President George W Bush departs Iraq amid controversy much the same way he entered in 2003, but can the US really be blamed for every Iraqi mishap?
The shoe-throwing debacle guaranteed that Bush’s aim of ending his Iraqi excursions on a high note were thwarted, but would the same journalist have dared to throw a shoe at Saddam?
The White House has been on something of a publicity drive in recent weeks, as George W. Bush’s tenure at the presidential helm comes to an end. Bush and his aides have tried hard to promote a positive image of his period in charge and point to successes from his time in high command, particularly in the Middle East.
Advertisement
Hopes for a productive and glitch-free farewell visit to Iraq, targeted to boost ratings and end undoubtedly his most contentious flash point as president on a high, were all but dashed. Bush’s grand finale in Iraq was tainted with much publicity and media attention, but for all the wrong reasons, as the now infamous shoe-throwing incident at a press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, dampened all chances of a subtle but constructive departure from the Middle Eastern plains.
However, Bush can be far from blamed for every note of discontent arising out of Iraq or the Middle East generally. A conclusive assessment of his time as president must be made in context of the greater historical handicaps that have scarred the Iraqi horizon.
Contentious times
Bush’s legacy in Iraq can perhaps be best summarised by one of his last speeches in Iraq, warning his forces and Iraqi comrades that “the war is not over”.
This statement is all the more remarkable and speaks volumes of the “new” Iraq, when compared to the bold announcement he made on May 1, 2003, just weeks after Saddam Hussein was dramatically ousted from power that “major combat operations have ended”.
Almost six years since the highly-contentious invasion of Iraq, what was hoped to usher a new era of prosperity and democracy, to serve as a beacon of light for the greater Middle East, was swiftly bogged down with bloodshed, sectarian terror, political squabbling and obstacles on the Iraqi transitional road to democracy.
In 2003, while there were initial high-hopes that the focus could now be turned to rebuilding a shattered country after years of war, brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions and start the process of building a stable society, the Iraqi dream turned into a reoccurring nightmare.
Advertisement
But to blame the Americans for every mishap in Iraq is simply misleading and a distraction from other pertinent facts on the ground. Who can forget decades of barbarian rule under a cold-hearted dictator who launched wars on his neighbours and even chemically-bombed his own Kurdish civilians in broad-daylight?
Any critic, no matter what social background or political affiliation, who can condone the murder of thousands of innocent people, where mass graves are still been uncovered today, and the destruction of villages, is inhumane. In reality, the real weapon of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein, was disposed.
Lack of plan B
As events over the past number of years have hardly disguised, it is no secret that US policy to deal with the new dawn in Iraq was indecisive, incoherent and simply lacked practical assessment. The decision to disband the Iraqi army and the expectation that brief post-liberation euphoria would turn into mass support for the concept of democracy, that has been practiced for hundreds of years in the West but unseen in Iraq, was out of touch and lacked the due diligence one would come to expect from the world’s only superpower.
Simply put, the US saw their Iraqi dream shatter to pieces, yet seemingly had no alternative plans to the expectation that they would be met with open arms by most of the Iraqi public. It took the US almost four years with the onset of the successful surge strategy, to stop fire-fighting.
Reconstruction efforts have been greatly hampered with unemployment rates high, and a lack of civil infrastructure and medical facilities still common place. However, the job of reconstruction in Iraq, particularly in the aftermath of the chaos, was like rebuilding a house in the middle of a tornado.
The damning verdict on reconstruction was emphasised by a leaked government report in the US, which detailed the failure to apply reconstruction funds into real physical achievements, as it struggled to rebuild what had been devastated by the war.
Harvesting the seeds sown before
For all the popular opinion among some Iraqi and Western commentators, every misfortune or problem currently experienced by Iraq is not purely down to the US.
The key problems engulfing Iraq emanate from its artificial creation in the aftermath of World War I. At that time Iraq was composed of three disparate former Ottoman provinces that were essentially stitched together by Britain and her allies, and then “glued” by dictatorships.
It is true that the US unceremoniously opened a can of worms, however, Iraq would have come to a boil, sooner or later, regardless of US intervention. Americans knew that challenges lay ahead for the new Iraq, but they simply did not appreciate the extent and that it would cost them billions of dollars, see them commit thousands of soldiers and shatter their foreign policy image.
