:: Inder Malhotra

Five years of blood and US blunders in Iraq

Back to forward / Inder Malhotra

DOES anyone remember the hype over the "shock and awe" in Iraq and the euphoria over "mission accomplished", announced by President George W. Bush on board a US naval ship on which he had arrived in a personally piloted plane? Yet the Iraq war continues without anybody being aware of how and when it would end.

The key question is: after the relentless reign of blood and gore for over five years, a virtual civil war among the Iraqis, unspeakable atrocities of Abu Ghraib, mass flight of refugees, economic ruin and profound unease in the region, what has the neocon-infested Bush administration, itself on its last legs, to show for itself in Iraq? To be sure, President Bush, his drumbeaters and apologists, and even Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain would reply: "Quite a lot". And, in all fairness, their claim cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Under American occupation, with a fragile and divided Iraqi government nominally in charge, Iraq has lately shown some signs of "turning the corner," especially after last year’s heavily-advertised "surge" in the number of American troops in that country. Almost daily suicide-bombings — often by "females" — continue to take a heavy toll of life to this day. Yet there has been a perceptible decline in overall violence. The overlapping tangle of wars — Sunni against American, Sunni against Shia and Shia against Shia — has abated.

The White House is also drawing comfort from the fact that the virulently anti-American Shia cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, with the powerful Mehdi army at his command, chose not to resist when the Iraqi Army wrested control of not only Basra but also Sadr City, both his strongholds. The huge rise in oil prices has added to the coffers of the Nouri al-Maliki government.

Let me not take up space by explaining point-by-point how narrow is the base of American optimism about stabilising the present situation, except to point out that there may be a tenuous truce between sectarian forces, but the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds are all holding fast to their well-armed militias and regard them as a "hedge against uncertain future". Suffice is to say that the author of the "surge" and the most senior Commander of the American troops in Iraq, General David Petraeus, himself admits that the "change" in the Iraqi situation is both "fragile" and "reversible".

It is against this backdrop that the outgoing Bush administration — reportedly at the behest of the lame-duck President — is engaged in what can only be called an improper, indeed imprudent move to work out an "alliance" with the current Iraqi government to make America’s military presence in Iraq "indefinite". The purpose behind calling such a far-reaching commitment a mere "alliance," rather than a treaty is obvious: the treaty would require Congressional ratification that Bush does not want to risk. Significantly, he wants the agreement to be clinched by July 31. This is so because the UN mandate authorising the US occupation of Iraq ends on December 31, and President Bush is anxious to have the new arrangement in place before then.

According to the known details of the proposed "alliance", America will have as many as 58 "permanent" military bases in Iraq, all American personnel will have immunity from Iraqi laws, and US military personnel would have the right to arrest anyone suspected to be a terrorist without the consent of, or even consultations with, Iraqi authorities. If this would not turn Iraq into a vassal state, what else would it do? In the opinion of the much respected American analyst, Karl E. Meyer, the deal that Bush proposes to impose on the Iraqis "eerily resembles" the 1930 treaty with Britain that "poisoned" politics for the next quarter of a century and "led to a pro-Nazi coup". This does not impress Bush and his cohorts because the main motive force behind America’s intention to stay in Iraq indefinitely is the country’s exceedingly lucrative oil wealth.

In view of this, even the usually pliant Maliki is reluctant to enter into the proposed deal. But, undeterred by the widespread comment within the US and among the allies that the matter should be left to the next administration, Washington is arm-twisting the Iraqis to sign on the dotted line. The Independent of London reported only the other day that American negotiators are "holding hostage" $50 billion of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to "pressure" the Iraqi government. Of this huge amount, $20 billion can be confiscated immediately. For, there are court judgments against Iraq that require it to pay damages to that extent. At present Iraqi funds have immunity from judicial attachment under a presidential order that can be withdrawn at any time and, in any case, would cease to have effect once the UN mandate ends. Iraqi funds would then lose the immunity. While widespread dissatisfaction with the proposed American terms is to be expected, there is no knowing what the future course would be.

Nobody in this country, within the government or without, seems bothered by these immensely disturbing developments. However, we should ponder over what would have happened if the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government had carried out its resolve to send Indian troops to Iraq to join the "coalition of the willing." Almost certainly we would have been wailing, as so many other participants in the so-called coalition are.

The then deputy prime minister, L.K. Advani, now the NDA’s prime ministerial candidate, on a visit to the United States, had assured American officials that Indian soldiers would go to Iraq soon enough. Jaswant Singh, at one time presiding over both foreign affairs and defence, was equally keen. And the Army top brass was raring to go arguing that participation in the Iraq war would give the Indian armed forces access to otherwise inaccessible military technology. It was Atal Behari Vajpayee who put his foot down and stopped this nonsense. He also had the good sense to quietly consult the Congress, the main Opposition party at that time.