Short-sighted U.S. Foreign Policy Spells Trouble Ahead
Firas Al-Atraqchi | 25.04.2003 03:59
Myopic and lacking in considerable foresight, the Bush administration did little to establish and implement a creditable US Foreign Policy in Iraq.
By Firas Al-Atraqchi
YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada)
(YellowTimes.org) -- U.S. foreign policy is as astounding in its fallibility as it is in its short sightedness. The Bush administration's plans for Iraq are faltering primarily due to incompetence, cultural ignorance, and ethnocentricity.
These mistakes have all come on the heels of the toppling of Saddam's statue, an infamous moment in history.
Mistake #1: U.S. forces occupy and cordon off the Iraqi oil ministry in Baghdad in the first day of liberation. The compound is secured as looters (foreign and local) rampage through Baghdad. Universities, hospitals, army barracks, museums, art galleries, and private residences are stripped bare. When the international community lambastes U.S. officials for not protecting these areas, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld simply says, "Stuff happens."
Response: Iraqis now are convinced that this was not a war of liberation but of securing Iraq's oil wealth; they point to the only ministry building not burning -- the oil ministry, which is in U.S. hands. Fifteen other buildings were burned and partially destroyed up to a week after U.S. forces entered Baghdad.
Mistake #2: News emerges that U.S. and British archaeologists had since late last year warned the Bush administration that looting of Iraqi museums is to be expected once the war is over. They urged the U.S. forces to create a protection plan for these cultural and historic areas. The archaeologists cited events after the 1991 Gulf War when nine of Iraq's 13 museums were looted. The Bush administration did not heed their pleas.
Response: Iraqis understand that to undermine a nation's future, you must destroy its cultural and historical heritage. Many Iraqis believe the looting was instigated by U.S. forces and Kuwaitis keen on exacting revenge for the invasion of their country 13 years ago. The world community begins to view U.S. claims with nary an ounce of truth; a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial stated: "So what happened to Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities? Why did coalition troops seemingly stand by as looters engaged in a 48-hour sacking of one of the world's most important collections of ancient artifacts? There certainly were enough of them protecting Iraq's Oil Ministry building; it made sense to protect that building, but failing to give equal treatment to a key cultural site stupidly gives ammunition to critics who claim the war is 'all about oil.'"
Mistake #3: Amnesty International blames U.S. mismanagement in the wake of Saddam's downfall: "Much planning and resources seem to have been devoted to securing Iraqi oilfields. However, there is scarce evidence of similar levels of planning and allocation of resources for securing public and other institutions essential for the survival and well-being of the population," says Irene Khan, Amnesty International Secretary General.
Two weeks after Saddam exited the scene, there is still no dependable electric power in Baghdad; water-related diseases are emerging in Basra; Mosul is on the verge of civil war between expansionist Kurds on the one end and Arabs, Chaldeans and Turkomen on the other; and shortages of food and medicine plague the countryside.
Response: Iraqis now feel that if they don't mobilize, their country will lie in ruin and fall prey to U.S. commercial interests. Millions of Iraqi Shiites, who comprise 60 percent of the population, begin to march in protest of U.S. presence in Iraq. They chant "Death to America" and burn U.S. flags. Political Islam surfaces as the only accepted solution by the Iraqis.
Mistake #4: U.S. downplays "reports" of Iraqi unhappiness with U.S. presence in Iraq. Iraq's civil administrator, retired general Jay Garner says Iraqi anger and resentment of U.S. will dissipate. Garner joins White House officials in blaming Iran for the rise in tension.
Response: Iraqi Shiites say that they are not being taken seriously. They refute charges that Iran is sowing dissent in Iraq and claim that the resistance to U.S. occupation is the will of the Iraqi people. Clearly, there is a communication breakdown between the U.S. and Iraqi civil society.
