The Current Mess in Iraq—putting things in perspective

With the occupation of Iraq in its fifth year, there should be a close and critical analysis on the mess that the United States has so easily created in Iraq and is finding it hard to get out of it. This series of essays does not only deal with the mess in Iraq, but also with the ways, means and recommendations, along with viable and applicable military and political strategies that could be employed in order to clean this imbroglio.

Over the last four and a half years, the occupation has fuelled sectarian conflicts, mass killings, guerilla war, and terrorism, along with other enormous economic and social hardships in Iraq, on its people. The country’s erratic water, electricity and sanitation supplies, along with its creaky infrastructure and health care systems, has made life a living hell for the people of Iraq. Today, Iraqis are killing each other, to the extent that even survival on a day-to-day basis is now being considered a daunting task in many parts of the country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and many millions, internally displaced. These aspects have not been a legacy of the rule of Saddam Hussein. Life in Iraq during his rule, was by far, more peaceful and harmonious. This is best demonstrated by the fact that many millions across the world today would squarely blame the United States and the United Kingdom for the mess that has been created in Iraq!

Acute mismanagement and lack of post war planning has led towards the commitment of innumerable errors and potential blunders in all areas of politics, planning and implementation.

Consider an example. General Jay Garner, a retired three star General, who led operation Provide Comfort had led the way to the rescue of thousands of ethnic Kurds in Northern Iraq. The Operation only consisted of 2000 US marines who, under Garner’s command had systematically driven out Saddam’s forces from Northern Iraq. The operation’s overall success was a the outcome of the humanitarian work done by those marines, especially their setting up of water purification systems. (1)

When it finally dawned upon Donald Rumsfeld that some serious post war planning shall be done as the US was planning a long term stay in Iraq, he summoned General Garner, on the advice of General James to take up the new job! (2)

On the 20th of January 2003, President Bush signed the ‘National Security’ Presidential directive that led to the setting up of an ‘ Iraqi postwar planning office,’ in the Department of Defence. General Garner was in charge of that office. His office was supposed to be dealing with most of the post war security, political, social and economic issues, which broadly included:

· Assisiting with Humanitarian relief

· Dismantling the weapons of mass destruction

· Defeating and exploiting terrorist networks

· Protecting natural resources and infrastructure

· Facilitation of national reconstruction and protection of food, water and electric supplies and health care.

· Reshaping the Iraqi military.

· Reshaping other internal security institutions

· Supporting the transition to the Iraqi led authorities over time.

(3)

Douglas Feith, the undersecretary for policy planning at the Pentagon, was working on post-war planning. For more than a month now, he had been working on a paper entitled ‘ US and Coalition objectives. ‘ On 4th March 2003, he gave aw briefing to President bush and the NSC. In a full Power Point presentation, the Harvard graduate had made the following points regarding US and coalition endeavours in post war Iraq:

· Iraq’s territorial integrity should be maintained and there should be an improvement in the quality of life for the Iraqis.

· Iraq is seen to be moving towards democracy and democratic institutions and it should serve as a model for the region.

· The United States and Coalition forces should maintain their freedom of action to carry out the global war on terror and the subsequent capture and destruction of WMDs.

· Obtain international participation in the reconstruction effort

· Obtain support of the Iraqi people

· Obtain the political support of the international community including the regional states through a Security Council resolution.

· Place as many Iraqi faces in position of Physical authority as possible

· Accomplish all the above, urgently.(4)

This exactly seems to be America’s hidden, but well framed policy and agenda with respect to Iraq, after the major combat operations were declared over. However, these perspectives do fall short on quite a few counts. First and foremost, they were not based on hard, ground based facts, but on mere mythical assumptions such as the one that the US and Coalition forces would be warmly received inside Iraq. The foolish Americans did not even assume that the Iraqis would have some knowledge about their history and America’s real intentions for the invasions. How could they have forgotten that this President’s father was the man under whom America had backed off from facing Saddam when he turned down violent Shiite Rebellions and used chemical weapons against Shiites and the Kurds throughout Iraq? How could they have forgotten that the people currently in charge of the political institutions are more or less, the same people who worked with President Reagan during the Iran-Iraq War and with Bush 41, during the Gulf War Holocaust in 1990? The real intentions of the Americans, behind this invasion were definitely to ensure that the splits within the Arab and Islamic World remain in all their outstanding forms and manifestations, enhancing Israel’s regional security and using Iraq as a launch pad for further political, economic and perhaps military incursions into Central Asia.



