An Essay on Iraq

Political Demise of a Regime Iraq

It will not be out of place to look back into the history if we are to understand the correct motivation for the brutal invasion and subsequent subjugation of an independent Nation. The land of ancient Mesopotamia which became modern Iraq was colonized by the British after World War I. The defeat and collapse of the Turkish Empire resulted in the division of Arab Lands between the French and British imperialists who struck a secret deal under which Iran, Jordan and Iraq went to the British and Lebanon and Syria became French colonies. The League of Nations set up in 1919 gave a mandate in favor of Britain who declared Feisal as king of Iraq. But the Iraqis right from the beginning refused to accept the British as their masters.

Image Source: timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/al-askari-mosque-iraq.jpg%3Fquality%3D65%26strip%3Dcolor%26w%3D1100

After the Second World War the decline of British influences was accompanied by ascendance of U. S. Power the Baghdad pact came into existence to counter the Russian threat. The pact consisted of Britain, Iraq, Persia and Pakistan with its head quarters in Baghdad and an Iraqi its general secretary. The 1958 revolution took Iraq out of the imperialist clutches. The wheel of time has travelled a complete circle now. Under the pretext of self-defense in accordance with their own interpretation of the charter George W. Bush, the president of United States of America and his cohorts launched their pre-emptive military attack on Iraq in pretext of self defense in the face of imaginary threats from the territories groups supposed to be linked with Iraqi regime or from the weapons of mass destruction imagined to be in possession of Iraqi regime which are yet to be found to exist.

The United State President, George W. Bush in September 2002 urged the United Nations to force Iraq to disarm. It was emphasized that there was threat to international peace and security. Saddam Hussein regime was allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that if immediate actions were not taken, it would become irrelevant. It was alleged that Saddam Hussein had violated resolution of the U.N. Security Council time and again and hence the United Nations must take steps to dislodge Saddam Hussein and instead should build a republic which would represent all Iraqis. This was followed by the approval of use of military force against Iraq by the U.S. congress.

In November 2002 a resolution for the inspection of arms in possession of Iraq was passed by the U.N. Security Council which declared that Iraq was guilty of material break up its solemn, obligations. Iraq was given one week’s time to declare whether it intended to comply with the said resolution no. 1441. It was asked to comprehensively declare its weapon programmed and to submit to an inspection by the U.N. team which was to be tougher and through. Iraq accepted the resolution and a 30 members U.N. inspection team returned to Baghdad.

The inspection team could not find anything relevant to the charges against Iraq and its report was mainly based on presumptions. It held that Iraq had failed to account for chemical war face bombs and that thousands of chemical rockets had not been accounted for. It was further assumed that Iraq might have produced more anthrax than declared by it and that no account had been given for nutrients which could be used as biological weapons. The inspectors were also not certain weather Iraq had declared all its stud missiles and they through those Iraqi officials might have bidden some documents in their homes. In January 2003 the chief of the United Nations monitory committee submitted his report alleging that Iraq had not fully co-operated and that certain questions still remained unanswered.

But the U.S. secretary of state proclaimed that they were in possession of definite proof that the Iraqi leader was indeed concealing weapons and programmed of mass destruction and insisted that military action against Iraq was the only option left with the world body. In February, 2003 France and Germany jointly presented a plan to solve the crisis such that war looming on Iraq could be averted. But the U.S. and U.K. right out rejected the plan and asserted that war was the only alternative left. There upon Iraqi president issued a decree where by the import and production of weapons of mass destruction was banned which indicated that Iraq had decided to shed off unconventional weapons for ever.

But on February, 17, U. S. warned the united nation security council that negotiations on Iraq were over and that U .S. ready to take military action against Iraq with or without the backing the United Nations. There were world-wide protests against the threatened war. The protests drew millions of people in demonstration in cities all over the world including U. S. Bush administration had been advocating that approval of the Security Council for military action against Iraq was not required as resolution 1441 and earlier relevant resolutions provided this built-in authority. Britain was the staunchest supporter of U.S. seven other European countries viz. Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Denmark were in favor of U.S. military action against Iraq-with-standing Australia and Japan, the permanent allies of U.S.

France and Germany both announced that they were opposed to armed conflict against Iraq. Russia also emphasized that it was against the use of force against any military action to suppress Iraq. India on ground of humanitarian crisis and realizing the importance of international and regional security and guided by it’s political, economic and security interest was opposed to unilateral use of force against Iraq.

Ultimately the U.S., Britain and Spain decided not to put their resolution for its threatened use of veto against the resolution. The U.S. president gave an ultimatum to Iraq president Saddam Hussein to leave the country along with his family by 19th of March 2003 to avoid war. On 19th of March 2003 the U.S. led coalition forces launched a massive attack on Iraq. Iraq Military was no comprised to the U.S. led forces and Baghdad the capital of Iraq fell to the coalition forces on April 10, 2003. Within 21 days of operation Basra and Baghdad were taken over and the remaining cities could also not afford much resistance.