Mistake #5: Prior to the war, White House officials engaged in furious diplomacy with several Iraqi opposition figures, including Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress. A moderate Shiite businessman with U.S. citizenship, Chalabi is seen as the model figure of a future Iraq. The Bush administration believes that all Shiites will emulate Chalabi and come together to plot a more commercial future for Iraq. Unfortunately, the U.S. fails to see the passionate patience of the Iraqi Shiite community who have not had the freedom to express themselves since the killing of Ali, cousin and son-in-law to the Prophet Mohammed, some 1,400 years ago.
Response: Iraqis, Shiites and Sunnis alike, form alliances that were unthought of a few months ago. Iraq for the Iraqis becomes a common phrase as the people of Iraq express surprise and dismay when confronted with INC officials. Iraqis have no idea who Chalabi is nor who his cohorts happen to be. The fact that all of Chalabi's men in Iraq carry U.S., British, and Australian citizenship does not bode well for the Iraqis. They begin to feel that another authoritarian regime is about to be imposed on them.
Mistake #6: Chalabi makes statements, backed by senior U.S. officials, that Iraq will never be a theocracy and not fall under the jurisdiction of Islamic law.
Response: Iraqis begin to carry banners calling for Islamic law in the country. "No Bush, No Saddam -- Yes, Yes to Islam," becomes a poetic signal of where many Sunni and Shiite Iraqis want their new government to head.
U.S. foreign policy seems to be headed for a clash of ideologies with Iraqi domestic politics.
[Firas Al-Atraqchi, B.Sc (Physics), M.A. (Journalism and Communications), is a Canadian journalist with eleven years of experience covering Middle East issues, oil and gas markets, and the telecom industry.]
Firas Al-Atraqchi encourages your comments:
fatraqchi@YellowTimes.org
YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada)
(YellowTimes.org) -- U.S. foreign policy is as astounding in its fallibility as it is in its short sightedness. The Bush administration's plans for Iraq are faltering primarily due to incompetence, cultural ignorance, and ethnocentricity.
These mistakes have all come on the heels of the toppling of Saddam's statue, an infamous moment in history.
Mistake #1: U.S. forces occupy and cordon off the Iraqi oil ministry in Baghdad in the first day of liberation. The compound is secured as looters (foreign and local) rampage through Baghdad. Universities, hospitals, army barracks, museums, art galleries, and private residences are stripped bare. When the international community lambastes U.S. officials for not protecting these areas, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld simply says, "Stuff happens."
Response: Iraqis now are convinced that this was not a war of liberation but of securing Iraq's oil wealth; they point to the only ministry building not burning -- the oil ministry, which is in U.S. hands. Fifteen other buildings were burned and partially destroyed up to a week after U.S. forces entered Baghdad.
Mistake #2: News emerges that U.S. and British archaeologists had since late last year warned the Bush administration that looting of Iraqi museums is to be expected once the war is over. They urged the U.S. forces to create a protection plan for these cultural and historic areas. The archaeologists cited events after the 1991 Gulf War when nine of Iraq's 13 museums were looted. The Bush administration did not heed their pleas.
Response: Iraqis understand that to undermine a nation's future, you must destroy its cultural and historical heritage. Many Iraqis believe the looting was instigated by U.S. forces and Kuwaitis keen on exacting revenge for the invasion of their country 13 years ago. The world community begins to view U.S. claims with nary an ounce of truth; a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial stated: "So what happened to Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities? Why did coalition troops seemingly stand by as looters engaged in a 48-hour sacking of one of the world's most important collections of ancient artifacts? There certainly were enough of them protecting Iraq's Oil Ministry building; it made sense to protect that building, but failing to give equal treatment to a key cultural site stupidly gives ammunition to critics who claim the war is 'all about oil.'"
Mistake #3: Amnesty International blames U.S. mismanagement in the wake of Saddam's downfall: "Much planning and resources seem to have been devoted to securing Iraqi oilfields. However, there is scarce evidence of similar levels of planning and allocation of resources for securing public and other institutions essential for the survival and well-being of the population," says Irene Khan, Amnesty International Secretary General.