This, according to many in the US is necessary in case the US looks forward to contain China and Russia—by keeping a check on global oil supplies and securing its own interests through the strategic placements of troops, presence of American multinational and franchise businesses and through the erection of puppet administrations!

Contrary to what is seen and generally perceived, democracy in the Muslim world would surely be the deathbed of the global interests of Israel and the US! Therefore, it is deemed necessary for the West, led by the US to ensure and reinforce splits and divisions within the entire population of the Muslim World. This is amply proven by the fact that since the American invasion of Iraq, sectarian violence has been fuelling across the Middle East. It has been after the American invasion that Lebanon and the Palestinian territories have been going through a civil war, yet again. Not to forget the Holocaust that is taking place in Iraq nowadays.

Secondly, members of the Bush cabinet, especially the brains behind this paper, did not take into consideration the flip side of the story and their tactical and strategic planning does demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of the Arab people, their values, norms, culture, Faith, traditions and history. Therefore, all the planning for the invasion and of the post war Iraq, which also includes the final recommendations of the Iraq Study Group were all doomed to be catastrophic failures that they have turned out to be.

One of the reasons for the failure of America’s current foreign policy (in general) and Iraq policy(in particular), can be attributed to the fact that things have never been put into the right perspectives and frameworks when they should have been.

The invasion itself was a colossal mistake, period. A read through Bob Woodward’s State of Denial informs us that many a times, persistent warnings of Powell and Armitage were ignored and that Jay Garner was put onto one side.

President Bush’s very claim of making Iraq a model of democracy for the Middle East is basically a flawed proposition on the following counts:

· Democracy cannot be forced upon sovereign nations.

· Iraq has never had Western style Democracy through out its entire history.

· The implantation of true democracy in the Middle East would be a nail in the coffins of American interests and physical presence in the Middle East.

These points would now be discussed in some detail. The first idea was accurately summed up and put together across by Senator John Kerry in his first presidential debate against Bush in the 2004 campaign. As democracy has to be a process for the people, by the people and from the people, it is very necessary that democracy take to strong roots in societies where it is supposed to establish itself. Therefore democracy cannot be achieved as a result of politically provocative influences. If the United Kingdom is a representative, liberal democracy today, then it is all so because democracy has established strong roots in that country, in the face of a free press, judiciary, Parliament and a secular and multi-cultural and pluralistic society.

The second point mentioned above is a fact proven by History. Ever since Islam spread to Iraq, it has more or less been under the rule of Sunni monarchies and dynasties and dictatorships. Therefore, all the hogwash that is being churned out by Bush and his coterie of ignorant bigots is by and large beyond the level of comprehension of the average Iraqi.


However, quite contrastingly, voting and ballot boxes are nothing new to the people of Iraq. Even Saddam Hussein had his own referendums. Therefore, the high turnouts on election days, a claim that this writer would dispute anyways, does not demonstrate anything like ‘democracy at its best’. What the West, especially the policymakers in the US generally fail to understand is that Western Style democracy is not applicable in Iraq because the ideals, ideas and movements that led towards the establishment of democracy and secularisation of the Western society, cannot be applied in Iraq because of various cultural, demographic, structural, religious and various other direct and indirect differences.

This however does not mean that Iraq cannot ever become a democratic society, it can. However the democratic mindset has to come from within Iraq. The ideas, intellectuals and the voices of freedom and democracy must come from within Iraq and the Arab world. This is exactly what happened in case of the West. Six hundred years ago, the West had learnt much of its Mathematics, medicine, Chemistry and Commerce from the Muslims, but western democracy does not owe much to Islam. The West’s ideals of liberal democracy, Lincoln, Weber, Kennedy, Durkheim (who in his functionalist sociology had laid paramount emphasis on value consensus in society) and the White feminists, were all from within their own civilizations, society and brethren.

The third point is of equal importance here. The masses in the West generally do not understand that the implantation of real democracy in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world would truly be a nail in America’s coffin in the Middle East. This is because the establishment of true democracy in the Middle East, especially Iraq would bring forth a totally different face of Islam in the forefront—the Islam that promotes brotherhood, pluralism, encourages community service and acquisition of knowledge and education.

