US
President George W Bush has started a media blitz that
began on Monday evening at the Army War College in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, which served as a highly
conservative and patriotic forum for his purpose. He is
expected to make a number of such appearances, in which
he will attempt to underscore the positives regarding
the US presence in Iraq at a time when things are not at
all going well. The purpose of this first speech was to
tell the American people that his plans for Iraq are on
track.
While Bush was trying to score popularity
points with the American people, the United Nations was
considering a US-United Kingdom draft resolution on the
future of Iraq. That reality in itself stood out like a
sore thumb. Here was the US president who committed his
country to a war of choice in Iraq, without the blessing
of the UN. Here was the US president, who only in
September 2002 admonished the world body to act
according to his wishes regarding Iraq or face the
danger of becoming irrelevant. However, on Monday
evening, under the presidency of Bush, the United States
was waiting for the world body to endorse a resolution
on the future of Iraq. Another important purpose of that
proposed resolution is to legitimize the US forces'
presence in that country after June 30. Germany, France
and Russia are expected to study the draft carefully and
offer suitable revisions.
The second irony of
the situation is that, despite its global significance,
the world body's endorsement of any resolution is not
going to make Iraq either a stable or a peaceful place.
The deteriorated nature of the security situation in
Iraq is epitomized by the fact that the UN,
notwithstanding its significance as a legitimate entity,
could not legitimize any future government in Iraq,
especially if that government remains affiliated in any
way with the US. At the same time, as powerful as
America's force presence has been in Iraq, it has not
been able to stabilize the country.
Iraq,
under Saddam Hussein, was not the focus of terrorism,
violence and instability, contrary to the claims made by
Bush before he invaded. Today, and despite the continued
US occupation, Iraq has emerged as the focus of
instability and a gathering place for terrorists of all
stripes.
So despite Bush's claim that the Iraq
plan is on track, the United States has little real
control over that plan. Yes, the UN representative,
Lakhdar Brahimi, is assiduously trying to put together a
slate of technocrats to govern Iraq. Yet every ethnic
and religious group jockeying for a slot in that
government is driven by anything but his or her
technical expertise. At the same time, all the endeavors
of Brahimi might come to naught by a mere veto of that
reclusive symbol of real legitimacy and power in Iraq,
Shi'ite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has
withheld legitimacy from the US authority. At the same
time, he has remained committed to creating Islamic
democracy in Iraq dominated by the Shi'ites, while
Brahimi and Bush have visions of pluralizing Iraq -
making it a place where the Kurds, Shi'ites, Sunnis, men
and women would govern and live in harmony.
These visions are waiting to
clash, and in Iraq, there are no magnanimous losers. Losing gracefully
is a rule of the game
that emerges only after decades of internalizing democratic
practices and honoring and abiding by the rules of democracy. Iraq
has no such experience. At the same time,
Iraqi insurgents and terrorists have their visions of turbulence
and bloodletting. Their driving passion is to humiliate and
expel the lone superpower. No wonder Iraq faces
such an ominous future.
All this is waiting to happen, while Bush desperately tries
to convince Americans, world opinion, and the Iraqis that he is
on the right track. He has decided to tear down the
infamous Abu Ghraib prison and build a new one. However,
that prison will forever linger on in the memory of the
Iraqis and in history books, not only as a symbol of
brutality under Saddam, but also as a place where Iraqi nationhood
was humiliated under US occupation.
Bush promises
to offer Iraq full sovereignty on June 30. Yet even US
media pundits have openly expressed their disbelief. It
is too early to know whether the American people believe
their president. World opinion is highly skeptical of
anything Bush has to say about Iraq. What about the
Iraqis? Well, they were sound asleep when he was making
that speech in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Perhaps that
reality also signifies the fact that even after getting
rid of the rule of a brutal dictator, the Iraqis still
have no say about their own future. They might just as
well be sleeping.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD,
is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent
strategic analyst.
(Copyright 2004 Asia
Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
