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 to once again rule the world but nevertheless we have to seize the moment. The day after Baghdads fall was a day of sadness but also a day of cognitive awareness because never in the past has it been so clear that we need an authority which is not an agent of the super powers but a guardian of the Muslim Ummah and the Islamic ideas and thoughts. When in the past it was asked whether this bright Ummah would fight for Islam she answered without any doubt that we will fight, but now it seems like that this Ummah has lost its 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 the stronghold of the super powers. In these days the main powers U.S, Britain and the EU is deciding the destiny of the Iraqi peoples future and lives. Its a vital question to have knowlegde of the plans and policies that the U.S have outlined to enforce an iron grip to hold Iraq tightly to the West´s interests. The following 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 Iraq Long before the war broke out the Americans had a clear vision about what should be the outcome of the diplomatic relations between Britain and the EU. The U.S didn´t manage to direct her diplomatic negotiations in a clear manner and therefore had to break up and launch an attack over the UN and the legitimacy of the international community. The aAmericans long before the war broke out had decided that a regime change was the only acceptable solution and the pretext was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, no WMD have yet been found and nothing has been proven even though the Americans consider this war as legitimate. A clear evidence that this war had nothing to do with WMD is Colin Powell's declaration, in a BBC radio interview, that Washington might pursue "regime change" in Iraq even 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 will be a three zone Iraq. “Iraq is to be divided into three zones by the interim civil administration headed by the retired American general Jay Garner... just established a foothold in the far south of Iraq. Speaking a day after a team from Mr Garner's Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA)... a spokesman said the first priority was to bring in aid. "In many ways we are learning as we go," said Major Jeff Jurgensen, one of about 30 officials drawn from US government departments who will set up ORHA's southern 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 Iraqi rulers 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 known political personality with his close relationship with the CIA. The main point here is that the interim government would be the one which hands over the oil and reconstruction contracts to American companies. The Guardian on its homepage had a report dated 3rd November 2002 where the paper unveiled that Mr. Chalabi had attended meetings with three American Oil companies. Also the former CIA director James Woolsey said “ The French and the Russians should be told that if they are helping moving Iraq to a decent government then we would do our best to ensure the new goverement and American enterprizes 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 the Americans. American plans would be directed by American administrators from behind the scenes so that America won´t face the accusation that they are stealing the oil from the Iraqi people. From a political point of

Malik Rizwan Yasin

CSS Notes

0300-9289949

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 people around 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 a humanitarian aid role. Even though Bush has stated that UN will have a “Vital role” to play it only means a role in questions related to humanitarian relief and aid. What one should be beware of in relation to the UN 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 the EU and Russia should not have any possibility of playing a role in a future Iraq except in questions relating to humanitarian aid. A report from the James Baker Institute has reported that “ the removal of its top leadership, is one of the key pieces of a U.S strategy”. From this it’s clear that the main aspect of the American presence in Iraq is to 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 rather then governing and that they are serving the Iraqi people until a stable government can take place. When they have securely removed the former pro-British political medium and replaced it with a very American one, they will pull out and let this new government implement American policies. The transformation phases will likely be dominated by political instability, violence and assassinations of upcoming rivals to the American agents. Demilitarising Iraq will be a key policy so that it can never become a strong regional threat to any American regime in the Persian Gulf. A few observations should also be made about oil and the economy. The Americans have clearly stated that they would open up Iraq and develop its economy by making trade arrangements through the IMF and giving aid through the World Bank. This policy will result in the Americans directly controlling the Iraqi economy. Once Iraq becomes a prisoner of these organisations it will be very difficult for the Iraqi people to become free again. What is important from the above is that the Islamic Ummah must realize what a great danger the Iraqi muslims are facing. If the Muslim Ummah became silent and the Americans get the chance to fulfill their plans, then the Iraqi people will no longer suffer under Saddam but under George Bush. Some shallow minded 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 the Islamic 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 remove a regime which is praised by the White House. Which receives intelligence aid and military cooperation from the U.S and CIA. It will be even harder to get Iraq out of U.S hands when there will be a three zone weak landscape. And even harder when its economy is controlled by foreign investors and byIMF and WB policies. Not to mention the difficulty of removing a regime which would have greater legitimacy from the international community then the Baath party had earlier. So how can one say that it will be better? When in actuality it will be harder and more complicated then ever before. This American plan to reshape the Middle East would make it even more difficult for the Ummah to free the Iraqi people from the dominions of the U.S. So being so politically naive would only lead to an admission of one’s political failure and not an improvement of the Iraqi peoples’ condition. Examine Afghanistan, has it become better? Is it not even more difficult to break up Hamid Karzai´s regime when it cooperates with the U.S. and the international community 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 which actually gives the Muslims a comprehensive thought. And that regime can only be a rightly guided Khilafah which implements the Shariah. A Khilafah which makes Islam as a foundation for its internal and foreign policy. So we should take up our responsibility and work for establishing that Khilafah again.

