Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies

Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies



|Views: 48|Likes:
A rearch paper of Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies
A rearch paper of Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies

More info:

Published by: Malik M. Rizwan Yasin on Jul 02, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Page 1 of 8
Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies
Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies
In these sad days the Muslim Ummah might have temporarily lost it´s hopes and relinquish it´s dreams toonce again rule the world but nevertheless we have to seize the moment. The day after Baghdads fall wasa day of sadness but also a day of cognitive awareness because never in the past has it been so clear thatwe need an authority which is not an agent of the super powers but a guardian of the Muslim Ummah andthe Islamic ideas and thoughts. When in the past it was asked whether this bright Ummah would fight forIslam she answered without any doubt that we will fight, but now it seems like that this Ummah has lostits mental force which used to move the whole of the nation for the course of Allah.In these days a huge responsibility is upon our shoulders and a chance to loosen ourselves from thestronghold of the super powers. In these days the main powers U.S, Britain and the EU is deciding thedestiny of the Iraqi peoples future and lives. Its a vital question to have knowlegde of the plans andpolicies that the U.S have outlined to enforce an iron grip to hold Iraq tightly to the West´s interests. Thefollowing essay tries to unveil the policies and plans that the U.S have hidden behind a false curtain of human rights, freedom and the right to self determination for the Iraqi people.The U.S plan towards a post-war IraqLong before the war broke out the Americans had a clear vision about what should be the outcome of thediplomatic relations between Britain and the EU. The U.S didn´t manage to direct her diplomaticnegotiations in a clear manner and therefore had to break up and launch an attack over the UN and thelegitimacy of the international community. The aAmericans long before the war broke out had decided thata regime change was the only acceptable solution and the pretext was that Iraq had weapons of massdestruction. Nevertheless, no WMD have yet been found and nothing has been proven even though theAmericans consider this war as legitimate. A clear evidence that this war had nothing to do with WMD isColin Powell's declaration, in a BBC radio interview, that Washington might pursue "regime change" in Iraqeven if the Iraqi leader complies fully with weapons inspections.The U.S plan can be outlined by the following guiding principles:Establishing a federal Iraq and upholding the territorial integrity of Iraq but in a manner in which there willbe a three zone Iraq. “Iraq is to be divided into three zones by the interim civil administration headed bythe retired American general Jay Garner... just established a foothold in the far south of Iraq. Speaking aday after a team from Mr Garner's Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA)... aspokesman said the first priority was to bring in aid. "In many ways we are learning as we go," said MajorJeff Jurgensen, one of about 30 officials drawn from US government departments who will set up ORHA'ssouthern region. Other teams will run the central and northern zones”.(Independent 10th April )The Iraqi people will rule as soon as there is stability but the Americans will be administrators. The Iraqirulers will be those who have an intimate relationship with the U.S and especially the CIA. The leader of the National Iraqi Congress Ahmed Chalabi, will have a leading role. Ahmed Chalabi is a well knownpolitical personality with his close relationship with the CIA. The main point here is that the interimgovernment would be the one which hands over the oil and reconstruction contracts to Americancompanies. The Guardian on its homepage had a report dated 3rd November 2002 where the paperunveiled that Mr. Chalabi had attended meetings with three American Oil companies. Also the former CIAdirector James Woolsey said “ The French and the Russians should be told that if they are helping movingIraq to a decent government then we would do our best to ensure the new goverement and Americanenterprizes cooperate with them”.( Guardian report 22/12-02 )From the above we can see that this new government will give up the Islamic Ummah´s property to theAmericans.American plans would be directed by American administrators from behind the scenes so that Americawon´t face the accusation that they are stealing the oil from the Iraqi people. From a political point of 
Malik Rizwan YasinCSS Notes0300-9289949
Page 2 of 8
Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies
view America is facing a great challenge. The problem is how well the Americans explain to the peoplearound the world that America is stealing the oil and profiting from a nations disaster.The United States will in this connection try to expel the EU, especially, but also Britain to only have ahumanitarian aid role. Even though Bush has stated that UN will have a “Vital role” to play it only means arole in questions related to humanitarian relief and aid. What one should be beware of in relation to theUN is that the Americans use the phrase “vital role” as do the British but the EU and Russia use the phrase “Central role”. From this we can derive that there is some agreement between Britain and the U.S that theEU and Russia should not have any possibility of playing a role in a future Iraq except in questions relatingto humanitarian aid.A report from the James Baker Institute has reported that “ the removal of its top leadership, is one of thekey pieces of a U.S strategy”. From this it’s clear that the main aspect of the American presence in Iraq isto remove the old political medium and fulfill the upcoming vacuum by Iraqis who are pro American.What is also central is that the Americans would describe their activities as being administrative ratherthen governing and that they are serving the Iraqi people until a stable government can take place. Whenthey have securely removed the former pro-British political medium and replaced it with a very Americanone, they will pull out and let this new government implement American policies. The transformationphases will likely be dominated by political instability, violence and assassinations of upcoming rivals to theAmerican agents.Demilitarising Iraq will be a key policy so that it can never become a strong regional threat to anyAmerican regime in the Persian Gulf.A few