On the 20th of March 2003, 05:30 Baghdad time, the war in Iraq began with a salvo of 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles, fired by US warships in the Gulf and Red Sea against three underground bunkers in a central Baghdad residential area. On the 14th of April, Pentagon officials declared major combat operations over. Today, the war is still not over. What we have been seeing is that the future of Iraq is in the hands of foreign troops who inflict calamity upon Iraqi civilians.
Prior to the invasion, the US and its coalitions tried their best to convince the international community that their war was legal and grounded. Having failed to obtain an international resolution authorizing them to use military force against Iraq, on the 17 of March 2003, American President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair met with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in the Azores islandd and issued an ultimatum to the United Nations. Either the UN passes a resolution allowing them to use force against Iraq, or they would go to war unilaterally. One day earlier, France, Germany and Russia issued a joint statement calling the use of force unjustifiable and reiterating that war had to be the last resort.
On the night of the 17th of March, President Bush gave Saddam Hussein a final ultimatum, telling him to leave Iraq with his two sons within 48 hours. In the same speech, President Bush called on Iraq servicemen, intelligence and security personnel, not to fight for Saddam’s regime. The next day, the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council rejected Bush’s ultimatum, saying that Iraq was prepared to confront an American attack. Most world leaders expressed disappointment over the American ultimatum and expressed their desire to continue peaceful efforts.
From the beginning, the American administration tried to rally the public behind the war arguing that it would be fast and cheap, and that American troops would be seen as liberators, not invaders. Richard Norman Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board (2001-2003), once said, “I don’t believe we will have to defeat Saddam’s army, I think Saddam’s army will defeat Saddam”. His calculation was wrong believing that Saddam’s army; the Fadeyeen, would retaliate in the form of militia tactics against the invading troops.
Even before the war started, there was a talk of targeting Saddam in person, believing his death would accelerate the fall of the regime. This notion was put into practice immediately after the war broke out. However, this assumption was also wrong because Saddam’s followers transformed and adopted new tactics for destabilizing the new regime. As a matter of fact, the capture and execution of Saddam only exacerbated sectarian violence and civil war in Iraq.
Another popular justification for the war was that it would be beneficial. Once the Iraqi’s were rid of Saddam, the Middle East would become more democratic and the US would have boosted its credibility and would have sent a strong message to all potential foes. [in an interview with President Bush by Jim Lehrer on Online NewsHour aired on the 16th of January 2007].
Why war? Isn’t war antithetical to peace? Could war be used as an alternative to resolve conflicts after all means of seeking peace are exhausted? In the case of pre-war Iraq, peaceful solutions were available through international bodies like the United Nations. Wars cannot be fought just because they are said to be cheap or easy. If this were the case then war may give rise to worse problems than resolution. The war may harm the cause of fighting international terror, undermine international cooperation, weaken international law, and deepen the sense of double standards. The war may also harm US international standing, besmirch its political image, and expose its interest to danger.
Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who spearheads the upcoming Global Peace Forum themed ‘Expose War Crimes: Criminalize War’ in February, notes that “war is no longer an option as a means of resolving problems of nations”. War should be made a crime, and those actively promoting war should be punished as criminals”, he asserts. Therefore, as people who love and promote peace, what can we do? Do we want to remain ‘bystanders’?. This questions always reminds me of my beloved late professor the late Dr. Gailam Ramiz who used to teach us “Theory of International Relations” at the International Islamic University of Malaysia and a distinguished Iraqi political scientist. Upon his return to Iraq, he was killed in the ambush bombing of an American army. This is the tragedy and uncertainty when invading troops are allowed to do whatever they want to do.
In the Arab Strategic Report , issued by the Egyptian Presidential research center, it clearly outlines several political outcomes which dominate the future of world order after the Sept 11 Tragedy.
i. The American success in deposing by force an incumbent president of an Arab State that is a member of the UN, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference was a turning point – particularly since it took place despite clear opposition from the UN Security Council, from Islamic, Arab and world public opinion, and of major Western countries, namely France, Germany and Russia. In that sense, the war was a defining moment for America’s regional and global role.
ii. The American military victory is the first practical implementation of the Bush Doctrine of preemption against a potential threat. The war shows how dangerous such a doctrine could be, for it allow wars to be waged on the basis of dubious evidence. So far, no evidence has been forthcoming on Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, the basic argument for the war in the first place.
iii. The Bush Doctrine may end up dominating international relations for a long time to come. The concept of “state sovereignty”, which began to erode, on humanitarian grounds, after the end of the cold war, has been dealt a massive blow.
iv. The US is likely to put more pressure on Arabs, Muslims, and Third World Countries with regard to the war on terror, weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, political and economic transparency, democracy, human rights, and education.
v. The success of American military efforts in Iraq would effect the future of political and military extremist groups which have multiplied in Arab and Islamic countries. This would have implications for the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian problem. The US is expected to apply further pressure on “non-democratic” regimes in the region.
vi. The eventual lifting of sanctions on Iraq, and the resumption of its economic and political role in the region, would have implications for the Arab-Israel conflict and the Palestinian problem. The US is expected to apply further pressure on non-democratic regime in the region.
vii. The eventual lifting of sanctions on Iraq, and the resumption of its economic and political role in the region, would have implication for the Gulf, Iran, and Turkey. But Iraq’s reintegration into the international and Arab scene would depend on the perceived legitimacy of its new regime.
viii. Iraq’s reintegration into the regional scene may effect the course of regional contact with NATO and the Barcelona process, as well as disarmament matters.
What we hope for and want from the occupying coalition in Iraq is to pull out their troops immediately and allow Iraq and other war torn countries to rebuilt without the military instrument. Emphasis then should be for less military interference, dump capital investments and to invest on education, health and basic infrastructure centered around the local people. Redevelopment policies and plans must be tabled according their needs and not decided by others outside their acknowledgement. Support peace and practice it in whatever we do, that is the solution to a peaceful world.