Iraq, sovereignity, and a little rebellion

Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |

From Merriam-Webster Online

Liberty: 1) to set at liberty : FREE; specifically : to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power; 2) to take or take over illegally or unjustly.

Free: a : having the legal and political rights of a citizen b : enjoying civil and political liberty c : enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another.

sovereignty: 2: supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

insurgency: a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency (the state of being at war or in conflict; specifically : the status of a legally recognized belligerent state or nation)

rebellion1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

There have been no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. There has been no finding of significant capacity to make them, or to deliver them. No one has found a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Quaeda (or Osama bin Laden). But Hussein was a brutal dictator - our chosen dictator, but a brutal one all the same. So now we have "liberated" Iraq, "freed" the Iraqi people, are getting ready to give them their "sovereignty," and they have the audacity to "rebel."

In an interesting twisting of meaning, the US, (oh yeah) and the "coalition of the willing," have "liberated" Iraq. At a loose level, since the US supported Hussein in power (loosely, our man in Baghdad), then removing him was kind of removing a "foreign" power, though the US did appoint the new power (The Coalition Provisional Authority) to (temporarily) take his place. On the other hand, the US has also liberated (stolen) Iraq and its resources for multiple purposes.

It is very clear that we have not "freed" Iraq, nor the people there off. Nor are we really planning to give them sovreignty - White House Says Iraq Sovereignty Could Be Limited (NYT, 4/23/04). The US constitution has the separation of church and state (though that seems to be eroding rapidly). The US model for Iraq seems to involve the separation of military and state. In other words, there will be political sovereignty, but the US will maintain military (and economic) control. It would seem that this would indeed limit the sovereignty of Iraq. Of course, the US still hasn't decided who to turn sovreignty over to.

In what could be an indicative of a resolution to that dilemma, Iraq Baathists are getting their jobs back (BBC, 4/23/04). Yes, the party of Hussein. It is true that under Hussein party membership was required to work in most positions; however, the upper echelons (ministers, generals, officers, etc) were appointments and promotions. One did not move to positions of authority without proven loyalty to Hussein. And this policy is an extension of the existing plan - not a new one - Secret police force to be set up in Iraq (The Age, 1/05/04). That "police" force is comprised of "Iraqi exile groups, Kurdish and Shiite forces - and former agents who are now working for the Americans." As John Pike from GlobalSecurity.org notes:

"The presence of a powerful secret police ... will mean that the new Iraqi political regime will not stray outside the parameters that the US wants to set," ... "To begin with, the new Iraqi government will reign but not rule."

Those "former agents" are former members of Husseins, secret police.

In a bizarre way, it makes sense to return higher ranking Baathists to position of power. They are the ones who (supposedly) know "how things work" and how to utilize the mechanisms of control. It also helps that the US already knows how to work with the Baathists as they did so for almost 30 years. The problem with Saddam (from a US policy perspective) is that he got "uppity." Perhaps it is a sign of just how much things have deteriorated in Iraq, that the US is moving to put high level Baathists back in positions of authority.

The Bush administration, and the military brass in Iraq, and Bremer, have all expressed their disappointment in the Iraqi soldiers and police they recruited and trained. While last fall they were a "disappointment" because many of the soldiers went AWOL because they weren't being paid. More recently, the "disappointment" has been that neither soldiers or police would participate in the conflicts in Falluja and elsewhere. There is an interesting analysis of this by Nancy Montgomery in the 4/23/04 issue of Stars & Stripes - A lack of security from security forces, and my analysis Abizaid disappointed Iraqi troops won't attack Iraqis, 4/13/04.

The US has apparently been trying to coax the UN into coming into Iraq, but that has been largely a failure. According to a DemocracyNow! report on 4/23/04, the US is trying to turn the oil-forf-food scandal into a justification to NOT allow the UN back in. Meanwhile, the coalition of the willing is evaporating, and most of those "staying the course" are thinking about leaving as their governments' one year committments end.

Meanwhile, it is clear that there is no peacekeeping in Iraq, but that the US is back at "war" with missles, bombs, air strikes, and use of cluster bombs in Falluja (Electronic Iraq, 4/19/04). It would seem that Falluja hardly needs a blunt warning (NYT, 4/24/04) that the US is planning for a major attack on Falluja. Troops have stopped refugges from returning, and males are essentially seen as all being rebels.

In light of this, what exactly does one call the people resisting (increasingly violently) the occupation of Iraq by (primarily) US forces? Are they civilians resisting foreign occupation? Are they insurgents? Are they rebels? Are they "terrorists"? According to the US, they are one of the last three, because the Bush administration has declared itself the rightful ruler of Iraq, having "liberated" them from one appointee and placing them under Viceroy Bremer. On June 30th, they will apparently go under Ambassador Negroponte who is well versed in controlling insurgent populations, and has no qualms about issues of human rights.

Update
I am not the only one raising questions about the return of the Ba'athists. Patrick Cokburn has this interesting article - Ba'athists Ride Again - The Return of Saddam's Generals (CounterPunch, 4/25/04). As Cockburn notes:

Iraqi generals who fought for Saddam Hussein are being reinstated to strengthen the new US-trained Iraqi army half of whose soldiers mutinied or went home during fighting earlier this month.

More than half a dozen generals from the old Iraqi army, dissolved by the US-led Coalition last May, have already been given jobs say American officials according to the US press.

...

Paul Bremer, the US viceroy in Iraq, is reversing the policy under which the 350,000-strong Iraqi army was dissolved and 750,000 members of the Baath party were either sacked from their jobs or found it difficult to gain employment. It is widely admitted among US officials that the disbandment of the army and de-Baathification were disastrous decisions helping to fuel the insurgency among Sunni Arabs, only a fifth of all Iraqis but the foundation of Saddam Hussein's regime.

...

The Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and Washington were clearly alarmed at the degree of alienation of Sunni and Shia Arabs, 80 per cent of the population, earlier this month. Allowing the Baath party members to get top jobs is aimed at conciliating the Sunni Arab community.

Posted by rowan at April 24, 2004 08:40 AM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |