Reinventing Iraq
Published in El Pais
(Spain) on 2 September 2010
by (link to original)
(Spain) on 2 September 2010
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Veronica Pascarel.
Edited by Piotr Bielinski.
On Tuesday, President Obama ended Operation Iraqi Freedom and inaugurated what is called the New Dawn, which substitutes the American military presence with the creation of Iraqi forces and a diplomatic corps. “I won’t claim victory,”* stated Obama. He is right: the insurgency already demonstrated its strength as soon as the retreat began and it would not be absurd to see the remaining 50,000 soldiers get involved in new conflicts. The most essential step that Obama had promised has been fulfilled however: the war has ended and the moment of turning the page has arrived. The Iraqi war was very much criticized and opposed by Obama. Nevertheless, in the solemn farewell moment, Obama knew how to be elegant and when he referred to George W. Bush; Obama talked about the ex-president’s support for the soldiers, for his love for the American nation and for his commitment to the nation’s security. This is the battle that is still pending and Obama has reassured that the United States will finish disbanding and defeating al-Qaeda.
At the same time the provisional Prime Minister of Iraq, Nuri al Maliki, has addressed his compatriots to inform them that the army and the national police will be able to guarantee the security of the country. The violence that resides everywhere is not going to get fixed with the deployment of some troops, no matter how well equipped and ready they are. Iraq’s most serious problem is a matter of political legitimacy, and Maliki has not explained why he hasn’t yet formed a new government that should have sprung from the past March elections.
After seven years of occupation, the future now lies in the hands of Iraqis, but the country is devastated by a war that not only removed the dictatorship of Sadam Hussein but also ended the military and political frameworks that were maintaining it. The war has also destroyed the social gears that had somewhat functioned, and unraveled the conflicts that divide Shiites from the Sunnis, in addition to reviving their respective tensions vis-à-vis the Kurds. As fragile as they are, only the mechanisms of a democracy could make the new Iraq viable. In order for Iraq to function however, the parties have to obtain their legitimacy beyond foreign guardianship.
The difference between the winner of the last elections and the second place is minimal: 91 seats for the Shiite Iyad Alaui’s secular party, which is supported by many Sunnis, against 89 seats for the moderate Shiite forces of Maliki. For five months, neither of them has been able to come to any sort of agreement, nor has been able to ally themselves with the third most voted party (70 seats): the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council. This is the party Tehran prefers, maybe because it is formed by the most radical Shiites, such as Muqtada Al Sader, the leader of the current Sadrista within this coalition (40 seats), and the leader of the army of Mahdi. “Only the Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders,” Obama has stated. It is time for politics, and time to banish the temptation of any military group trying to resort to armed force.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
At the same time the provisional Prime Minister of Iraq, Nuri al Maliki, has addressed his compatriots to inform them that the army and the national police will be able to guarantee the security of the country. The violence that resides everywhere is not going to get fixed with the deployment of some troops, no matter how well equipped and ready they are. Iraq’s most serious problem is a matter of political legitimacy, and Maliki has not explained why he hasn’t yet formed a new government that should have sprung from the past March elections.
After seven years of occupation, the future now lies in the hands of Iraqis, but the country is devastated by a war that not only removed the dictatorship of Sadam Hussein but also ended the military and political frameworks that were maintaining it. The war has also destroyed the social gears that had somewhat functioned, and unraveled the conflicts that divide Shiites from the Sunnis, in addition to reviving their respective tensions vis-à-vis the Kurds. As fragile as they are, only the mechanisms of a democracy could make the new Iraq viable. In order for Iraq to function however, the parties have to obtain their legitimacy beyond foreign guardianship.
The difference between the winner of the last elections and the second place is minimal: 91 seats for the Shiite Iyad Alaui’s secular party, which is supported by many Sunnis, against 89 seats for the moderate Shiite forces of Maliki. For five months, neither of them has been able to come to any sort of agreement, nor has been able to ally themselves with the third most voted party (70 seats): the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council. This is the party Tehran prefers, maybe because it is formed by the most radical Shiites, such as Muqtada Al Sader, the leader of the current Sadrista within this coalition (40 seats), and the leader of the army of Mahdi. “Only the Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders,” Obama has stated. It is time for politics, and time to banish the temptation of any military group trying to resort to armed force.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.