The numbers are not as high as they were before the war. Nevertheless the anti-war rallies being held around the world to mark the first anniversary of the war against Iraq are large and loud. The protests underscore that to many people the war was, and remains, unpopular. While demonstrators are currently making it clear how unacceptable they find the war and its aftermath, the Iraqi picture is, by contrast, as murky as ever. The country’ future is shrouded in uncertainty — will it emerge as a failed, fragmented or simply a frail state? Will it be sectarian or fundamentalist or federal or democratic? Most important of all perhaps: Is it capable of moving smoothly from dictatorship to democracy?
The plan now is that there will be a handover to an interim Iraqi government on June 30 after which the United States will withdraw in stages, and that elections for a transitional assembly will be held by January next year. The assembly will draw up a permanent constitution and set elections by the end of 2005 for a full-fledged Iraqi government. There are doubts, though, as to whether this scenario will take place. It is challenged every day by attacks against Iraqi civilians and by the difficult relationship between the country’s Shiite majority and Sunni minority. There is also now open talk of possible civil war once the Americans hand over sovereignty. Still the situation inside Iraq might not be as bleak as it appears. According to a recent survey, a majority of Iraqis feel happier today than they did under Saddam. That must be music to the ears of President Bush who, despite the huge embarrassment of unfound weapons of mass destruction, has consistently defended the US invasion. “The liberation of Iraq was good for the Iraqi people, good for America and good for the world,” the president said Saturday. “The worst regime in the region has given way to what will soon be among the best.”
That is a heady prediction for a country suffering from constant anxiety about personal security and threats from insurgents. Bombings such as the one that demolished the Mount Lebanon Hotel in Baghdad last week, killing seven people and injuring dozens more, lead to questions about America’s ability to protect civilians and the larger question about the future of the civilians and the role America will play.
Skepticism is high concerning Washington’s role because, while the United States and Britain knew how to conquer Iraq, they apparently had little idea what to do after they came, saw and conquered. So little planning was put into the aftermath of war that the situation in Iraq — given the radical political, economic and social transformation the country is experiencing — is precarious indeed.