observations should also be made about oil and the economy. The Americans have clearly statedthat they would open up Iraq and develop its economy by making trade arrangements through the IMFand giving aid through the World Bank. This policy will result in the Americans directly controlling the Iraqieconomy. Once Iraq becomes a prisoner of these organisations it will be very difficult for the Iraqi peopleto become free again.What is important from the above is that the Islamic Ummah must realize what a great danger the Iraqimuslims are facing. If the Muslim Ummah became silent and the Americans get the chance to fulfill theirplans, then the Iraqi people will no longer suffer under Saddam but under George Bush. Some shallowminded and political naive people might argue that this is after all, better then it was before. This kind of thinking is actually an admission of intellectual and political failure. First of all the Shariah obliges theIslamic Ummah to loosen itself from the domination of foreign powers.Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta'aala) says:"Allah will never allow that kuffar has the authority over the muslims”.From a political standpoint the Iraqi people will still suffer, but it will become even more difficult to removea regime which is praised by the White House. Which receives intelligence aid and military cooperationfrom the U.S and CIA. It will be even harder to get Iraq out of U.S hands when there will be a three zoneweak landscape. And even harder when its economy is controlled by foreign investors and byIMF and WBpolicies. Not to mention the difficulty of removing a regime which would have greater legitimacy from theinternational community then the Baath party had earlier. So how can one say that it will be better? Whenin actuality it will be harder and more complicated then ever before. This American plan to reshape theMiddle East would make it even more difficult for the Ummah to free the Iraqi people from the dominionsof the U.S. So being so politically naive would only lead to an admission of one’s political failure and not animprovement of the Iraqi peoples’ condition. Examine Afghanistan, has it become better? Is it not evenmore difficult to break up Hamid Karzai´s regime when it cooperates with the U.S. and the internationalcommunity recognizes it as a legitimate regime? The Ummah should realize that the only way to get out of this misery is to give the authority to a regime which actually represents the Muslims. A regime whichactually gives the Muslims a comprehensive thought. And that regime can only be a rightly guided Khilafahwhich implements the Shariah. A Khilafah which makes Islam as a foundation for its internal and foreignpolicy. So we should take up our responsibility and work for establishing that Khilafah again.
Malik Rizwan YasinCSS Notes0300-9289949
Page 3 of 8
Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies
The 2003 invasion of Iraq, also called the Iraq War or "Operation Iraqi Freedom", is a war thatbeganMarch 20 2003, between the United States, United Kingdom and a coalition of their allies, againstIraq.The invasion began without the explicit authorization of theuntied nation security council, and some legalauthorities take the view that the action violated the U.N. Chater. The Bush Administration has citedSecurity Council resolutions from early 1990s as legal justification, though there is no clear position in anyof them with regard to the use of military action against Iraq.On 17 March 2003 in his Address to the Nation, U.S. President George W Bush demanded that IraqiPresident Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq giving them a 48-hour deadline .The following day, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer recinded Bush's previous statement, saying thatthe U.S. would invade Iraq whether Saddam Hussein left or notUnited States military operations were conducted under the name Operation Iraqi Freedom. UnitedKingdom military operations as Operation Telic and Australian operations as Operation FalconerAfter approximately three weeks of fighting, Iraq was occupied by coalition forces and the rule of SaddamHussein and his Ba'ath Party came to an end. Subsequently, the period known as post-invasion Iraqbegan. Approximately 260,000 United States troops, with support from 45,000 British and smaller forcesfrom other nations, collectively called the "Coalition of the Willing", entered IraqKuwait. Plans for openinga second front in the north were abandoned when Turkey officially refused the use of its territory for suchpurposes. Forces also supported Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000.primarily through a staging area inFacing them was a large but poorly equipped military force. The regular Iraqi army was estimated at290,000–350,000 troops, with four Republican Guard divisions with 50,000–80,000 troops, and theFedayeen Saddam, a 20,000–40,000 strong militia, who used guerrilla tactics during the war. There werean estimated thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions, as well as some specialforces units. The Iraqi Air Force and Navy played a negligible role in the conflict.
Since the end of the Gulf War of 1991, Iraq's relations with the UN, the US, and the UK remained poor. Inthe absence of a Security Council consensus that Iraq had fully complied with the terms of the Persian Gulf War ceasefire, both the UN and the US enforced numerous economic sanctions against Iraq throughoutthe Clinton administration, and patrolled Iraqi airspace to enforce Iraqi no-fly zones. The United StatesCongress also passed the "Iraq Liberation Act" in October 1998, which provided $97 million for Iraqi"democratic opposition organizations" in order to "remove the sovereign regime headed by SaddamHussein and support a transition to democracy". This contrasted with the terms set out in U.N. Resolution687 all of which related to weapons and weapons programs, not to what regime was in place. Weaponsinspectors had also been used to gather intelligence on Iraq's WMD program, information that was thenused in targeting decisions during Operation Desert Fox. At the same time Tony Blair's Attorney GeneralLord Goldsmith could not guarantee that an invasion in the circumstances would not be challenged onlegal groundsThe United States Republican Party's campaign platform in the U.S. presidential election, 2000 called for"full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein with a focus on rebuildinga coalition, tougher sanctions, reinstating inspections, and support for the pro-democracy, opposition exilegroup, Iraqi National Congress.
Malik Rizwan YasinCSS Notes0300-9289949

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->