America’s Iraq dilemma
Ding Ying

FOUR and a half years after the United States invaded Iraq, President George W. Bush has decided to start withdrawing troops from the country. Although the total number of soldiers to be withdrawn by next summer is not large - approximately 30,000 of the current 168,000 - foreign affairs experts said Bush’s decision is an attempt to improve the standing of the Republican Party at home prior to the 2008 presidential election in spite of Americans’ continued opposition to the war.
Yet, the troop withdrawal will not influence what happens in Iraq, experts said. The country’s main mission is to reunite all its political and religious groups to build stability and prosperity.
The situation in Iraq keeps getting tougher for the Americans. The number of American casualties continues to grow, antiwar protests have become more frequent, and the Republicans’ hope of winning the 2008 presidential election is dim. And with Democrats in the majority in Congress, support for Bush’s policy has diminished compared to what it was before the midterm congressional elections in 2006.
In early January 2007, Bush announced his intention to send more troops Iraq to boost security there in light of the continued attacks on American troops and Iraqi citizens. U.S. Congress set 18 benchmarks in its War Funding Bill passed on May 24, which covered political, economic and security aspects. These benchmarks set standards for measuring the progress made by additional forces. The Bush Administration submitted its first Iraq report to the government in July and a second one on September 14. But, according to both reports, the 18 benchmarks were not met.
On September 9-10, General David Petraeus, the commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, testified before Congress about the security situation there after the additional troops were sent. According to Xinhua News Agency reports, Petraeus made three main points. First, the U.S. Government’s reinforcement had made some achievements in Iraq, and large amounts of U.S. troops should not be cut off. Second, although Iraq’s Central Government made little progress, the situation of local governments in the country had improved. Third, a sudden withdraw would lead to disaster in Iraq.
A poll by Cable News Network (CNN) showed that about 53 percent of the American public did not believe the current situation in Iraq was just like Petraeus had said, according to a Xinhua News Agency report.
On September 13, Bush announced a plan to withdraw some troops by next summer. In his address to the nation, Bush used the expression “bring some of our troops home” rather than “withdraw,” and said the plan was based on the principle of “return on success,” meaning that the more successful the United States was in stabilizing Iraq, the more American troops would be withdrawn.
Under the current plan, 2,200 Marines will return immediately and will not be replaced. An Army brigade of 3,500 will be sent home by Christmas. Approximately 23,000 troops are scheduled to return by next summer, leaving about 139,300 U.S. troops in Iraq.
Politics at home
Zhang Guoqing, an American studies researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), cited several reasons for Bush’s decision to start the troop pullout. First, it resulted from wrestling between Congress and the White House. With the Democrats now controlling Congress and strongly urging the government to withdraw troops from Iraq, the White House and U.S. Congress are in a teeter-totter situation where they must compromise on certain occasions regarding Iraq. If the Bush administration maintains a hardline attitude on Iraq, it might face more pressure from Congress on other issues, especially on domestic affairs.
“The partial pullout plan can get the government more support from Congress on other affairs, such as [Bush’s] war funding application,” Zhang said.
Second, Bush based his decision on trying to boost the position of the Republican Party for the coming presidential election. Antiwar voices have grown louder inside the United States due to the Democrats’ position on troop withdrawal after they won the midterm elections last year. Democratic presidential candidates are in the lead because they favor pulling soldiers out of Iraq. By initiating a partial withdrawal, Bush is trying to get Republican presidential candidates more scores.
Third, with the Iraq war occupying both terms of his presidency, Bush is concerned about his historical legacy as president. “He doesn’t want to leave regret after he leaves the post,” Zhang said. “The pullout plan has practical meanings instead of just a signal.”
Moreover, critics point out that even if the government did not start withdrawing troops, the U.S. Army would not have enough manpower for rotating tours of duty by next summer and it would have to withdraw soldiers anyway. Thus the Bush administration merely did its forces a favor that cost nothing, according to Xinhua News Agency.
In his address, Bush called the situation in Iraq “critical to the security of the United States” and said that a major part of American forces there would remain. But if the Democrats win the coming presidential election, the next president will plan to withdraw even more troops or risk betraying Americans’ trust and losing out on a possible second term, Zhang said. Some military experts believe that if the situation in Iraq can be controlled as Washington hopes, the United States should at least send an army with 500,000 troops, he said. In the meantime, political stability and economic reconstruction will remain at the heart of the Iraq issue, he added.
Political unraveling
The situation in Iraq has not boded well for the country’s citizens either. Iraq’s main priority is to establish a stable united government to bring general peace to the country, foreign affairs experts said. August was a dark month in Iraq. At least 63 U.S. soldiers were killed, according to the U.S. Defense Department; and more than 1,770 Iraqi civilians died in the violence, according to the Iraqi Government.
By September 16, a total of 3,780 U.S. soldiers had lost their lives in Iraq since the war started, according to U.S. military information. But nearly 1.2 million Iraqis had been killed during that time, more than the 1 million who had lost their lives in Rwanda’s genocide, according to a September 16 report in the British newspaper The Observer.
The primary problem in Iraq is that the country’s security situation is not improving, one foreign affairs expert said. Li Guofu, a Middle East studies expert at the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS), said that reconciliation among Iraqi tribes and religious groups had hardly reached consensus on account of historical reasons.
On August 26, leaders from Iraq’s three major political groups - Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds - signed an agreement on some political issues, in which the Shiites, the country’s dominant group, made some compromises. For example, the leaders agreed on draft legislation that would lift limitations on former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party joining the public service and army. They also agreed on setting standards to release some detainees held without charge - a key requirement of the Sunnis.
Although the agreement made some progress, experts said that many hot spots, such as oil legislation, constitutional amendments and the issue of militant commandos, had not been discussed, further hindering attempts to reestablish peace in Iraq.
On September 15, anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said his political party, the second largest component of the ruling Shiite coalition United Iraqi Alliance, would withdraw from the bloc. The reason, he said, was that his party had not been consulted about government decisions. Now, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government is facing its most serous political crisis. Seventeen ministers have resigned from his administration, and none of the remaining 23 is Sunni. The united government is only a shell and faces the near certainty of more conflicts to come.
Li compared post-war Iraq to a broken glass. All the chips and shards are there, but it will be difficult to put them back together.
“The reconstruction of Iraq not only needs to reshape its political structures, but also to redistribute power and interests,” Li said. Because every political group is trying to get more benefits, especially those concerning oil, conflicts are inevitable, he added.
Iraq has managed to fix its “hardware” in the form of parliamentary elections and a constitution; however, the country’s “software” - harmony among its tribes and religious parties - has yet to be repaired, Li said. In the long run, the entire situation would not be improved, he added. And it would be impossible for Iraq to have another autocratic leader like Saddam to mend the country; if this happened, the Americans’ progress in building a democracy would be a joke, he said.
Nevertheless, there is still hope for eventual peace in the war-torn country, said Zhang from the CASS.
“America is also thinking about inviting other international organizations, like the UN and the World Bank, to get in [Iraq], so as to obtain more international resources,” he said. Iraq’s neighbors and international humanitarian organizations also could get involved and make some contributions to the peace there, he said.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)