Malik Rizwan Yasin

CSS Notes

0300-9289949

Page 3 of 8 20.US IRAQ WAR:

Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, also called the Iraq War or "Operation Iraqi Freedom", is a war that beganMarch 20 2003, between the United States, United Kingdom and a coalition of their allies, against Iraq. The invasion began without the explicit authorization of theuntied nation security council, and some legal authorities take the view that the action violated the U.N. Chater. The Bush Administration has cited Security Council resolutions from early 1990s as legal justification, though there is no clear position in any of 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 Iraqi President 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 that the U.S. would invade Iraq whether Saddam Hussein left or not United States military operations were conducted under the name Operation Iraqi Freedom. United Kingdom military operations as Operation Telic and Australian operations as Operation Falconer After approximately three weeks of fighting, Iraq was occupied by coalition forces and the rule of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party came to an end. Subsequently, the period known as post-invasion Iraq began. Approximately 260,000 United States troops, with support from 45,000 British and smaller forces from other nations, collectively called the "Coalition of the Willing", entered IraqKuwait. Plans for opening a second front in the north were abandoned when Turkey officially refused the use of its territory for such purposes. Forces also supported Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000. primarily through a staging area in Facing them was a large but poorly equipped military force. The regular Iraqi army was estimated at 290,000–350,000 troops, with four Republican Guard divisions with 50,000–80,000 troops, and the Fedayeen Saddam, a 20,000–40,000 strong militia, who used guerrilla tactics during the war. There were an estimated thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions, as well as some special forces units. The Iraqi Air Force and Navy played a negligible role in the conflict. Prelude Since the end of the Gulf War of 1991, Iraq's relations with the UN, the US, and the UK remained poor. In the 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 throughout the Clinton administration, and patrolled Iraqi airspace to enforce Iraqi no-fly zones. The United States Congress 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 Saddam Hussein and support a transition to democracy". This contrasted with the terms set out in U.N. Resolution 687 all of which related to weapons and weapons programs, not to what regime was in place. Weapons inspectors had also been used to gather intelligence on Iraq's WMD program, information that was then used in targeting decisions during Operation Desert Fox. At the same time Tony Blair's Attorney General Lord Goldsmith could not guarantee that an invasion in the circumstances would not be challenged on legal grounds The 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 rebuilding a coalition, tougher sanctions, reinstating inspections, and support for the pro-democracy, opposition exile group, Iraqi National Congress.

