Iraq after two years of US administration

America invaded Iraq just over two years ago. Let's see what has changed in the Middle East and what has not. It is time to assess the current Iraq situation and its likely impact on the rest of the region. An overall evaluation is needed of where America is taking the world thanks to its power.

Everyone agrees that originally-proferred reasons for overthrowing the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussain were contrived with malicious intent. In hindsight, it is clear that US wanted regime changes in Iraq and probably Syria with Iran being tackled differently. What are American purposes is now easy to infer from the pattern US actions make.

Americans made no secret they wanted to reshape the whole ME. Who can fail to conclude that the main American interests in ME are: (a) oil supplies' security and American control over oil, downstream of the wellheads; (b) enhancing Israel's security by eliminating its radical enemies, getting it accepted as US' pro-Consul; and (c) making ME, with the addition of Afghanistan and South Asia, an American redoubt from which to launch diplomatic or other campaigns vis-à-vis Central Asia, Russia and China. There is already a network of American military bases in Asia: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyizstan, Uzbekistan, several elsewhere in Asia's Far East that links up with European bases. The overall purpose -- the 21st Century being America's -- is unchallenged US domination of Asia.

Much as the US propagates democracy, its conduct in Iraq has lacked morality from the beginning. Messrs George Bush and Tony Blair do not possess divine mandate to reshape any region in their own interests. World has seen lies to justify aggression. No one condones Saddam's brutality. But there are well over a hundred dictators around. Would US and UK unseat them by military action? Many of them are dubbed as American stooges. And after Iraq, it should be legitimate to expect 'regime changes' by these powers whenever a Strongman overthrows a democratic system. But who expects the US to depose its own stooges. The American's singing of democracy's tune convinces no one. World reaction is wellknown.

Aware citizens, east or west, left no one in doubt about what they thought of Anglo-American designs on Iraq even before the invasion. A wave of protests surged through scores of countries and world had never seen such spontaneous and massive demonstrations before. Not that people have accepted Bush-Blair spin on aggression since. Its proof lies in two facts: Bush-Blair war party has been on the defensive since. World opinion needs to realistically assess this new force.

It is true, international opinion does not deploy weapons to counter the ultra-sophisticated military might of the sole superpower -- led by the neo-Cons hubris, America is steamrolling along a preconceived path -- that is intent on building a veritable new Holy Roman Empire to last a thousand years. Contrary to expectations, the groundswell of opinion that culminated in Feb 13, 2003 demos across the globe and others since has made it a virtual countervailing force to US power. There may be some wishful thinking in this. But the idea has fascinated many. Would that it becomes so.

Many who watched the US Presidential election "show" last year and misled by America's own anti-Iraq war demos were shocked by Bush victory. Popularity of Mr. Bush as a leader in a war -- "our war" for majority of Americans, with xenophobic racial undertones -- appeared decisive. Two statements seem true: Americans are deeply religious as also conservative and secondly the conservative whites, especially WASPs, are self-centred chauvinists with much racial prejudice. The liberal Americans are overwhelmed by those who are aware only of the mores of their small towns.

But the question is what has happened to Iraq -- a new state that had resulted from Anglo-French give and take in early 1920s? Other areas were added to Mesopotamia in an ad hoc manner, some with expectations of oil. The British kept Iraq united by using brute force and political chicanery. Later, after a bout of instability, Baathists got hold of it who gave it a firm, if also cruel, governance that had secular Arab Nationalism as ideology. Saddam, despite 1991 military defeat, was allowed to suppress a Shia revolt as had happened in 1922. He had earlier used America-provided chemicals to keep down the Kurds in the north, with evident White House approval.

Ethnic faultlines of Iraq are well-known: Kurds are 15-18 per cent of population in the north whose cultural centre was Kirkuk, an oil city. The south was largely Shia with roughly 60 per cent. The middle belt comprises the dominant Sunnis. Although Saddam did not practice no religious oppression as such, but he made no particular effort to rectify the deficits in political equality and economic opportunity that tradition imposed on Shias and Kurds and had no compunction in suppressing the second Shia revolt of the Century with a heavy hand. This is relevant to current turmoil and parliamentary deadlock.

Since the revolt of the Sunni belt -- recently infiltrated by al-Qaeda-seeming Islamic militants -- the way Shias had done in early 1920s against the British Army, Paul Bremer, the US pro-Consul, won over Kurds with unknown promises. He also cultivated the historically-wronged Shias. Iraqi Shia leadership, while differing from Iranian counterparts over political ideology, is more sophisticated and moderate. Under Ayotullah Sistani's guidance, the Shia parties opted for an early general election and elected Parliament, being confident of winning decisive power through democratic means.

However, Bremer gave an interim political structure and political programme with a timetable that is virtually impossible to work within the newly imposed constitutional structure and the laid down timeframe. Thus, polls were to be held by Jan 28, the new Assembly was to meet on March 16, a new government was to be agreed upon within 15 days and a new constitution written within a short span, to be soon reaffirmed in an October referendum and so on. It was quite like Pakistani President Yahya Khan's Legal Framework Order: conditions and a timeframe were intentionally made as unworkable as possible. Three top offices in the new government require two thirds vote in the Assembly while major decisions require a three quarter votes. Kurds, allies of Americans, having been given 30 per cent seats, have a virtual veto on all decisions. What was the American scheme in case the programme could not be achieved?

Today Kurds demand guarantees against Islamic Shariah being enacted. Put in this fashion no Muslim cleric can agree. What happens if the deadlock continues and new arrangements break down, while the US continues to refuse an early withdrawal of its troops? What of the future of democracy? Presence of foreign occupation troops makes mincemeat of Iraqi sovereignty.

There is the question of actual Kurdish designs. Just how much autonomy would satisfy them? How far would the Americans go with them in view of known Turkish opposition to Kurdish independence? Would they acquiesce in Kurdish independence, thanks to Kirkuk and northern oil being securely available to the US? Then what happens to Sunni revolt, with Shias in government? Can Shias give them what Sunnis have been accustomed to. Moreover, the induction of Islamic militants remains to be explained: they could only have originated in Saudi Arabia. While fighting them at home, are the Saudis encouraging them to go and fight in Iraq? We have yet to understand who is playing what games in Iraq.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.