Is democracy monkey business?
Najmul Hasan

I ADMIRE monkeys because of their free spirit and readiness to do whatever they like without any fear, at least in India, the world’s largest democracy. I told Mr Right who was reading a newspaper. He looked at me and said, I am afraid they are no more a favourite lot after a recent incident in Delhi in which the deputy mayor of the city lost his life in a scuffle with the monkeys. The city government is now having a second thought about them. You mean the monkeys will be culled? I asked. Not really, Mr Right said, the authorities are thinking of some other way to remove these ‘holy pests’. It’s too bad, I said, because only the monkeys are free these days. Man was born free, but now he is in chains everywhere, I am not sure who said this, Jean-Jacques Rousseau or George W Bush, the current champion of human freedom.
Mr Right said, Don’t worry these ‘icons of freedom’ will not be culled or caged. The city government will make its effort as harmless as possible to get rid of the simians. I have an idea, I said. Somebody should advise the Indian government to ship the monkeys to other countries where they are needed most. The export of monkeys could also earn valuable foreign exchange for India. Mr Right grinned. Not a bad idea at all. But my friend, which countries do you think would welcome them. I pointed out that there were many countries which might agree to have them in view of recent clamour there to improve their record of individual rights and democracy. For example? Mr Right asked. Like, I said, Pakistan, Myanmar and even the USA.
Pakistan? Mr Right scoffed at my suggestion. The Pakistanis will never accept Indian monkeys and say they themselves have far better versions. Mr Right paused for a moment and said, they might even boast of having ‘holy bulls’ who are better than ‘holy monkeys’ to kick up a storm in the Law & Order Company’s china shop. Try Myanmar then, I suggested. Fow don’t tell me Myanmar has any liking for the monkeys, Mr Right said. I am sure they will slam the door on them, saying, we have already enough pro-democracy trouble-makers ‘monk-eying’ around. In that case, the US is our best bet, I said. President Bush is always ready to help all monkeys to protect their freedom. He, in fact, wants everybody to ape Americans to become citizen of the ‘free world’. ‘Monkeys of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but chains,’ he blurts every now and then. Because he loves freedom and democracy more than the first lady.
Mr Right was once again sceptical about my suggestion. But somebody has to tell the Americans that the monkeys are alive. They usually don’t know the difference between the living and the dead, he said. Once an American, pointing to the Statue of Liberty, told Bernard Shaw, “This is what we stand for.” “Excellent, Shaw quipped, we too make statues in memory of our dead.” I know, I said, I have great regard for the Americans for taking good care of the dead. Wherever they go, they make special efforts to expand graveyards. But it doesn’t mean they are less caring for the living. There are a lot of people there working for the well-being of dogs, donkeys and dolphins. Monkeys too will attract their utmost attention.
Mr Right was still not convinced. My friend, he said, there is every possibility that they will be shipped from there to Iraq or Afghanistan to take part in the war for democracy. I felt dejected. Does it mean that no monkey will ever reach the American shore? I asked. I don’t know, Mr Right replied, but I wish at least one monkey should end up there next to the lady holding the torch of liberty. I wish to see another statue of freedom — a monkey holding the planet earth on his head with both of his hands. I was excited. It would be a great sight indeed, I exclaimed. A monkey’s statue in the New York harbour embodying the golden philosophy of ‘total freedom’. Or, ‘Grab the Globe’ policy of Bush administration, Mr Right remarked. You may call it ‘monkey grab’ or ‘ Bandar Baant’ in Urdu. It’s the favourite game of the powerful all over the world. —Khaleej Times


