TERRORIST ATTACKS REPLACE DICTATORSHIP

Exactly four years have passed (on 20 March) since the moment the international coalition troops (some 300,000 strong) led by the USA entered Iraq. The formal reason for the beginning of the military operation was the suspicion that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction or at least the capability to produce them, and that the regime had contacts with the Al-Qaeda terrorist group. However, these charges were not corroborated and this only served to strengthen the position of Washington's detractors who said that the main drive behind the attack on Iraq was the desire to obtain control over its oil fields. It is a well known fact that Iraq possesses the world's second-largest oil reserves.

Pentagon's miscalculation

It is interesting that back in March 2003 the majority of Americans were in favour of the war in Iraq. Protest actions were quite low-key then. Yet by the end of 2003 far fewer people were supportive of the use of force in Iraq. The first time that the number of opponents of the war exceeded the number of its supporters was in January 2005. Since then the resentment of the American public has continued to grow. The main factor fostering this resentment is the fact that more than 3,000 American soldiers and officers have been killed in the Middle East. Some were impressed by the spending of over 350 billion dollars over the four years of the war.

However, the Pentagon initially did not plan to stay in Iraq for such a long period. Experts of the US Department of Defense believed that the resistance of Saddam Hussein's troops could be overcome in three weeks and their prediction proved to be absolutely correct. Coalition troops seized Baghdad as early as on 9 April 2003 and three weeks later, on 1 May, George Bush declared that the major military operations had been completed. But from this day on the Pentagon experts' forecasts proved wide of the mark. President Bush obviously never imagined that he would have to make a speech on the occasion of the fourth anniversary of Iraq's occupation by American troops.

Hatred of the toppled dictator failed to unite the various ethnic, religious and political groups. On the contrary, the tension between them is increasing in geometrical proportions.  The considerable amount of hatred towards the Western "guests" has only added fuel to the fire. This turned out to be a trap for the US military, which has been forced to spend at least five years in Iraq.

It is believed that one of the reasons behind the surge in violence in the country was the disbanding of the armed forces in autumn 2003, when many professional servicemen lost their jobs. They were recruited by various groups pursuing clearly defined objectives. For instance, the "Mahdi Army", set up by radical Shia leader Muktada As-Sadr, has as its main objective the defence of the Shia population against both Sunnis and American soldiers. In November 2006 this formation was recognized as the most serious threat to stability in Iraq. It is considered responsible for numerous killings on religious grounds, mainly committed in Baghdad. At the same time, the "Mahdi Army" is considered to be an influential political force which has to be reckoned with.

Life "on the edge"

Reports of yet another terrorist attack in Iraq no longer surprise anyone. Furthermore, explosions and large numbers of civilian casualties are becoming a commonplace and this is frightening. The Body Count organization published a report on 1 March 2007 which put the number of civilian Iraqi casualties during military operations at 60,000. Many experts believe that in addition to being an excellent training ground for terrorists to hone their "skills", the developments in the country bear the hallmarks of a civil war. First of all, this concerns the conflict between Sunnis and Shias over sharing control of government and over oil-rich land. The conflict became especially intense in February 2006, when a Shia shrine - the Golden Mosque (al-Askari) was blown up in the town of Samarra. The Council of Ministers of Iraq recently endorsed a bill on oil which envisages fair distribution of income from the production and selling of oil. However, it has yet to be shown that new regulations can reduce the levels of violence in the country. The implementation of the new strategy (chiefly aimed at stepping up security in Baghdad) announced in February 2007 by the US command and the Iraqi armed forces, also does not seem to be very effective. On the contrary, these measures compelled militants to seek new ways of carrying out terrorist attacks. For example, cisterns containing chlorine were blown up in March, resulting in the poisoning of more than 350 civilians. US forces also report that children were involved in carrying out an explosion at a market in Baghdad. General Michael Barbero said that when servicemen stopped a car at a checkpoint it did not appear suspicious as there were children inside it. The car was later parked near a Baghdad market and blown up while the children were still inside.

