is because in case Americans start a withdrawal in 2006 or 2007, they(in President Bush’s words) “would send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy determined to destroy our way of life.” Certainly, the ‘enemy’ would look at such an action as a major political and on the ground success and given this reality, these anti-American people could later on target American interests elsewhere in the Middle East. This would drive the United States into an endless political stalemate or into a military/political conflict which would surely be non-winnable.

Given these two major prospective outcomes of a phased American withdrawal, we should now explore the possibilities. We should now look at what could be done. Senator John Kerry has part of the answer. When Senator Kerry was contesting against Bush as the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2004, he had presented a coherent plan as to how would he have dealt with the situation in Iraq had he been president. What the United States can do is to ask the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) and the Arab League to hold events and conferences in which the Iraqi government, the nation’s spiritual leaders and representatives of the nation’s ‘insurgent’ population should be allowed to take part in and put forward their opinions and take an active part in essential decision making. This is certainly a good measure through which Muslim countries could develop mutual understanding with the representatives and people of Iraq. This is a part of the solution that could bring trade, security, stability, constitutionalism and democracy to Iraq and only when these aspects start to flow in, Iraq would truly be a free country.

American failures in Iraq have been potentially dangerous for all: the Americans, the Iraqis and the world at large. Today, the world is significantly less safer than what it was prior to the war in Iraq. The international community has had to bear the brunt of high oil prices—a direct outcome of America’s current policies in the Middle East.

America’s claims about making Iraq a democracy have fallen into deaf ears. To put it simple, the news and information coming out of Iraq since the American invasion shows virtually nothing through which we could conclude that Iraq is moving towards democracy. Neither does it have a free press, a press free from all sorts of threats, pressures and manipulations, nor does it have a government and politicians who could thinks and work independently, independent of American pressure and authoritarianism. The elections were far away from being a symbol of any new found democracy, they were more of a blurred illusion. While it is true that American presence on the streets of Iraqi cities is a major push forward for the inflating anti-Americanism, there it must also be sure to the readers that this same American presence is curbing the growth of what could have been a strong and coherent Iraqi civil society in the making. Does the current situation continue, then in the future, Iraq would surely be a place where doing business or even surviving a few days might become a monumental task.

However, this does not mean that we should advocate a case for a phased American withdrawal just like the one put forward by Senator John Murtha. A withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would certainly lead to more chaos and terror, however the need for a new strategy cannot be ignored or undermined. One solution that now comes across at discussion tables is that there should be a structural redeployment of American forces stationed in Iraq. This idea states that American forces must be taken out of the cities and deployed along the borders with Iran, Syria and Jordan as this could lead to the securing of Iraq’s fragile borders and further contain the movement of freedom fighters entering Iraq from elsewhere. The security of the cities and major population centres should now be the duty of local Iraqi forces. Supporters of this idea further argue that given this scenario, the Iraqi security forces could function with greater independency and efficiency.

However, critics of this idea (including this correspondent) argue that if the Iraqi forces are allowed free access and control to Iraqi cities in these circumstances, they would further distort a worse situation. Today, we know that out of one hundred and fifteen Iraqi battalions that have been trained since 2003, only one is fully capable of taking part in actual combat. Given this dark reality, one could easily jump to the conclusion that that if Iraqi forces are allowed to take control of Iraqi cities, the situation would get completely out of control. The redeployment of American forces from the urban centres to the borders would do no good to the people of Iraq, the Americans or the Iraqi Security forces, for the latter would still be looked down upon as stooges and puppets of the Americans who themselves could get trapped in pitched battles with the insurgents coming from all Iraqi places and outside, along Iraq’s easily penetrable borders. Also, would such a redeployment of American and allied forces be looked upon by the freedom fighters as yet another sign of success and this would surely increase their confidence and morale. A structural redeployment of American forces would surely be a major political victory for the freedom fighters.

The strength and vigour of the anti war movement at home has gained considerable momentum in 2005, especially after Hurricane Katrina. Despite of some minor changes in attitude and policy not worthy of being mentioned, nothing good has came out on the part of the Bush Administration throughout 2005. In a report entitled The new way out, Newsweek correspondent Scott Johnson writes: -

1- “ Most experts now agree that the occupation is itself a key generator for the Iraqi insurgency. Staying at current troop levels means condemning Iraq to a permanent resistance that is broadly seen as legitimate as the leading Iraqi parties said in a recent statement at the Arab League meeting in Cairo.” Another time constraint is the fear that the US Army will start to break if current troop levels are maintained.” (3)

2- “ The new US strategy could still fail in many ways. One, the Iraqi units taking over from US troops are almost wholly dependent upon American logistical and other support functions. So, while training and equipping of Iraqi front-line units should be completed by January 2007, building a support capability behind them is going to take a lot longer.”(4)

It is absolutely true that the American presence and military activities in Iraq have been the major reason for the fuelling and inflation on the insurgency, the most suitable and feasible strategy is that they should allow civil liberties to flow about. The Americans must allow the media, both Arab and international to function freely( the Iraqi press has been already more than partially gagged) even if it is potentially anti-American. This would allow ideas and opportunities to float about which could adequately address the tough current Iraqi situation and could provide answers to many things about which the Americans frequently say “we do not know.” People might argue that according to data leaked out from official sources, civil liberties have been generating across Iraq. However, this might be the case only on paper. Practically, not much is left to be desired after the bloodshed unleashed by the Americans in the invasions of Fallujah, Najaf and Iraq itself. If civil liberties are truly and freely floated about, the country could be made more safer for tourism, trade and business, all of which depend upon Iraq’s oil business, which in turn depends upon the security situation in Iraq. Muslim countries, especially Iraq’s immediate Arab neighbours, must be allowed free interaction with the people of Iraq and to take an active part in the affairs of the new Iraq. It is only when Iraq gets aid, trade and business (and of course reaping benefits), would the people off Iraq be truly free and the support for the militancy could be brought down.

The situation in Iraq is getting worse each passing day. A lot needs to be done in order to put the house in order in Iraq and it must be done soon.