Malik Rizwan Yasin

CSS Notes

0300-9289949

Page 4 of 8

Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies

In September 2000, in the Rebuilding America's Defenses (pg. 17) report, Project for the New American Century, a right-wing think tank, suggested that the United States shift to more ground-based air forces to help contain the forces of Saddam Hussein so that "the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed." Upon the election of George W. Bush as president, many advocates of such a policy (including some of those who wrote the 2000 report) were included in the new administration's foreign policy circle. According to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill an attack was planned since the inauguration, and the first security council meeting discussed plans on invasion of the country. Notes from aides who were with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center one year later, on the day of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, reflect that he wanted, "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only [Osama bin Laden]." The notes also quote him as saying, "Go massive," and "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Shortly thereafter, the George W. Bush administration announced a War on Terrorism, accompanied by the doctrine of 'preemptive' military action dubbed the Bush doctrine. The September 11 commission in June, 2004 released a staff report that said it found 'no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.'" In 2002 the Iraq disarmament crisis arose primarily as a diplomatic situation. In October 2002, with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (Adopted 296-133 by the House of Representatives and 77-23 by the Senate), the United States Congress granted President Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq. The Joint Resolution was worded so as to encourage, but not require, UN Security Council approval for military action, although as a matter of international law the US required explicit Security Council approval for an invasion unless an attack by Iraq had been imminent — the USimminent, threat. The joint resolution allowed the President of the United StatesUnited States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq". administration argued that there was a "growing" or "gathering", rather than to, "defend the national security of the In November 2002, United Nations actions regarding Iraq culminated in the unanimous passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the resumption of weapons inspections. However, UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi nan later stated that the subsequent invasion was a violation of the UN Charter. Force was not authorized by resolution 1441 itself, as the language of the resolution mentioned "serious consequences", which is generally not understood by Security Council members to include the use of force to depose the government; however the threat of force, as cultivated by the Bush administration, was prominent at the time of the vote. Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441 on 8 November 202, had given assurances that it provided no "automaticity," no "hidden triggers", no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council; in the event such consultation was forestalled by the US and UK's abandonment of the Security Council procedure and their invasion of Iraq. Richard Perle, a senior member of the administration's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, has expressed an opinion in November, 2003, that the invasion was against international law, but argued that it was justified. There is still much disagreement among international lawyers on whether prior resolutions, relating to the 1991 war and later inspections, permitted the invasion. The United States also began preparations for an invasion of Iraq, with a host of diplomatic, public relations and military preparations. Rationale In the wake of the September 11 attacks and the relative success of the U.S.Afghanistan in 2001, the Bush administration felt that it had sufficient military justification and public support in the United States for further operations against perceived threats in the Middle East. The relations between some coalition members and Iraq had never improved since 1991, and the nations remained in a state of low-level conflict marked by American and British air-strikes, sanctions, and threats against Iraq. Iraqi radar had

Malik Rizwan Yasin

CSS Notes

0300-9289949

Page 5 of 8

Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies

also locked onto coalition airplanes enforcing the northern and southern no-fly zones, which had been implemented after the Gulf War in 1991. invasion of Throughout 2002, the U.S. administration made it clear that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a major goal, although it offered to accept major changes in Iraqi military and foreign policy in lieu of this. Specifically, the stated justification for the invasion included Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction, links with terrorist organizations and human rights violations in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein government, issues that are detailed below. To that end, the stated goals of the invasion, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were: Self defence find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, weapons programs, and terrorists collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists Humanitarian end sanctions and to deliver humanitarian support (According to Madeline Albright, half a million Iraqi children had died because of sanctions.) UNSC Resolution Resolution 1205, made in 1999. Regime Change end the Saddam Hussein government help Iraq's transition to democratic self-rule Other secure Iraq's oil fields and other resources Many staff and supporters within the Bush administration had other, more ambitious goals for the war as well. Many propagated the claim that the war could act as a catalyst for democracy and peace in the Middle East, and that once IraqIraq represented a specific threat to the United States and to international law. Little evidence was presented actually linking the government of Iraq to al-Qaeda (see below). became democratic and prosperous other nations would quickly follow suit due to this demonstration effect, and thus the social environment that allowed terrorism to flourish would be eliminated. However, for diplomatic, bureaucratic reasons these goals were played down in favor of justifications that Opponents of the Iraq war disagreed with many of the arguments presented by the administration, attacking them variously as being untrue, inadequate to justify a pre-emptive war, or likely to have results different from the administration's intentions. Further, they asserted various alternate reasons for the invasion. Different groups asserted that the war was fought primarily for: Energy economics to gain control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market (since 2000, Iraq had used the Euro as its oil export currency) to ensure the US had military control over the region's hydrocarbon reserves as a lever to control other countries that depend on it to assure that the revenue from Iraqi oil would go primarily to American interests to lower the price of oil for American consumers Defense and construction special interests to channel money to defense and construction interests in pursuance of the PNAC's stated strategic goal of "unquestionable [American] geopolitical preeminence" Public perception to maintain the wartime popularity that the President enjoyed due to his response to the 11 September

