Editor in Chief: Moh. Reza Huwaida Friday, March 29th, 2024

Violence Resurge in Iraq

|

Violence Resurge in Iraq

Iraq is regressing in the security and political spheres. On Saturday, Jan 14, Shiite worshipers were targeted by suicide bombers in the city of Basra. The attack killed more than 50 people and injured around hundred people on one of the holiest days in Shiite calendar. Though against the hopes, it smelt sectarian violence and bloodshed. The political situation is quite similar. The refuge of Mr. Tariq Hashemi to Kordistan of Iraq has complicated the situation. He is blamed of terror activities directly by Prime Minister, Mr. Nouri al Maliki. Presently, the Kordistan federal government is on the crossroad. Should it send Mr. Tariq back or not?

Seemingly, it was not a problem if all those challenges appeared when the American combatant troops were present in the country. They could mount pressure on government and get them resolve the issue peacefully. But they are not engaged in the country any more.

The US combatant troops left Iraq after years of engagement. Unlike their engagement in 2003 when thousands were delighted seeing them, there was a public demand for their withdrawal. Sunni sect from the very start was against the presence because they viewed them as force that ended to their long-rule over the country. The case was similar for radical Shiite group led by Moqtada al Sadr.

Months ago when Washington started discussing about the destiny of military engagement after 2011, a very strong protest organized by followers of Moqdata al-Sadr, saying they would push Americans out of the country by force.

Recently there were serious negotiation between officials of the two countries, but regional and domestic pressure on Nouri al Maliki administration brought them into blunt failures.
Though President Barack Obama came to White House mainly because of opposing Iraq war, for which reasons proved unauthentic and false. Former president, G. Bush attacked Iraq and brought down Saddam Hussein for two reasons: his support to al-Qaeda and second having mass destruction weapons.

Right after 9/11 when anti-terrorism hatred changed into gigantic storm and global mentality supported US military activities to go after them and hunt their leaders like al-Qaeda, proportionately Washington decision makers resolved to ride on the waves and pressurize countries opposing or challenge its policy across the globe. President Bush clearly said that those who were not with US were with al-Qaeda and terrorism. He made very stark distinction between friends and foes. His statement clearly was based on the ideology—good and bad, nothing else. He attacked Iraq with no UN mandate, which cost Washington a lot in diplomatic sphere.

That policy was indeed proved harmful to US international fame and prestige. Many countries resented it. They interpreted the statement that Washington asked them to follow the lead blindly. When those who wanted to support turned back to it, like Turkey initially avoided allowing American air force to use its military airports. But top White House representatives remained decisive to persist on their policy with no retreat.

Policy makers pushed to reward followers and punish oppositions. In 2001, US and its allies intervened in Afghanistan and toppled the supporter of terrorism. The blow was big enough that Taliban militants could not reestablish the structure and mount pressure against foreign involved forces. So, Washington without considering the possible resurge of insurgency in the country, started another war which was comparatively far difficult from Afghanistan one.

But President Bush actually did not care much. What Washington officials cared much was about uprooting Saddam Hussein who kept no warm relation with West during his incumbency. And they cared much about the outcome and output of war. A world without al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden looked much attractive and better. Same was the case with a world without Saddam Hussein who, many maintained, was following secret mass destructive weapons.

So, White House officials thought that when Saddam Hussien is brought to justice and Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omer are executed, the international community would appreciate US's quick military action. Perhaps, their assumption might have proved true if everything had gone according to military, economic and political calculations.

But the process stumbled severely and there are statements talking about US failure in both fronts——Afghanistan and Iraq.
The world without Saddam Hussein does not look as ideal as depicted. Two very reasons for which former US President could convince House and Congress for attack on Saddam Hussien regime proved false. After the occupation of Iraq, there was no document to denote on Saddam regime's linkage with terror network. And the secret program for mass destruction weapons was an illusion.

So with the both reasons phony, was the war justifiable? Seemingly, Americans increasingly turned against the Iraq and pressures enlarged to end it as soon as possible. Due to the same, republicans lost both Houses as well as presidential election. President Obama came to power with the promise to end the war in Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan and finally call troops back from there too.

Meanwhile, due to increasing friction with Islamic Republic of Iran, President Obama has also not been willing to waste the achievements of nine years of engagement. The war proved too costly for Americans. Around five thousand American troops lost their lives and around 30 thousands injured. And it imposed around a trillion dollars to government's budget, suffering itself from huge deficits.

Therefore, to prevent countries like Iran to benefit from American toils, Washington discussed about keeping a small portion of combatant force in the country. But the negotiation failed and Americans troops left the country.

Now the question is put like this: would the nightmare of sectarian violence emerge once again? Series of attacks in several cities of the country and political clash which indeed was a legal issue soon changed into a political issue have made many seeing the prospective grim. Though a full-fledge sectarian violence seems far likely, but current situation gives regional countries further chance to interfere and make the situation more complicated.

Jawad Rahmani is the permanent writer of the Daily Outlook Afghanistan. He can be reached at jawad_rahmani2001@yahoo.com

Go Top