Going about finding vindication in an edgy world
George Abraham

MAHER Arar and Robert Dziekanski, both immigrants to Canada, are victims of the war on terror, but only one of them is alive to tell his story. The other victim died seconds after he was confronted by edgy police officers at Vancouver airport. Mr Arar has the unlikeliest of stories, having redeemed himself in the eyes of all but the most cynical Canadians. In 2002, he became one of the first to be sent via ‘extraordinary rendition’ from New York to Syria — with the tacit support of Canadian security agencies — for 10 months of torture and forced confessions. Security services in at least three countries — Canada, the US and his native nation, Syria — collaborated to put together a credible story against him, in vain.
Since his return to Canada, Mr Arar has rebuilt has reputation layer by layer, winning an unqualified apology from the Canadian government and $10.5 million in compensation last January. In a span of five years, he has gone from “terrorist” to one of Time magazine’s ‘100 most influential people on the planet.’ A restored Mr Arar moved back to Ottawa recently, from Kamloops in British Columbia, where he had sought a quieter lifestyle compared to the constant media attention in the Canadian capital.
Coincidentally, it was in Kamloops that Mr Dziekanski would have begun his Canadian journey. On October 14, the 40-year-old construction worker from the Polish town of Pieszyce embarked on his maiden airplane flight. It looks like the long road trip from his home town and the 10-hour flight took a heavy toll on the lone traveller. While he was mid-way across the Atlantic, his mother, Zofia Cisowski (61) began her five-hour drive from Kamloops to Vancouver city. She had worked toward this day for many years. Perhaps unaware of how paranoid the world has become in recent years, Ms Cisowski asked her son to wait for her by the baggage carousel at Vancouver airport. ‘Just pick up your bags and wait for me by the carousel,’ she told her son before he set out from his Polish home. But unknown to her, the baggage claim area for international flights is no longer accessible to visitors. It is deemed to be “sterile,” impregnable except for security-screened personnel and passengers.
While the mother waited outside, the son fretted inside Vancouver’s busy airport terminal, which receives about 17 million travellers a year. He appears to have breezed through immigration and customs despite not speaking a word of English, and although he got all his bags, his mother never showed up. According to his mother’s lawyer, Walter Kosteckyj, “Unbelievably, these people (mother and son) were probably no more than 150 to 200 feet apart for at least five hours, and she was unable to get any message to him.”
This far, the facts are not in dispute. But how these circumstances led to the Polish immigrant’s death about 10 hours after he had landed in Vancouver is still an unfolding story. The Royal Canadian Mounted Policy (RCMP), whose officers used a taser gun to subdue the passenger, insist that they were faced with a traveller out of control. He is said to have banged on windows and hurled a computer. The police claim to have a video recording of the sequence of events leading up to the ultimate quieting of the traveller that backs up their version. The family’s lawyer, though, tells a very different story. “I’ve been in touch with witnesses; I have viewed a video, which was taken by a bystander, which is not going to be released until at least the time of the inquest. From my observation, the interaction between the police and this individual, who didn’t appear to me to be posing a danger to anybody at the time … was 24 seconds, roughly, before he was tasered,” Mr Kosteckyj told a press conference. Independent news reports based on police radio logs show that Mr Dziekanski was tasered two minutes after police arrived on the scene. (A taser gun delivers 50,000 volts at 0.004 amps of electricity to the body, designed to restrain an armed person.) Two minutes later, these reports said, he had lost consciousness and was pronounced dead shortly after.—Khaleej Times