Monday, September 6, 2010
The Nation (Thailand)/Asia News Network
BANGKOK -- The good news this week was that U.S. combat troops have finally pulled out of Iraq. It is indeed a welcome indication that the war is dying down. But there is no guarantee that there will not be any further American casualties; after all, 50,000 U.S. soldiers are still stationed there for keeping order and fighting if necessary.
For the past seven and a half years, the U.S. has carried out the almost impossible task of trying to restore peace to the country. The U.S. has paid a very high price, with at least 4,400 of its soldiers killed, many wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars spent. The toll has been far greater on the Iraqi people.
Now, with the U.S. troops pulling out, U.S. President Barack Obama has been allowed some space to speak of the American “contribution” and the “courage and resolve” of those who died. It has also enabled him to speak of peace and the long-term future for Iraq.
Before he came to the Oval Office, Obama pledged to bring the war to an end. That was an obvious goal, and his feelings on the issue were clear. But now, deep in his heart, Obama knows that a lot more needs to be done before Iraq can ever become a normal country again, with a fully functioning government.
At the moment, the outlook is still bleak. Iraq still does not have a new government, weeks after the last election was held. Putting an administration in place will take time. So, for the time being, with mounting pressure on the domestic front, Obama has to be focused on the new effort needed, as well as on the continuing opposition to an American presence in the country.
And this brings us to the bad news. In effect, the U.S. is not going anywhere. Before stability and prosperity can come to Iraq, it will take years, if not decades, of ongoing American effort and support. Fragmented domestic politics, leadership battles and national disunity will be the name of the game from now on and probably for a long time to come.
Of course, efforts to achieve national reconciliation should be the top priority. But the inevitable political turbulence will make that effort a thankless task. Obviously, political leaders must do their utmost, but can they be trusted to play the game? Lessons learned from Cambodia should be useful here.
In the aftermath of its own civil war and political turmoil, many Cambodian leaders were pragmatic — but this is something the Iraqi leaders have yet to display.
Cambodian politicians mostly decided to cooperate in the rebuilding of their nation, even if in a half-hearted manner. However, their reluctant show of goodwill was still sufficient to enable the political process to continue. Finally, this allowed peace and stability to return to the war-torn country.
Credit should be given to the Cambodian players, even if the current political establishment isn't ideal in the minds of many. But in Iraq, different religious groups dominate and are still divided — this despite many in the country preferring a secular political establishment. The respective leaders of these groups are still at loggerheads, trying to work out lists of their own interests — mostly for self-aggrandizement and self-preservation.
Without harmony between the religious and political factions, Iraq will remain weak, which will invite future interference from neighboring countries, especially Iran and Syria, both of which have major stakes in the country. There is nothing much the U.S. can do at this point. Washington can only hope for the best: that the Iraqi leaders and people can work out a formula to govern their own country peacefully.
While the U.S. is hoping and making proclamations, it has to provide further assistance to strengthen the nascent civil society groups. These are the only viable groups to counter the powerful religious factions. Such an effort will require funding, patience and understanding. Capable civil society groups can help respond to the needs of such a divided population. Mission accomplished can be declared only when the Iraqi people can stand on their own feet and control their own destiny without the assistance or interference of foreign troops.
For the past seven and a half years, the U.S. has carried out the almost impossible task of trying to restore peace to the country. The U.S. has paid a very high price, with at least 4,400 of its soldiers killed, many wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars spent. The toll has been far greater on the Iraqi people.
Now, with the U.S. troops pulling out, U.S. President Barack Obama has been allowed some space to speak of the American “contribution” and the “courage and resolve” of those who died. It has also enabled him to speak of peace and the long-term future for Iraq.
Before he came to the Oval Office, Obama pledged to bring the war to an end. That was an obvious goal, and his feelings on the issue were clear. But now, deep in his heart, Obama knows that a lot more needs to be done before Iraq can ever become a normal country again, with a fully functioning government.
At the moment, the outlook is still bleak. Iraq still does not have a new government, weeks after the last election was held. Putting an administration in place will take time. So, for the time being, with mounting pressure on the domestic front, Obama has to be focused on the new effort needed, as well as on the continuing opposition to an American presence in the country.
And this brings us to the bad news. In effect, the U.S. is not going anywhere. Before stability and prosperity can come to Iraq, it will take years, if not decades, of ongoing American effort and support. Fragmented domestic politics, leadership battles and national disunity will be the name of the game from now on and probably for a long time to come.
Of course, efforts to achieve national reconciliation should be the top priority. But the inevitable political turbulence will make that effort a thankless task. Obviously, political leaders must do their utmost, but can they be trusted to play the game? Lessons learned from Cambodia should be useful here.
In the aftermath of its own civil war and political turmoil, many Cambodian leaders were pragmatic — but this is something the Iraqi leaders have yet to display.
Cambodian politicians mostly decided to cooperate in the rebuilding of their nation, even if in a half-hearted manner. However, their reluctant show of goodwill was still sufficient to enable the political process to continue. Finally, this allowed peace and stability to return to the war-torn country.
Credit should be given to the Cambodian players, even if the current political establishment isn't ideal in the minds of many. But in Iraq, different religious groups dominate and are still divided — this despite many in the country preferring a secular political establishment. The respective leaders of these groups are still at loggerheads, trying to work out lists of their own interests — mostly for self-aggrandizement and self-preservation.
Without harmony between the religious and political factions, Iraq will remain weak, which will invite future interference from neighboring countries, especially Iran and Syria, both of which have major stakes in the country. There is nothing much the U.S. can do at this point. Washington can only hope for the best: that the Iraqi leaders and people can work out a formula to govern their own country peacefully.
While the U.S. is hoping and making proclamations, it has to provide further assistance to strengthen the nascent civil society groups. These are the only viable groups to counter the powerful religious factions. Such an effort will require funding, patience and understanding. Capable civil society groups can help respond to the needs of such a divided population. Mission accomplished can be declared only when the Iraqi people can stand on their own feet and control their own destiny without the assistance or interference of foreign troops.