This in-turn means that democracy in Iraq and the wider Middle East, would rally the whole region’s population unanimously behind the cause of the civilians of Palestine and Lebanon. Today, however, the Arab world stands divided on all outstanding issues and therefore, such a scenario would seriously jeapordise Israel’s regional security and territorial integrity. Today, analysts and eminent around the world know that if America becomes serious about democracy in the Middle East, the only thing that we would see is the coming up governments and political alliances who generally have had an Anti-Israel, Anti-Zionist and Anti-American agenda. This is best demonstrated by the rise of Hezbollah and Hamas in occupied Palestine.

Today, thanks to the mindless idiotism of President Bush and Israel’s inhumane, illegal and ill-advised invasion of Lebanon, Iran and Syria have emerged as strong countries and as strong allies. Because of the outstanding failures of American foreign policy in the Middle East under the current administration, it has been seen that American lawmakers and the presidential hopefuls for the 2008 race are not pressing forward for more democratisation throughout the Middle East, as the outcomes can now be easily predicted.

Thus conclusively, it can be said that in this case, reality lies in to what does not meet the human eye, i.e. the actual truth behind America’s moves towards democracy in the Middle East. America has been using this propaganda to implant further divisions across an already fractured Arab society.





Before the international community begins its long haul of putting Iraq on proper track, it must ensure that everything that is of major concern, is put under the right perspective. Newsweek International’s editor Fareed Zakaria puts this idea forward very clearly when he writes that in order to actually understand the real problems within the new American strategies and before we actually start to sort out, understand, analyse and solve the mess plaguing Iraq today, “we have to see Iraq as it is now. Not as it once was, not as we hope it will become, but as it is today.” In that same article, Zakaria further goes on to write that “America is not winning in Iraq, which means that it is losing. Iraq has fallen apart, both as a nation and as a state. Its capital and lands containing almost fifty percent of its population remain deeply insecure and plagued by rising internal divisions.”(5) This indeed is the inevitable truth about the state in which Iraq has now been for many years!

Throughout the course of his Presidency, George W Bush and his whole coterie of corporate backed political incumbents have actually remained in a complete state of denial regarding all essential aspects of foreign policy, be it, whether it was Iraq, Afghanistan or the new face of Israeli terror in the Middle East, their ignorance has often shocked many.

However, at times, the Western media and the academia, as usual have been getting things wrong. For example, how many Anglo-American journalists, historians, writers, sociologists and politicians, etc. have even had basic knowledge about Iraq’s social, cultural and political history? How many of them do truly understand the actual religious and spiritual importance of places like Najaf, the Imam Ali (A.S.) mosque and the city of Kerbala? How many people in the West actually understand that many Arab and non-Arab Muslim countries are today paying the price for the unprecedented support to the US during the Cold war years? The answer, not many!

It is (indeed) due to a lack of understanding about Iraq’s political, social and cultural past along with a serious lack of knowledge on Iraq’s various sites and cities of religious importance, that has become a major impediment in the creation of a more logical understanding about the present mess in Iraq. In one of his columns for Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper, former Pakistani ambassador to Iraq Karamatullah K. Ghouri wrote that “the mess in Iraq that George W. bush knows not how to control is a creation, entirely, of Americans’ inability to grasp the basics of the Iraqi tribal culture, because they in their hubris, thought that what they had to offer to the Iraqis was far superior.

“ They failed to grasp the fact that Iraq’s textual reality is a two-faced coin. One face is its tribal roots and structure, and the other is its sectarian mosaic that often intrudes into its precincts, taxing its ability to withstand the strain.”(6)

Until recently, major American press houses and television networks did not consider it worthy to analyse Iraq from out of the box. The current policy standoff in the Senate and the House, and the US presidential campaign would not do as much harm as ‘Bush style ignorance would.’ On many occasions in the past, the press and the electronic media in the United States, has not been able to pick on President Bush when it mattered the most.

As the Americans and the British have been the chief culprits and bullies in this case, it is incumbent upon them to initiate the corrective actions. In my opinion, the current situation provides leading Western media outlets, foreign-policy think tanks and various other political institutions and institutions of higher education to come together and see the other side of wall, i.e. virtually everything from the Muslim and Arab perspective.


This could initiate the much needed dialogue and healthy interaction between the West and the Muslim world, largely through joint ventures and institutional collaboration.

While the need of understanding and rethinking Iraq in the right perspective has been firmly established, now we should discuss that how can the intended understanding and knowledge be achieved.

A detailed but a focused study of Iraqi history, both archaeological and anthropological, social and cultural, would surely help the West in understanding the psyche and sentiments of the Iraqi people in particular and the Arabs in general. Leading Western universities like Oxford, Harvard and Cambridge should take the lead here.

One of the important aspects of this war has been its perception around the world. Over here, adequate light has been shed on the different ways and perspectives in which the media in the US, UK, Middle East and the wider Muslim and third world looks at this conflict as it unfolds.

One of the major debates that continue to take place within the global media today is that what future course of action shall the United States take in Iraq.

This was precisely the purpose due to which the Iraq Study Group was found. Authored by some of America’s most influential policy makers, the report has however invited damaging criticisms from various sections of the American and the international press. For example, during the introductory paragraphs, the Iraq Study Group’s Report goes on to say that the “Iraqi people have a democratically elected government, yet it is not adequately advancing national reconciliation, providing basic security, or delivering essential services. Pessimism is pervasive.” This above reference is one of the many pieces of completely flawed and ridiculous analysis that actually make up the final and authorised edition of the Group’s complete report.

In a heated criticism of the report, veteran Pakistani journalist Ayaz Amir had the following point to make: -

“The Iraq Study Group, doling out wisdom, sure to be too little, too late, suggests that it is time for America to pull out of Iraq. What it should really have called for is Bush’s impeachment and the drawing and quartering of all the armchair bullies responsible for this mayhem. The group calls upon Iraq to stand on its own feet, which is wonderful advice. You first break someone’s limbs, fracture his spine and whack his skull and then when he is down and out you snarl at him and say ‘get on your feet’. This is exactly what the US is now expecting of the Iraqi government.” (7)

Mr. Amir has put his point across pretty well indeed. Regardless of whatever brainless hogwash the Iraq Study Group’s report says, the reality is plain and simple—the reality being that America’s occupation of Iraq has not only destroyed its civil society, but has also made the otherwise peaceful country, a bastion of global terrorism.

Another major fallout of America’s invasion and occupation of Iraq is the open destruction of Iraq’s cultural heritage. Over the last four years or so, a lot of Iraq’s cultural heritage has either been deliberately destroyed by the militants, or has been smuggled out of the country. This looting and destruction of cultural artefacts would only leave a bitter legacy for the future generations of Iraq.

In May 2003, the UNSC passed the Resolution 1483. The resolution had laid emphasis on the protection of Iraq’s religious, cultural, historical and archaeological heritage and sites, along with various museums, libraries and monuments. (8)

These things, are however of least concern to the American government, media and its people. Their interests, in all its essential realities and manifestations, are very limited and clearly focused. For the Americans and the British, its all about extending their hegemony in the region through occupation of foreign land, complete control over the land’s natural and human resources and exploitation of the masses, a blatant implementation of the age old, time tested formula of divide and rule. The Sunnis and Shiites, had been living in Iraq harmoniously for more than eight hundred years, despite of certain hiccups such as Saddam’s campaign to crush Shiite rebels after the Gulf War. It is the Americans and the British who have indeed rekindled the wounds that actually form the core foundations of fundamentalist Sunni and Shiite Islam. The American military, within its core heart, does seem to have found some satisfaction in the fact that Iraqi militias and respective death squads, have not only taken up arms against the Americans, but also amongst themselves. The American media squarely blames them for the ongoing carnage in Iraq. Newsweek has gone as far as to claim that for every one American soldier being killed, 20 Iraqis are being slaughtered, although the figures seem to be pretty rough, to say the least. In reality, the laying down of a framework that pits off Iraqis against Iraqis has overall benefited the American defence contractors, Public Relations firms and oil businesses whose interests are chiefly represented and safeguarded by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld (though he’s not there anymore). These companies have a lion’s share in Iraq’s oil revenues and have got multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts in Iraq, Kuwait and in other parts of the Middle East where US forces have been stationed since Operation Desert Storm, in August 1990.

Amidst all this, is the ridiculous American claim that Iran has been fomenting violence in Iraq, by training the militias and supplying them with weaponry and therefore must be brought to book, also because of its notorious nuclear programme. Iran today is playing the same role that Pakistan was playing during the last phase of the cold war, i.e. during the Afghan war.

Each passing month of the first half of the year 2006, attacks on American forces were increasing at a threatening pace. They had gone up from 72 per day (roughly 2232 a month) in January, to about 113 per day (roughly 3390 a month) in May.

Various findings of the American Intelligence agencies had found out that insurgents were using Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs), an advanced class of Improvised Electronic Devices, IEDs being used in Iraq. These explosives are shaped and designed in such a way that they can penetrate Humvees, personnel carriers and tanks and then further explode on the inner side.