Malik Rizwan Yasin

CSS Notes

0300-9289949

Page 6 of 8

Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies

attacks (in contrast to his father whose wartime popularity faded when the electorate began to focus on the economy) Reconstruction For the reconstruction, contracts were awarded to private companies. Initially companies from countries that had opposed the war were excluded from these contracts, but this decision was reversed due to protests. Political activists and commentators allege that the Pentagon favoured companies like Halliburton, former employer of Vice President Dick Cheney, because they had connections to high-ranking members of the Bush administration This suspicion had already been a concern during the global protests against the war on Iraq. An audit found that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and RootKuwaiti (KBR) may have overcharged the U.S. government $61 million, on contracts worth billions, for bringing oil products for the U.S. army into Iraq via a subcontractor, Altanmia Commercial Marketing Co. Some also argue that foreign contractors are doing work which could be done by unemployed Iraqis, which might be a factor fueling resentment of the occupation. Further resentment could be inflamed with the news that almost USD9 billion dollars of Iraqi oil revenue is missing from a fund set up to reconstruct Iraq. Civilian government The establishment of a new civilian government of Iraq was greatly complicated by the religious divisions between the majority Shi'ite population and the formerly ruling Sunni class. Moreover, many of the people in Saddam's ruling Ba'ath PartyIraq, Kurds had already had effectively autonomous rule for 12 years under the protection of the no-fly zone. were perceived as tainted by the association by some parties. In northern On May 16, 2003, U.S. officials abandoned the plan to cede authority to a democratically chosen interim civilian Iraqi government (similar to what had happened in Afghanistan following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan) and presented a resolution to the UN to give the United States and the United Kingdom broad power and lift economic sanctions on Iraq, allowing the occupying countries authority to use oil resources to pay for rebuilding the country. Passage of the resolution allowed them to appoint an interim government by themselves. On July 13, 2003, an Iraqi Governing Council was appointed by Coalition Provisional Authority Administration. Elections For several months the United States maintained that it intended to convene a constitutional convention, composed of influential Iraqis. However, European demands for an early election and Ayatollah Ali alSistani's insistence eventually forced the United States to let the appointed Governing Council serve this function. In the early months of the occupation, new officials were appointed to several local and regional positions (e.g., mayors, governors, local councils). The officials were chosen from a select group of individuals (including ex-Ba'ath party officials) in an attempt to speed the return to normality and to avoid the election of people opposed to the American and British presence. Certain religious clerics and other officials were considered to be overly radical or dangerous. On occasion the appointed officials were found

Malik Rizwan Yasin

CSS Notes

0300-9289949

Page 7 of 8

Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies

to behave less than admirably. On June 30, 2003, the appointed mayor of Najaf was arrested on charges of corruption. Though some protested the lack of democracy (as proposed by Jay Garner, who wanted elections within 90 days), Iraq's long history of one-party rule had left the country ill-equipped to function democratically. In recent months, civil society at a local level has shown signs of recovery in some areas of Iraq, but much to American disquiet, it seems largely to be based around religious figures. Municipal and city elections were held in some of the southern and northern provinces. On 15 November, the Iraqi Governing Council announced that a transitional government would take over in June from the U.S.-led powers, and that an elected government would follow by the end of 2005 once a constitution had been drafted and ratified. The transitional government would be selected in June 2004 by a transitional council formed in May 2004. The Governing Council revealed the timetable after the United States government, in reaction to terrorist and militant activity against occupying troops and aid organisations, abandoned its earlier plan that a sovereign government would take charge only after creating a constitution and elections held. Jalal Talabani, current chairman of the council, said the transition would involve "the creation of a permanent constitution by an elected council, directly elected by the people, and also the election of a new government according to the articles of this new constitution before the end of 2005." In March 2004, an interim constitution was created, called the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period. The document calls for the creation of an elected National Assembly to take place no later than January of 2005. The question of the election calendar became a matter of importance for Iraq and the U.S.: while a quick election would legitimise the Iraqi government and shed a favourable light on the U.S.-led occupation of the country, the prospect of violence delayed it. It was finally set for the 30th of January 2005. On the 4th of January 2005, Ghazi Al-Yaouar asked the United Nations to reconsider the electoral schedule Sovereignty for Iraq In a 1 June 2004, press conference, President Bush said that he was working with various world leaders to create a U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing the transition from the US-dominated occupation to complete autonomy for Iraq. Under this resolution, Coalition forces would remain in Iraq until the new government could establish security and stabilization: "There is a deep desire by the Iraqis — don't get me wrong — to run their own affairs and to be in a position where they can handle their own security measures." This decision may be necessary to prevent anti-democratic forces from seizing regional or national power and re-creating the kind of dictatorship which prompted the invasion of Iraq8 June, Security Council resolution 1546 was adopted unanimously, calling for "the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq by 30 June 2004." in the first place. On On June 28, 2004, the occupation was formally ended by the CPA, which transferred power to a new Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. The multinational military alliance is assisting the Allawi government in governing the Iraqis. The purpose of the Occupation of Iraq was, according to U.S. President George W. Bush, purely to bring about a transition from post-war anarchy to full Iraqi sovereignty. Armed opposition Despite the defeat of the old Iraqi army, guerilla attacks against the Coalition and the Iraqi transitional government continued. In the early months following the "end of major combat operations", insurgents conducted sniper attacks, suicide bombings at road checkpoints, and ambushes, resulting in about 30 American and British deaths per month.

Malik Rizwan Yasin

CSS Notes

0300-9289949

Page 8 of 8

Iraq and the Reconstruction Policies

Sometimes the attackers would say that they were motivated by revenge (e.g., an anti-coalition group claimed the four Iraqis that were allegedly shot at by British soldiers during a demonstration were unarmed and acting peacefully; six British soldiers were later killed by Iraqis). Dozens of unarmed Iraqis were shot in anti-Alliance demonstrations, mostly in the nation's Sunni Muslim areas. While Shi'a Muslim areas were mostly peaceful, Ayatollah Sayed Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, who returned to Iraq after decades in exile shortly after the occupation began, said: "We are not afraid of the British or American troops. This country wants to keep its sovereignty and the forces of the coalition must leave it." American forces denied the accusations of targeting unarmed civilians. They said they were fired upon and were returning fire. Guerrilla war In late June of 2003 there was some public debate in the U.S. as to whether the insurgency could be characterized as a guerrilla war. On 17 June, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid said that forces in Iraq were "conducting what I would describe as a classical guerrilla-type campaign against us. It's low-intensity conflict in our doctrinal terms, but it's war however you describe it." In a statement to Congress on 18 June, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said "There's a guerrilla war there but we can win it." However, U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, on 31 June, characterized the situation in Iraq as a "guerrilla war" and described the insurgency as consisting of five groups: -Foreign terrorists -Criminals -Looters -Iranian-backed Shi'a radicals. -Supporters of the former Saddam Hussein regime "That doesn't make it anything like a guerrilla war or an organized resistance," Rumsfeld said. "It makes it like five different things going on [in which the groups] are functioning more like terrorists."

CONCLUSION: The war in iraq is still under way in the form of civilian religious confrontations.It is hoped that the war will end and the Iraqi people will finally be able to live their lives in a free atmosphere and rebuild their country on the basis of strong economical and social grounds. It is also desired that USA should now leave the region and should give the Iraqi people to live their lives according to their own desires and beliefs without any fear of foreign intervention.Every individual has a right to live and every nation has a right to be sovereign in its own rights.Therefore any kind of interfernce in the affairs of other states should not be the objective of the powerful nations rather they should be playing a heping hand in building the weaker nations .

Malik Rizwan Yasin

CSS Notes

0300-9289949

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful