Measuring the success of the Iraqi invasion

This morning at 6.26am (GMT) the US handed Iraq back to the Iraqis, the hand over is two days early and depending on whom you read or listen to this is going to be a huge success or a huge failure.

But before we start, I do want to re-hash the reasons behind the invasion (when last did you hear an US administration official refer to WMD?) or whether or not the US was right to invade. Personally my colours are already firmly nailed to the mast on those two topics and I don’t want to get bogged down on them.

Essentially what the US is proposing is that they can invade an independent country arrest the leader and install a more friendly leadership – importantly a leadership that adheres to democratic principles. This is, in part, the biggest issue of the US invasion – can democracy be imposed on another country?

Taking a quick step back I have no problem that democracy is the only electoral system worth promoting but critically we need to ask if the move to democracy is a process or an event? Is there any example whereby democracy was imposed on a country that had glowing positive results?

One recent example also involving the US is Afghanistan. The US invaded there some six months before Iraq with the intention of removing the Taleban, installing democracy and capturing Osama. Yet the Taliban remais a problem, Osama is still free and the Afghanistan elections have been delayed more then once and two news reports suggest that elections in Afghanistan (if they ever happen) are hardly going to be a model for democracy.

"Please, my dear brothers, let your wives and sisters go to the voter registration process. Later, you can control who she votes for, but please, let her go." -- Afghan president Hamid Karzai at an International Women's Day gathering in 2004

Then this weekend the BBC reported 'Rebel gunmen' kill Afghan voters.

Bottom line seems to be that Afghanistan is not much better off then it was before the US invaded. Women are still being persecuted, drugs (via poppy production) is once again the main export, violence and warlords rule all but the capital, the Taleban are killing those that oppose them, support the US or the elections, moving around the country requires armed guards, women are being thrown out of education institutions and so the list goes on. So certainly the imposition of democracy in Afghanistan has not gone smoothly and to be honest I can’t see how they can hope to have free, fair and successful elections any time soon.

But now back to Iraq. The current situation is a state of civil war with be-headings almost becoming the order of the day, the oil pipelines under constant attack, regular car bombs and so the list goes on. Further reports are that one of the first things the new Iraqi governing council will do is to impose martial law! Free and fair elections are not going to take place with large parts of the country under martial law.

Then what sort of powers does the new Iraqi governing council get? They have 160,000 foreign troops in the country but have no control over them aside from asking them to leave and they are un-able to make any long-term policy decisions. Of greater concern is that there is no Iraqi police force or army to speak of and weekend newspapers reported a huge contract for proving security in Iraq to be paid for by the US. Adding salt in the wounds the NY Times is reporting on Saturday, Bremer signed an edict that gave U.S. and other Western civilian contractors immunity from Iraqi law while performing their jobs in Iraq. Then adding to the challenge is elections that are due to be held on 2nd January 2005 and essentially Iraq remains under a proxy US control, just less directly so as they are providing security (via their military and security contracts being paid for by the US).

So now to the crux of the issue - how are we going to measure success in Iraq? The arrest of Saddam is certainly a good thing for the people of Iraq but looking forward (and globally) what is required for history to record the US invasion of Iraq as a success?

Personally I would propose;

Fully free and fair elections in the first half of 2005. These elections need to represent the voice and ideals of all the Iraqi people

Withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq and peace and stability returning to Iraq

A reduction in terror attacks

No spreading of the violence to other Middle East states (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and even Pakistan)

Can it happen? Maybe, but to be honest I would be surprised if in years to come Iraq is held up as an example of how to topple a leader and impose democracy on the country. I rather expect violence and chaos to remain the order of the day in Iraq and worryingly I expect this violence to spread as it already has (to Pakistan & Saudi Arabia) further destabilising the Middle East and leading to even more terror attacks.

But what’s your view? How do we measure success in Iraq a year from now?

Comments

[zaBlogger]

What Makes Iraq a Sovereign Nation?

from Allister Sparks on the handover

http://www.witness.co.za/showcontent.asp?id=25194&action=full

[Trevor]

Iraq the model - blog.
http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Robert Frisk in the Star

Restoration of Iraqi sovereignty - or Alice in Wonderland?

http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=132&fArticleId=2131021

[zaBlogger]

Browyn at Mzansi Afrika has some comments here, Laurence at Commentary here and Shayne at fifteenminutes here.

I also note that the US has said that the new Iraqi governing council can not impose martial law?

[anon]

Iraq chaos a result of blinkered arrogance

[zaBlogger]

Hi Richard,

Japan - not sure this is the same sort of example. Japan attacked America and was soundly beaten by two atomic bombs. In Iraq the invasion was with the main intent of regime change 9there were other reaons but they faded away over the last +15 months), very different but point taken.

Fully free and fair elections in the first half of 2005 - there are many ways for elections to be meaningless, such as violence or rigging as in Zimbabwe. I wish to see neither in any large doses the Iraqi elections of 2005. I fully expect there to be some violence and rigging, but it needs to be on a small insignificant scale.

Withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq and peace and stability returning to Iraq - I'm not suggesting that the foreign troops are the cause of all the violence albeit they certainly contribute to it? But another concern. The US using troops in Iraq as a beachhead invading other countries on a whim. But I don’t see this happening (see link at the bottom). What if the bad guys get the upper hand and we get another Afganistan?

A reduction in terror attacks & No spreading of the violence to other Middle East states - violence may be moving into Iraq as the front to attack the US but certainly it is also moving out, witness Pakistan, Saudi. But naturally I am referring to repeated attacks against the pipelines, beheadings, car bombs and planes being shoot at. Most likely this will fade away with the US leaving (only really disappearing when the troops have left) but if this continues then I would suggest that the US plan to impose peace and democracy on Iraq would have failed.

As for your criteria - I agree with them 100% but some comments.

internal pressures...for change in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia - except that the view is that the US has cut and run and hence has no stomach for the long haul? Surely adding some fodder to some seriously anti US people?

Lastly, I have no desire to see the US defeated, I would just like to see some responsibility from their current leader.

See the article linked to below

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10539-2004Jun27.html?

[Shayne]

Right on Richard.

Democracy and capitalism have a way of forcing themselves into peoples' minds. While I'm not very optimistic on Iraq's future as an example of a pristine democracy in the middle-east, I'm pretty sure that, now that the general populace has tasted freedom, it'll be loath to give it up very easily. Iraq will have it's own brand of bastardised democracy, but a relatively peaceful and negotiable entity it will be, unlike Saddam-era Iraq. Which can only be an improvement.

[Shaun]

How about greater security for Americans? The war was driven by (amoungst other things) a self serving fear brought about by 9/11.

[Richard]

Is there any example whereby democracy was imposed on a country that had glowing positive results?

Dare we mention Japan? Im sure you know about that example, so why ignore it? There are more than a few other examples. Im sure you can think of one.

As for the measures for a successful invasion;

1. Fully free and fair elections in the first half of 2005. These elections need to represent the voice and ideals of all the Iraqi people

What does this mean? It sounds great, but a democratic vote represents the voice of the majority. (Thankfully, as Im sure a minority would like to see Saddam back in power)

Withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq and peace and stability returning to Iraq

If peace and stability return then foreign troops could certainly withdraw. You seem to believe that the foreign troops are the sole cause of the violence however, which is a bit naive don’t you think?

A reduction in terror attacks

Crime was and is rampant in the new South African democracy. Is our democracy any less a success because of it? There is a wider conflict in progress in the region, as much as you would like to ignore it. Terror attacks are unlikely to stop as long as countries in the region believe it is in their interest to support the chaos in Iraq.

America is unlikely to withdraw its troops as long as it believes the region poses a serious threat to its security.

No spreading of the violence to other Middle East states (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and even Pakistan)

There seems to be some pretty good evidence that violence in those countries are spreading to Iraq, not the other way around. This region is not going to erupt into peace anytime soon if you haven’t noticed.

How about these criteria for a successful invasion?
- Iraq celebrates ten years of democracy.
- internal pressures, due to the success of Iraq, for change in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia force democratic changes in these countries. Terror attacks are no longer the booming business it has become.
- Al Qaida spends all its time and resources hiding as it has spent all its treasure fighting a losing conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. Islamo-facists are again confined to the minor paragraph of history where they belong.
- Military pressure from America, thanks to their strategic alliance with Iraq, keeps the regions dictators from doing something stupid that gets all their heads blown of (along with all the innocent people held captive by their regimes).

I guess you have to ask yourself, what would you rather see? America defeated, or a safer and saner world? If you believe you cant have the one without the other their is little to debate.