Iraq invasion: Three years after

Photos: AFP

Well, as one looks at it from the vantage point of being in the United States, the feeling one gets is that the 9/11 terrorist attacks had transformed the American society and had created a tremendous rage in the country. The Americans were both terror-stricken and terror-driven. The administration took advantage of the situation to create an unprecedented paranoia in the country by frequently raising and lowering the colour-coded threat levels.

The invasion of Afghanistan, and removal of the Al Qaeda terrorists and the Taliban regime, could not quell the rage as mastermind Osama bin Laden was not apprehended. Furthermore, Afghan war was viewed as a one-sided affair, whereas the Americans were looking for a "real fight." Saddam Hussein fitted in perfectly in this scenario. His track record -- invasion of Kuwait and the torture of his own people -- were well-known. Interestingly, vast majority of Americans were also made to believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, though no such link could be established between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda terrorists.

This created necessary ground for the Administration to project the invasion of Iraq as a part of their "war against terror." The US Congress rather meekly accepted the Administration's arguments and endorsed the invasion plan. Quick military victory and elimination of Saddam regime prompted President Bush to dramatically land, in a green flight suit with a white helmet in hand, on aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and declare "Mission Accomplished" before several thousand cheering sailors. Unfortunately, such optimism was highly premature and, after thirty-six months since the invasion, the American ordeal is far from over.

So, what went wrong? Well, none of the pre-war predictions of the Administration came true. The Iraqi people did not welcome the US troops as "liberators" nor could Saddam's links with al-Qaeda terrorists be proven. More importantly, the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which Saddam allegedly possessed, was not found despite a thorough search all over the country. This alone took away the raison d'etre for which the "pre-emptive" attack had been launched. The Iraqi paramilitary forces launched a resistance movement from the very beginning resulting in large scale deaths of American soldiers. Despite these setbacks, the American people agreed to give the Bush administration some time to control the situation and decided not to change their Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a War. So President Bush was reelected in November 2004.

Three years after the American-led forces swept through Iraq, the country continues to remain in the grip of insurgency. More than 2,500 Americans have been killed, 17,000 have been maimed or wounded. How many thousands of Iraqis have died we shall never know. American troops are haplessly bogged down in Iraqi soil, and there is no end in sight. It is apparent that the Bush administration did not have any plan to deal with post-war Iraq and that in the face of continued insurgency; it kept on shifting the goal posts from one targeted date to another. Most recently, they had expected that after the parliamentary elections and adoption of constitution in last November, it would be possible to create a democratic structure in Iraq which could facilitate their phased withdrawal from the war torn country. However, even four months after the adoption of the constitution by the Iraqi parliament, it has not been possible to form a central Iraqi government that could exercise authority all over the country.

Iraq, a deeply divided country, has no history of democracy and it has always been ruled by the authoritarian regimes of the Sunni minority. The Shias, who constitute the majority in Iraq, have been deprived of their rightful role in the national scene, and the Kurds, an ethnically distinct minority, has suffered terrible persecution under the Sunni rule. The recent Parliamentary election has, for the first time, put the Shias in the driver's seat; but the Sunnis are vehemently reluctant to accept the Shia rule or to grant autonomy to Kurds. Consequently, there has been a steady rise in sectarian violence and the country is in on the verge of a civil war.

The American people now realize that there is no quick fix in Iraq and that the war is going to be a long drawn affair. So far the US has spent over $360 billion on the Iraq War which is more than four times the original estimated cost. The Americans are frustrated that despite such high costs, there is no upside for their country in this war. A recent poll conducted by non-partisan Gallup group indicate that six out of ten Americans believe that the "Iraq War is not worth it." After all, the American people are prepared to sacrifice their lives or money only if it served the American interest.

After three years of upbeat White House assessments which do not corroborate the situation on the ground, the people's support for the Iraq war has now plummeted to 29 per cent and President Bush's job rating has reached an all time low. According to Pew Research Centre, the credibility gap between the ruler and the ruled has significantly widened and only 40 per cent people consider Bush as trustworthy, a 22-point drop from September 2003, six months after the invasion. The Gallup survey also shows a 26-point drop in the number of people who find Bush trustworthy since the 2003 invasion.

This erosion of public support for the President is a sharp reversal of his standing as a strong and stable leader, especially on national security matters. In his third anniversary speeches, President Bush has taken note of people's concern, but he has continued with his sunny-side up appraisals. He has, however, frankly admitted that US troops would remain in Iraq beyond his Presidency. He knows that the huge credibility gap between him and the people has effectively diminished public support for a long-term US military commitment in Iraq.

The rosy picture painted by the US administration also clashes with the assessments given by the people on the ground. The former Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, once a blue-eyed favourite of Washington, said in a recent interview with BBC that his country was moving towards a "point of no return" and that unfortunately, they were "in civil war." He knows that the Bush administration cannot accept this categorization, so he elaborated: "We are losing each day an average of 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more." He continued to say: "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." Interestingly, American Ambassador in Baghdad Zalmy Khalilzad has also warned of the possibility of civil war breaking out.

It is apparent that after three years, billions of dollars and thousands of lives, the US led invasion has not produced the results the Bush administration wanted. Iraq's future remains dismal. In fact, the entire Middle Eastern region has become less stable than before the attack on Iraq. Given this complex scenario, Washington would be surely looking for a face-saving exit. It is easy to start a war but difficult to end it. The sole superpower cannot just abandon Iraq now. It has to train Iraqi army and police to take care of the security situation. More importantly, it has to hand over power to a credible Iraqi government. The problem is how to get the different Iraqi factions to a power sharing arrangement under a democratic structure. After all, democracy is unique to each country and an indigenous item; it cannot be imposed from beyond.

One genuinely doubts whether the Bush administration understood the complexities of the Iraqi situation before undertaking the ill-fated invasion. I saw a bumper sticker on a car in the UC Berkeley campus that says: "Ignorance and arrogance can lead to bad foreign policy." Perhaps this sums up the nation's predicaments. America's high tech weaponry was able to destroy Saddam's authoritarian regime within a record time, but creating an alternative democratic structure in Iraq would need more time and greater patience. How much longer the American people will let President Bush continue with his "staying the course" strategy in Iraq remains to be seen.

Syed Muazzem Ali is a former Foreign Secretary.