Iraqi politicians have squabbled intensively and failed to pass key legislation, national reconciliation continues to prove elusive; and sectarian violence, despite drastic security improvements, remains a real threat. Surely, all these factors attributable to Iraqis can not all be attributed on the US?
Signing the security pact
Bush’s fourth visit to Iraq was designed to underline strong ties between the US and Iraq, and was to be symbolised by the signing of the SOFA agreement.
On previous visits, Bush’s visits were short and surrounded by tight security, owing much to the volatile atmosphere on the ground. This visit was undertaken with relatively less security, as Bush met with key Iraqi leaders and US commanders inside the fortified green zone.
By Bush’s own admission, the Iraqi project had been "longer and more costly than expected", but despite openly expressing his regret at failed intelligence prior to the invasion, he firmly believed his decision to invade was justified.
With only weeks remaining before President-elect Barack Obama takes charge, many have accused of Bush of tying the hands of the next administration with his policies in Iraq. Obama, inheriting many issues in Iraq and across the Middle East, is now expected to oversee what is hoped to be the final chapter of the US adventure in Iraq - the departure of the estimated 150,000 US forces within the next few years.
Iraqi politicians were quick to praise Bush’s role, with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, hailing the US for an Iraq that was now “dramatically freer, dramatically safer and dramatically better”.
As Bush came "to herald the passage" of the new accord, much debate and controversy still lingers around the security agreement. After months of protracted and tense negotiations, the deal has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many sceptical Iraqis. For these Iraqis, the pact remains unclear with regards to certain stipulations and they remain unconvinced that US will leave by the end of 2011 as agreed. In keeping with the divisions among Iraqis, for others Bush has abandoned his promise to the stay the course.
The Iraq left behind
Iraq may have become Bush’s Achilles heel, but at least he narrowly averted all-out disaster. Security is improving and hopes remain for greater political alignment next year with the provincial elections in Iraq.
It is easy to look at Iraq as all doom and gloom but productive progress, albeit at times at a snail’s pace, has been made since 2003, particularly with the first elections in decades, the onset of a national constitution and the building of a new security force.
However, gains all too often have become quickly overshadowed and the Iraqi project is far from implemented and certainly far from over. Key obstacles continue to blight the Iraqi divide, with frequent disputes between Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government; debate over interpretation and amendments to the constitution; a lack of a national hydrocarbon law; and many other flash points, such as the hotly contested dispute over oil-rich Kirkuk. These have simply been delayed and too often brushed under the political rug, to give the perception of making political progress.
In summary, Kurds, Sunni and Shiites continue to disagree, with the tug-of-war for the new Iraq just heating up. It takes the argument full circle: problems experienced today in Iraq, have the same root cause as those at its inception all those decades ago after WWI. However, where Iraqi troubles and lack of unity could be masked in the past, the US has ensured that there is no hiding away from it now.
Without building a real foundation to the take the “whole” of Iraq forwards, gains in Iraq will always be tentative and life will always remain on the edge.
Shoe-throwing shame
No matter how passionate sentiments may get, the act of petulance demonstrated by the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at Bush and shouted insults in Arabic, is unacceptable.
Especially, in the “new” Iraq, Iraqis have every right to their opinion and US can seldom disagree, after all it was one of the defining reasons for the invasion. However, shoe-throwing in such circumstances is a step that does not do the image of the Iraqi public or Iraqi media a great deal of good. It only raises perceptions that some Iraqis remain confined to uncivilised mannerisms, especially considering the behaviour one comes to expect from a professional national press.
Indeed, Al-Baghdadiyah TV urged authorities to release the detained journalist as he was only practicing ideals that the US introduced. Such statements speak volumes about some mentalities that prevail and the huge strides that Iraq still has to make.
Every Iraq has a right to an opinion, and none more so than a journalist, but would the same journalist have even dared to utter a word against Saddam if he was performing a speech, let alone throw his shoe? Failing that, why didn’t the journalist throw one shoe at Bush for the suffering he has afflicted on Iraq and one at al-Maliki for his many failings at serving the Iraqi people?
Undoubtedly, the incident would have been met with jubilation in some circles, but such abrasive action in the knowledge that it was Bush’s last speech in Iraq and under the heavy eyes of the world, left little room for coincidence.
Bush and the US are by no means perfect, but the time to blame the West for each and everything is outdated and delusional.
If Iraqis can not get their act together for greater national progression, then no magic wand of Bush or anyone else could ever have done the trick.