According to Bob Woodward’s account, the US intelligence had known that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps did seek the help of Hezbollah, the Lebanese force that so bravely repelled and fought the Israelis throughout the period of Lebanon’s occupation and the brief but disastrous June 2006 summer war, to train Iraqis in the use of EFPs. Now according to the US intelligence, this is how Iranians are killing American soldiers. (9)

Despite the journalistic credentials of Bob Woodward, this account does not seem to be a valid conclusion or a judgemental piece, because Iran itself is not a country that possesses very high-tech military equipment. What if it is later transpired that Iran in-turn was getting the equipment from a third source, like say Russia, China, any European country, or the open international black market that itself operates with the blessings of the Americans? Would the estimates of the US intelligence still be valid.

Whatever the United States might say, Iran is not acting like a regional bully. Yes, this is very much a conflict of regional supremacy and superiority. It is equally true that Iran has been supportive of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iraqi insurgents, but what should also be understood is that at this moment Iran does feel being isolated and its security is increasingly under foreign threat.

We would return to Iran in a while, but lets talk a little bit more about the faulty report of the Iraq Study Group. Former Pakistani ambassador Tanvir Ahmed Khan writes “drafted by ten leaders who are pillars of the Washington establishment and have extensive governmental experience, the report clings to a cautious candour. It has deliberately avoided the systemic reasons why the United States gets involved into such quagmires and why it ignores the friendliest voices raised all over the world to flag the perils of the path that it additionally chooses.” (10)

It has been quite clearly pointed out that out of the many short comings of the Iraq Study Group’s report, many essential areas of debate and discussion, that could have played a key role in giving the American military and foreign policy a new approach or way forward.

Coming back to Iran, it must be understood quite rationally that as to why the American claims and propaganda regarding that country’s role in Iraq and the wider Middle East demonstrates the sheer ignorance and the State of Denial, in which the Bush administration is already living. Needless to say, the security threat to Iran today, is potentially great. Today, Iran does indeed face a real threat of a full scale aerial and/or ground assault primarily aimed at destroying its nuclear capability and installations. Also has Iran been in competition with the US and Israel for the sake of safeguarding its own regional interests, goals and the overall foreign policy. Keeping in mind the very few options it has at its disposal because of increasingly tough sanctions and international isolation (because of its nuclear programme), Iran has been seemingly compelled to arm and support various non-state actors operating all around the Middle East. The Iranians clearly understand the logical notion that the high levels of violence in neighbouring Iraq are also not in their own best interests, but then again, this is also one of the ways to keep the Americans busy and continuously engaged in the land that they so foolishly invaded and occupied.

From the Iranian perspective, their support of Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Muqtada Al Sadr in Iraq, is a viable diplomatic leverage against a possible full scale American/Jewish military assault on its nuclear installations. Many in the United States, including the Administrations’ foot soldiers at Fox News, do not generally understand the long term repercussions of an American assault on Iran’s nuclear installations. This discussion would be taken up in a later topic of this new entire series.

Towards our conclusion, it would be adequate to say that the Bush administration most basic and fundamental problem with regards to its foreign policy has been the about putting and understanding things and essential issues of vital importance, in the wrong perspective.

Foot notes
1. ‘State of Denial,’ Bob Woodward, Page 104

2. ‘State of Denial,’ Bob Woodward, Page 104

3. State of Denial, Bob Woodward, page 112

4. ‘Plan of Attack’- Bob Woodward, Page 328

5. ‘ Rethinking Iraq: The way forward.’ Fareed Zakaria Newsweek, November 6th.

6. ‘Iraq under US occupation, four years on’ Karamatullah K. Ghouri Dawn, March 31-2007.

7. Disconnected subjects, Ayaz Amir, Dawn, December 8th 2006.

8. ‘Iraq’s cultural heritage in ruins’, by Afif Sarhan and Firas Al-Atraqchi, taken from the web archive of Al-Jazeera. The original article can be accessed at http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3A563BB6-10F8-46DA-AE11-7EE46BA0F129.htm? FRAMELESS=true&NRNODEGUID=%7b3A563BB6-10F8-46DA-AE11-7EE46BA0F129%7d


9. ‘State of Denial’, Bob Woodward, Page 474

10. ‘ A reluctant way out of Iraq,’Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Dawn, December 11-2006.