The Iraqi populace suffers not only from the incessant risk of physical violence, but also from lack of access to many utilities. Some 88 per cent are unhappy with the power supply, 69 per cent complain about access to clean water, 88 per cent cannot find fuel for their car or for heating their homes and 60 per cent believe that the situation in the country is "fairly bad" or "very bad". These figures are the results of a recent sociological survey commissioned by the BBC, АВС News, ARD and USA Today. The authors of the survey concluded that the majority of Iraqis are very pessimistic about their future and do not want the country to fall apart. Whereas 64 per cent believed that their life would change for the better in 2005, the same figure now is just 35 per cent. People are most pessimistic in the central districts of Iraq, including Baghdad, where mostly Sunnis live. In the north of the country where Kurds live, 54 per cent said that the well-being of their families was good. 

The results of the survey again confirmed that relations between Sunnis and Shias are increasingly tense. Still, the vast majority of those polled, regardless of their religious beliefs, said that division of the country along ethnic and religious lines would be wrong. Some 78 per cent of Iraqis are against the presence of foreign troops in their country and 69 per cent believe that these troops only worsen the security situation. At the same time, only 35 per cent want the coalition troops to leave Iraq immediately. As for the most desired form of government in Iraq, the majority of Sunnis (58 per cent) would like to see a strong, life-long ruler and a significant proportion of Shias (40 per cent) want an Islamic state. Only 41 per cent of Shias and 38 per cent of Sunnis want a democracy. Many of them tend to believe that Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are stirring up a civil war in the country. Against the backdrop of this survey one no longer thinks that the number of 2 million Iraqi refugees is too high a figure. According to a UN report, many of them need foodstuffs and medical aid. More and more people face poverty because of unemployment.

Tight knot

Thus the results of the intervention of the international coalition forces in Iraq remain a moot question. Detractors of Washington like to recall that pre-war Baghdad was a peaceful, secular city where people could walk safely, even late at night. Observers note that levels of religious tolerance have sharply declined in the country and Iraqi women have lost many of the rights and freedoms which they could exercise before the Americans came.

The decision to execute Saddam Hussein, who was detained on 13 December 2003, also remains controversial. The world saw a hunted man with a ruffled beard, rather than the slim, moustached strongman in his famous red beret. The former master of Iraq was hiding in a secret place not far from his native town of Tikrit. He was hung at an Iraqi military base on 30 December 2006. The video recording of his execution entered the public domain and caused a wave of criticism and suicides among people who watched as Hussein prepared to face his death. Incidentally, exactly on the fourth anniversary of the occupation by the US troops the former vice-president of Iraq, Takha Yasin Ramadan, was executed as well. He used to be called Hussein's right-hand man.

Recently more people support Syria and Iran's involvement in ensuring security in Iraq, although Washington accuses those countries of abetting the Iraqi militants. This proposal was a tenet of the so-called Baker-Hamilton report of the Iraqi Study Group. But the White House is in no hurry to follow this advice, especially since it has some scores to settle with Tehran. It is understandable that in many ways the situation in Iraq and the Iranian nuclear programme crisis are the same tight knot, which also includes the Arab-Israeli conflict, the growing influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the "unbeatable" Taliban movement in Afghanistan, as well as a number of other factors. For example, relations between the USA and Turkey are becoming increasingly tense as the referendum on the status of the town of Kerkuk comes closer. Ankara fears that the current situation in northern Iraq may result in the formation of a so-called Iraqi Kurdistan, which in turn could give impetus to the Kurdish separatists within Turkey itself.

Still, there was some hope on 12 March that the regional countries, as well as the states intensively involved in Middle Eastern politics, would manage to find a way out of the crisis. This arose during a conference of 13 countries: those neighbouring Iraq, as well as the USA, UN, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the League of Arab States. Agreement was reached during the conference to set up working groups on the protection of Iraq's borders, the import of oil and on refugees.

Nevertheless, it is clear that Iraq's future is still in the hands of the USA. Washington finds itself in a peculiar situation because a withdrawal of the American troops from this Middle Eastern country would hardly be enough to rectify the security situation in Iraq. It is more likely that the situation will only deteriorate. However, Democrats continue to pile pressure on the president, seeking to push through a bill setting deadlines for the return home of the American servicemen. Yet George Bush seems set to leave this "honorary mission" to his political opponents who will replace him in the White House. The fate of the Iraqis remains extremely uncertain.