Two weeks after Saddam exited the scene, there is still no dependable electric power in Baghdad; water-related diseases are emerging in Basra; Mosul is on the verge of civil war between expansionist Kurds on the one end and Arabs, Chaldeans and Turkomen on the other; and shortages of food and medicine plague the countryside.
Response: Iraqis now feel that if they don't mobilize, their country will lie in ruin and fall prey to U.S. commercial interests. Millions of Iraqi Shiites, who comprise 60 percent of the population, begin to march in protest of U.S. presence in Iraq. They chant "Death to America" and burn U.S. flags. Political Islam surfaces as the only accepted solution by the Iraqis.
Mistake #4: U.S. downplays "reports" of Iraqi unhappiness with U.S. presence in Iraq. Iraq's civil administrator, retired general Jay Garner says Iraqi anger and resentment of U.S. will dissipate. Garner joins White House officials in blaming Iran for the rise in tension.
Response: Iraqi Shiites say that they are not being taken seriously. They refute charges that Iran is sowing dissent in Iraq and claim that the resistance to U.S. occupation is the will of the Iraqi people. Clearly, there is a communication breakdown between the U.S. and Iraqi civil society.
Mistake #5: Prior to the war, White House officials engaged in furious diplomacy with several Iraqi opposition figures, including Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress. A moderate Shiite businessman with U.S. citizenship, Chalabi is seen as the model figure of a future Iraq. The Bush administration believes that all Shiites will emulate Chalabi and come together to plot a more commercial future for Iraq. Unfortunately, the U.S. fails to see the passionate patience of the Iraqi Shiite community who have not had the freedom to express themselves since the killing of Ali, cousin and son-in-law to the Prophet Mohammed, some 1,400 years ago.
Response: Iraqis, Shiites and Sunnis alike, form alliances that were unthought of a few months ago. Iraq for the Iraqis becomes a common phrase as the people of Iraq express surprise and dismay when confronted with INC officials. Iraqis have no idea who Chalabi is nor who his cohorts happen to be. The fact that all of Chalabi's men in Iraq carry U.S., British, and Australian citizenship does not bode well for the Iraqis. They begin to feel that another authoritarian regime is about to be imposed on them.
Mistake #6: Chalabi makes statements, backed by senior U.S. officials, that Iraq will never be a theocracy and not fall under the jurisdiction of Islamic law.
Response: Iraqis begin to carry banners calling for Islamic law in the country. "No Bush, No Saddam -- Yes, Yes to Islam," becomes a poetic signal of where many Sunni and Shiite Iraqis want their new government to head.
U.S. foreign policy seems to be headed for a clash of ideologies with Iraqi domestic politics.
[Firas Al-Atraqchi, B.Sc (Physics), M.A. (Journalism and Communications), is a Canadian journalist with eleven years of experience covering Middle East issues, oil and gas markets, and the telecom industry.]
Firas Al-Atraqchi encourages your comments:
fatraqchi@YellowTimes.org
Firas Al-Atraqchi
Homepage:
www.YellowTimes.org
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Iraqi intelligence?
25.04.2003 11:34
Is everything the Iraqis do is as a response to US actions in the current phase of aggression?!
Iraqis are so pissed off by the 12 years of largely blind brutality done on them by us. (USA and UK)
Saddams's rule only helped them in not getting to know the full scale of the illegal atrociies of mostrous proportions done throught the sanction sregime.
Wait till the Iraqi medical establishment tells their people what they (even we know more) could not possibly know all this time!
Of course seeing the pigs first hand provokes responses like pointed out above but I think the first mistake is the pigs reading the compass correctly. Had they invaded the wrong direction into Saudi Arabia or Israel (mistakes are very likely) the mess they have created will be better.
Saddam should have been handled by the international community by empowerig Iraqi people and truths being told.
Not through a brutal sanctions regime and an illegal aggression spured by racism (9/11).
BTW. Fuck the antique-junk...why cannot the author mention the mediacl supplies looted. The fact that replenishment of even the most basic supplies being hindered is pissign the Iraqis and me off!!!