On 2nd may, 2003 the U.S. president George W. Bush proclaimed that war in Iraq had been won. He also declared that Afghanistan and Iraq were merely battles, parts of the war against terrorism which will continue. The coalition troops have not been also to locate any weapon of mass destruction (WMD). The United States media reports that the U.S. team entrusted with the task of locating WMD has already returned without any success. But the U. S. President still insists that WMD do exist in Iraq and that search of these weapons would continue.

On July 22, 2003 two sons of Saddam Hussein’s Qusay and Uday were killed. It is surprising that no efforts were made to capture them alive. Dead men tell no tales. U. N. special commission team in 1990’s had claimed that quays were in charge of developing Iraq’s WMD. Had he been captured alive he would have provided valuable information about WMD’s if they at all exit. It is a thing of common understanding that had there been any weapons of mass destruction in possession of quays, for which other moment would he have waited for their use when death was glaring him on the face. The U.S. allied forces have ultimately been able to capture Saddam Hussein also. According to the U. S. officials his trail would be adducted in Iraq and suitable punishment would be awarded to him.

After the fall Saddam’s regime there was widespread anarely. There was no government and no law and order. There was wide spread looting and crime. The coalition armies tried to stabilize the situation with the help of local Iraqi police which were difficult to find and locate. In the month of May 2003 George W. Bush appointed a civilian head for Iraq. The U. S. administrator of Iraq Shri Paul Bermer resolved to culminate Saddam Hussein’s BAATH party (is a political party in the Arab World advocating the related concepts of Arab nationalism). Social infrastructure of Iraq has been totally destroyed, civic amenities are badly waiting, power shortage, scarcity of water, hospitals without doctors and nurses are the order of the day. The U. S. administrator has frankly admitted that the problems are very tough and that the U. S. trying its very best with the co-operation of Iraqis to solve them.

For the present there is a political vacuum. Ahmed Chalabi who was in exile during Saddam Hussein’s regime has been named head of the U. S. sponsored Iraqi national congress. He along with his followers has been flown into Iraq. According to Chalabi only U. S. can rule over Iraq without any interference or intervention of the U. N.

It is believed that for fear of long term presence of U. S. forces in Iraq, a new phase of Iraqi nationalism is taking shape. On 19th of many thousands of Iraqis came out on streets of Baghdad demanding self government and withdrawal of U. S. troops. Such a demonstration is an indication of the rising discontent against the coalition administration and uneasiness against the speed of at which power is being handed over to Iraqis. In Iraq Shia Majority, which faced persecution under Saddam Husain’s regime although pleased with the fall of Saddam Husain, are feeling restless with the breakdown of law and order and have clearly indicated that they want their representation in post war Iraq.

The U. S. President George W. Bush has promised an all out support to Iraqis until true democracy is established in the country. He proclaimed that Iraq can turn into an example of peace, prosperity and freedom for the entire Middle East. It is left that an authentically moderate Iraqi centre must emerge with deep roots in Islamic Society. The Islamic extremist’s should not be allowed to dominate the political scenario. Efforts must be made to build institutions of liberty-an independent judiciary, a free press, freedom of expression. Flourishing industry, corporate banking, economic reforms and above all a constitution anchoring all political parties existing in the county such that interest of the nation and country is supreme for them for all.

After years of war and sanctions imposed upon Iraq, its oil dependent economy had been badly shattered. There is no industry and agriculture is in a very bad state. Its foreign debt knows no bounds. U. S. is depending upon Iraq’s oil wealth for its rehabilitation.

On 13th of July, 2003 new Iraqi Governing council was formed consisting of 25 members in order to form an effective government which would ensure security, provide public services and revitalize economy. according to the united nations representative Iraq has taken a marked step towards achieving the objectives of U. N. resolution 1483 and that the council is broadly has some executive powers such as nominating ministers changing laws, helping in formation of a committee to draft a new constitution for the country and arrange for free elections but final authority rests with the U. S. administrator.

But the road ahead is going to be even more difficult. Iraq is a society battered by an Anglo-American assault since 1991. The resistance in Iraq seems to be deepening its roots into the soil and it has already started precipitating. It has already become clear that the case for invasion was based on falsehood and that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction. As such the Anglo-American armies are not seen as liberators but are hated as occupiers. Iraqis now seem to be engaged in a war of national resistance and liberation. Hence other governments shall also be in trouble from Australia and Denmark who sent their troops for the army of occupation to Italy and Spain who did not send troops but become sheer leaders of occupation. The U. S. had hoped that after conquering Iraq, a global imperial army would be assembled on the model of British army of the colonial times with soldiers coming mainly from Asian and African countries to enforce its rule in Iraq.

But as casualties for the present army of occupation increase and the will of Iraqi people hardens many other countries shall have to reconsider their wisdom in sending their men to die for the U. S. imperialism. India has already declined to send its troops to Iraq under the U. S. and British command. In Iraq today job is not for peace keeping as there is war and only war and it has to be seen whether the troops going to Iraq will fight for the colonizer or the colonized. however if the opportunity for establishing peace comes and an explicit U. S. mandate in the form of unambiguous security council comes, India may consider the deployment of Indian troop in Iraq.