Nouri Kamel al-Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq

Iraq stands on the threshold of a new era. But its people still need to be patient. US combat troops are to remain in the country until the end of 2011 under the terms of a ‘Status of Force Agreement’ signed by the US and Iraq. In light of President Obama’s pre-inauguration promise to withdraw all troops within 16 months, for many Iraqis news of their extended stay will be disappointing. For, in truth, as long as there is even one foreign uniformed solder on the country’s soil it cannot be truly classed as either free or democratic. Nevertheless, for the long-suffering Iraqi people recent elections bring hopes for a bright future.

Apparently, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates (a leftover from the Bush days) and his commanders on the ground have advised President Obama not to exit Iraq in a rush, as they believe the country remains insecure. On the other hand, critics believe that the US presence is prolonging the violence.

They may have a point as US bases are still a magnet for the resistance. US military deaths in Iraq today stand at 4,255 and in February insurgent attacks in Mosul led to the deaths of at least seven American soldiers. And just as the Iraqis are eager to wave goodbye to their occupiers, the American people are tired at the sight of returning flag-draped coffins, and during this painful downturn are in no mood to throw money in Iraq’s direction on top of the US $3 trillion already expended.

The good news is the number of Iraqi detainees imprisoned by US forces has been reduced to 14,000 as opposed to 26,000 in 2007 and the US is no longer empowered to hold suspects without charge. The American military now requires warrants issued by an Iraqi judge to search residences, while so-called foreign ‘contractors’ are now subject to Iraqi law. Indeed, this last provision also applies to off-duty, off-base US forces. The problem is it is up to the US military to state whether an individual is actually ‘off-duty’, which troubles some.
 

A young Iraqi voter holds up a purple-coloured tip of his finger as proof of having cast his vote in the election   Iraqi women voters stand in line, waiting to enter a polling station   Former UN secretary General, Kofi Annan, shaking hands with Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim.

The question of whether there will be permanent US bases in Iraq is still open. Certainly the former President George Bush planned a similar presence to that of South Korea. However, in July 2007 the House of Representatives passed a bill banning such bases in Iraq and confirming that US policy is not to exercise control over its oil resources. At the time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said:

“Today’s vote can again make clear to the President, to the American people, to the people in the Middle East, to the people of Iraq – that the American people are opposed to a permanent military presence in Iraq.” It’s unlikely that President Obama would renege on those sentiments thereby clashing with friend and supporter Ms. Pelosi as well as his leftist base.

If and when the last foreign soldier goes home for good, once the celebrations are over, the Iraqi people will be faced with a challenge. Can they once again become a nation of Iraqis; one unified people irrespective of ethnicity, religion or sect? Can they set aside old wounds and grudges long enough to forgive, if not forget?

For indeed, how can they ever forget over a million of their people who will never get to see their country released from the shackles of dictatorship? Almost everyone in the country has a fallen relative or friend. Almost everyone has known years of fear and distress. Almost everyone knows at least one family among the 2.2 million who fled the country as refugees or the 2.7 million internally displaced. Almost all have to live with their own private nightmares.

Can they put these terrible six years behind them and move on in solidarity is a question that only time can answer. It’s worthwhile recalling that early in the conflict many were predicting that Iraqis could never again live together in harmony, including the US Vice-President Joe Biden, who, in 2006, called for Iraq to be split up into three semi-autonomous regions – Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish – with the central government based in Baghdad. Others have been more radical suggesting three entirely autonomous mini-states.

Thankfully the Balkanization of Iraq won’t happen, although this has put pay to the dreams of some Kurds who have longed for a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Others, however, are more pragmatic. They know that such a state would be resented by Iraqis and subjected to attacks by Turkey, which would consider it a dangerous rallying point for its own Kurdish separatists.

There are signs that the Iraqi people are coming together. Provincial elections that took place on January 31 gave an overwhelming victory to Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki’s Dawa party leaving the strongly religious Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, led by Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, out in the cold. This proves that most Shiite Iraqis prefer a more secular and nationalist style of governance, as Al-Maliki has long supported a unified Iraq.

Another rising star is an emergent Sunni Arab party Al-Hadba with a power base around Mosul. Al Hadba is led by a prominent businessman Atheel Al-Nujaifi, who also espouses secular nationalist views. “All the people who went out and voted against the status quo and the Kurdish parties have to understand this reality,” he said. Sunni participation in this election was much higher than the last in accordance with Sunni public opinion that accepts there is a Shiite majority (thought to account for 60 percent of the Iraqi population) but demands a meaningful say.

It should be stressed that Iraq was a secular nation until the 2003 invasion. Prior to shock and awe, Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians lived relatively peacefully side by side. They were neighbours, friends and colleagues. Intermarriage between sects was normal. In fact, Shiites and Sunnis often visited their respective holy places together. Although it’s true to say that Saddam Hussein’s regime did favour Sunnis for high posts and clamped down on Shiites worshipping in large numbers, Iraqi society, overall, was not sectarian.

There is no doubt that the divisions that exist today were largely manufactured by the occupying powers and their media on the lines of the old British ‘divide and rule’ tradition. They played one side against the other and were successful in causing rifts between sects and tribes. The last thing they wanted when attempting to control the country was an Iraqi people united against them. It is also their fault that Iraq became a magnet for Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamist groups that weren’t in the country before the invasion.

Going forward, Iraqis should aim for a process of forgiveness and reconciliation on the lines of South Africa for they have all been hapless pawns in George W. Bush’s neoconservative-inspired game. All the prerequisites are in place to ensure that Iraq thrives once again. Iraq sits on an estimated 115 billion barrels of oil while major foreign oil giants are keen to move in once they can guarantee the security of their personnel.

The Iraqi economy is currently reeling from oil prices which have sank to around US $40 a barrel as opposed to US $150 in the middle of last year and Mr. Al-Maliki is keen to diversify away from a dependence on petrochemicals. However, in December 2008, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced that economic development in Iraq has been “encouraging”.

Certainly the Iraq Stock Exchange (ISX) formed in 2004 with just 15 companies is a success story. Today, it lists more than 100 companies and is one of very few stock exchanges around the world that has not been affected by the global recession.

There is no doubt that the quality of life for most Iraqis is improving by leaps and bounds. There may come a day when Iraq does evolve into an exemplary nation within the region. But, in the end, only the Iraqis can answer this question: “Was it worth it?”