|
Iraq 2004 - What Went Wrong
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs Correspondent
BBC News
1-1-5
- In 2004, Iraq went badly wrong - except for supporters
of the insurgency, in which case it went grimly well.
-
- 2005 does not hold out much hope of an improvement,
although there are still some optimists around who feel that the
elections on 30 January will prove a milestone.
-
- The problem in 2004 was that neither of the two main
strands of American policy worked. Neither politics nor security took
hold.
-
- Power was formally handed over to an interim
government at the end of June but this government failed to develop
popular legitimacy, especially in the heartland of the insurgency, the
Sunni areas of central Iraq.
-
- Distrust
-
- On the security front, things went from bad in 2003 to
worse in 2004. The insurgents, whether nationalist or Islamic, gained in
strength and even took over the city of Falluja.
-
- Iraqi security forces and police proved hopelessly
inadequate.
-
- Kidnappings and videotaped beheadings moved from
nightmarish fears to reality.
-
- Prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib provided lasting images
of brutality.
-
- This left the US occupation troops isolated. And they
are too few and too distrusted to do the job.
-
- The only bright spot was in the south where Shia
unrest was quelled. The Shias are biding their time for the election in
which they expect their majority to prevail.
-
- The former British representative to the coalition
authority, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who a year ago was talking about Iraq
being dangerous but "do-able", is now sounding much more
pessimistic.
-
- He believes that while there has been political
progress, the lack of security "has let everything down."
-
- "Mistakes were made and the insurgency was
underestimated," he said.
-
- "The biggest mistake was to allow a security vacuum to
develop. It motivated insurgents and gave them opportunities to get
weapons and get new people in.
-
- "The security vacuum is irremediable at the moment.
Foreign forces will not be able to eradicate the violence. The Iraqis
themselves will have to do that. The insurgents at present can be chased
out of one place only to emerge in another. They are ineradicable unless
Iraqi society as a whole actively turns against them."
-
- Credibility blow
-
- His analysis is that the Iraqis would have had the
patience to wait for the new political structures to work if they had
seen improvements in their daily lives.
-
- "We are leaving political structures but Iraqis do not
see the improvements that would have brought their support," he
said.
-
- Sir Jeremy concluded that in 2004 the United States
had "lost credibility in the eyes of Iraqis and the region".
-
- "This year the worst thing has been the steady leak of
that credibility. Abu Ghraib dealt an enormous blow," he said.
-
- One reason for the failure on the security front was
the inadequacy of Iraqi forces. 2004 was supposed to be the year in
which they came into their own.
-
- However, the Center for Strategic and International
Studies in Washington has tracked this issue throughout the year and, in
December 2004, its analyst Anthony Cordesman concluded that the result
was "to leave many Iraqi forces without anything approaching adequate
organisation, training, equipment and facilities."
-
- He said in his report that "for political and other
reasons, the [Bush] Administration, the CPA [Coalition Provisional
Authority] and US command emphasised quantity over quality to the point
where unprepared Iraqis were sent out to die."
-
- Bad planning
-
- Mr Cordesman also came to wider conclusions: "The
report documents a tragic US failure to develop a strategy during the
first year of its occupation of Iraq. It is a failure to understand the
strategic situation in Iraq and the realities of Iraqi politics. It is a
failure at every level to prepare for a co-ordinated US effort at nation
building."
-
- Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst at another US think-tank,
the Brookings Institution, was even more scathing. In an article for the
Hoover Institution's Policy Review, he said: "One of the most brilliant
invasion successes in modern military history was followed almost
immediately by one of the most incompetently planned
occupations."
-
- So what of 2005?
-
- A great deal is riding on the election. This is for a
"transitional national assembly". It will select the government and
prepare a constitution upon which further elections will be held at the
end of the year.
-
- In some quarters, the election is being portrayed like
the roll of the dice that could solve all problems.
-
- However, it is unlikely to be that simple.
-
- Rosemary Hollis, of the Royal Institute for
International Affairs in London, says the risk is that those supporting
the insurgency will either not vote or will be marginalised by the Shia
majority.
-
- "Elections might, therefore, not solve the problem of
the insurgency," she said.
-
- This fear is also shared by senior British officials,
although they phrase it more delicately. One, just back from a visit to
Iraq, said the priority in 2005 would be to "ensure that the views of
all elements are reflected in the constitution. That cannot just depend
on the outcome of the election."
-
- 'Brave decisions'
-
- The official retained some hope from the attitude of
the leading Shia cleric Ayatollah Sistani. The Ayatollah has called on
the Shias to vote and has unified many of their factions. But he has
also spoken of the need to respect other traditions. Ayatollah Sistani
might well be the man to watch in 2005.
-
- If, however, the election simply encourages the
divisions of the country, then a break-up into its three parts -- Shia,
Sunni and Kurd -- cannot be ruled out.
-
- An optimistic note was struck by Jonathan Paris of St
Antony's College, Oxford. He still believes in the so-called "J-curve"
effect, in which things go downhill before they start climbing
again.
-
- "We are nearing the bottom of the curve. I stand by
it. I am cautiously optimistic that if the election goes well, things
will turn out all right," he said.
-
- Sir Jeremy Greenstock said: "One has to be very
realistic. Iraqis have to keep going and need to take brave decisions.
They do not have any real political alternative. Only they can take on
the violence in their communities. Having in place a government which
they have elected themselves might help them make that decision.
-
- "It depends on the Iraqis. We have lost the primary
control."
-
- He summed up the prospects: "The train is wobbly but
it is still on the track."
-
- � BBC MMV
-
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4123889.stm
|
The Mulindwas Communication Group
"With
Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in
anarchy"
Groupe de communication Mulindwas
"avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans
l'anarchie"
|