This is against the Geneva convention so every human must be pissed off.
ram
How a Libertarian would run the world...
26.04.2003 01:07
WELFARE REFORM -- "Tinkering with the current system can make modest improvements, leading to both reduced welfare usage and improvements in both economic and psychological well-being of recipients. But welfare reform by itself will do little to end dependence or lift large numbers of people out of poverty," he concludes. "When it comes to welfare, we should end it, not mend it."
CORPORATE REFORM -- The collapse of Enron was not the result of accounting fraud, but rather the direct result of the firm's failure to apply its "asset lite" business model in its ventures into non-energy markets, according to a new Policy Analysis released today by the Cato Institute. In "Empire of the Sun: An Economic Interpretation of Enron's Energy Business," Christopher L. Culp, of the University of Chicago, and Cato Institute Senior Fellow Steve H. Hanke argue that Enron's fall should not encourage new regulations aimed at preventing risk-taking and economic failure. Rather, the company should be recognized for its innovative asset-lite business strategy, and its executives prosecuted for their illegal actions.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION -- "The time has come to put an end to the use of racial preferences in the admissions process of public colleges and universities," explains Roger Pilon, Cato's vice president for legal affairs. "They are demeaning to those whom they allegedly benefit. They generate racial animosity. And, from a legal perspective, they are at war with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law."
NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION -- Preemptive war and economic sanctions are also dangerous and ill-advised strategies, according to Carpenter. The most well suited approach, he writes, would be to "raise the possibility of a regional nuclear balance." Allowing more nuclear proliferation is the best way to deter North Korea's nuclear program... Carpenter concludes that although additional nuclear proliferation may not be an ideal outcome, it is better than having U.S. forces defending weak allies from an unpredictable, nuclear North Korea.
SUSTAINABILITY -- Although global leaders convened today in Johannesburg, South Africa for the start of the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development, concerns about a lack of natural resources have been exaggerated as the world is already on a glide-path for sustainable development. Jerry Taylor, Cato's director of natural resource studies, argues in a new policy analysis, "Sustainable Development: A Dubious Solution in Search of a Problem," that those who favor central planning as a prerequisite for sustainable development in effect make environmental protection more expensive and even exacerbate problems. "A review of data concerning resource availability and environmental quality clearly illustrates that the developed world is on an eminently sustainable path -- resources are becoming more abundant, environmental quality is improving, and per capita incomes are rising," writes Taylor, who has done extensive research on national environmental policy.
GLOBALIZATIOM & WEALTH -- Controversy surrounding globalization has focused on whether it exacerbates income inequality between the rich and the poor, but Goklany examines whether globalization is improving human well-being. "For every indicator examined, regardless of whether the rich are richer and the poor poorer, gaps in human well-being between the rich countries and other income groups have for the most part shrunk over the past four decades," writes Goklany. For example, the infant mortality gap between rich and poor countries has been cut in half during the past 50 years. Trends indicate that as countries become wealthier, human well-being gets better "with improvements coming most rapidly at the lowest levels of wealth," according to Goklany.
ENVIRONMENT & LAND USE -- "The showdown over whether or not to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is more show than substance. Unfortunately, both the pro-drilling and anti-drilling factions are right about the other. "The environmentalists are right that drilling in ANWR would not do much to bring down oil prices. Industry's best estimate is that ANWR could produce about 1 million barrels of oil per day at its peak. That's a 1.25 percent increase in global production. "On the other hand, the argument that drilling in 2,000 acres of barren tundra during the winter months only would significantly harm the wildlife in the Refuge is hard to believe given our experience in nearby Prudhoe Bay. And while the reserve may not produce the volume of oil produced in Middle Eastern fields, most experts believe that the value of oil there is somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 billion. "The only way to really know whether those 2,000 acres in ANWR are best used as an oil platform or a wilderness preserve is to auction off the land. Letting politicians decide how best to use the land means that interest group politics rather than economic common sense will rule the day."
The Cato Institute