The US policy towards Iraq post 9/11 forms the centerpiece of international political debate. In an interview with Weekly Pulse Ahmad Zaidan, Pakistan bureau chief of Al Jazeera Television has this to say on the US policy in Iraq in specific and the global war on terror in general:
Q: What changes do you foresee in post-Bush US Iraq policy?
A: I don’t think there will be much change in post-Bush (US) policy vis-à-vis Iraq. Maybe a little change will take place, and preface of that change has already been initiated by discussing setting up American bases with the Iraqi government, and the controversies, which have been arising in terms of security agreements. The Americans in Iraq after Bush will focus on Iraqi army, police and building up their own security bases, also interfering in Iraqi affairs through ‘remote controlled policies’.
But the interesting thing, which I see, is that Americans are going to focus more on Pakistan and Afghanistan, because they committed (a) blunder when they diverted their attention to Iraq, and almost forgot Afghanistan by underestimating the real threat of Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Now the issue of Taliban and al-Qaeda has shifted from Afghanistan to the tribal areas of Pakistan. They have realised very lately that the cause of the problem for them is lying in Afghanistan and (the) tribal areas, that’s why their focus will be more on Afghanistan and will retreat from Iraq gradually.
Q: How do you look at initiatives like "Anbar Awakening". Do you think that such carries the remedy to the turmoil in the country?
A: “Anbar awakening” is not a solution for Iraqis and it can’t be taken as (an) example to solve the problem of other countries because it will badly part the already fragmented Iraq. That’s why the solution is to formulate consensus among all Iraqis by forming proper government that includes everyone and does not exclude any stratum. The proof that the awakening counsel in Iraq failed is obvious since they started fighting each other therefore, it became very clear to the people of Iraq that the counsel is acting as (an) American instrument in Iraq. They are in fact (at) the forefront mercenaries for the American soldiers. And they are being used as buffer personnel between Iraqi and American soldiers.
Q: Recently the Sadr group has announced to boycott the Iraqi local elections. How do you think this would impact on the long march to democracy in the country?
A: I am not sure about the last stand of Sadr group vis-à-vis elections, whether it is Sadr’s ultimate stand or he is going to change it. Because Sadr group has a history of an ever shifty stand. But by and large, I don’t think it will affect so-called democratic process in Iraq, Because, I don’t believe in democracy under occupation. Sadr is representing part of Shiite in Iraq, while the vast majority of Shiite in Iraq is participating in so-called democratic process. So his boycotting or participation will not affect that process.
Q: How do you look at the Iran-Iraq security pact? Do you think that it is a step in the right direction?
A: Regarding Iran-Iraq security pact, I don’t think it is appropriate at this time, because this pact is taking place between unequal government. The Iraqi government is under occupation and not representing all its people. The other neighbours of Iraq regard this pact as Iranian domination as well as interference in Iraqi domestic affairs. The current leaders of Iraq are fully attached with the Iranians and there is huge section of Iraqis who are against the unabated Iranian intervention in Iraq. All these factors and others make me believe that the security pact between Iran and Iraq is not appropriate to be announced now. This will increase the tension in the region between Arabs and Iranian, as well as Sunnis and Shiites.
Q: What are your views on the Iraq-US talks for a security pact?
A: Regarding the talks between Iraqi and the US governments, I don’t look at it in an isolated manner rather in the context of American-Iranian dialogue. Or, as a package solution which Iranian leadership suggested to Americans starting from Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon to Syria. So that’s why I think any agreement in this regard would take the Iranian interest into account. And the Iraqi leadership, which is attached to and has very close ties with the Iranians is viewed as reflecting the Iranian interest more than Iraqi concerns in these agreements.
Q: What factors contributed to the neoconservatives 'overreach' to an extent that they risk undermining their own ends? What reasons lead to the failure of what is termed as the US "Benevolent Hegemony"?
A: Their agenda and aim is theoretical not practical, their background was academic; they don’t have that much experience in practical politics.
American policies are based on secularist school of thought. And since they tried to advance their own ideology, which clashes with the reality on ground.
Historically speaking, when there is any ideology involved in war and peace situation, it would be confronted with another, rather opposite ideology. The same had happened during the cold war era between communism and imperialism, and also between communism and Islamism in Afghanistan. And, the same has been repeated when the ideology dominated by the American policies in Iraq and Afghanistan was implemented. It met with a sturdy resistance by the conservative groups and gave input to al Qaeda and Taliban and militancy in both the countries and elsewhere and enabled these camps to rally the Muslims or part of Muslims against the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The big difference between the current occupation and the previous occupations of 19th and 20th century is that there were efficient and strong orientalists who unpaved the way to the occupation in terms of understanding the east and advancing good advice to the occupier which the later is lacking nowadays. This has been proved during the disgracing of Holy Qur’an and doing malicious things against Islam that shows signs of the poor understanding of Muslim sensitivity towards their religion.
Q: What model or framework should the US follow to withdraw its troops without any further violent impact on Iraq and a stable transition to peace and democracy in the country?
A: The model framework is that the Americans should apologise first to the Iraqi people and compensate. Secondly they have to let all Iraqis to get engaged in the political process. Thirdly, no single neighbour should draw the future of Iraq.
Q: How could the sectarian cleavages and external factors be done away with in the build up to a peaceful sovereign Iraq – less dependent on the US for its security and survival?
A: The sectarianism is new to Iraq and this menace came with the occupiers and will end only with their departure. As well as bringing an immediate end to the role of neighbouring countries in Iraq’s internal affairs, accommodation of all Iraqi sections and interest groups is the only and sole guarantee for a stable Iraq and region.
Q: How can the concept of 'transformational democracy' help cement the edifice of democracy in Iraq?
A: First of all, democracy is not a medicine to be purchased from a pharmacy nor it can be imported from outside. It is a societal process and accumulated one too. It is not a process, which can be implemented overnight; it cannot be imposed through the gunpowder of occupiers who are regarded as non-Muslims by so many Iraqis or Afghanis. There are of course few opportunists who are benefiting from this so-called process but myself, I think Iraqis or Afghanis or any other people on the face of earth have their own cultural politics and social fabric, which if any sort of imposed foreign culture or politics will play a havoc. And, distort the DNA of the society. Therefore, we are seeing and feeling the result of these imposed so-called transformational democracy in fragmented Iraq, fragmented Afghanistan and fragmented Somalia. In the last few decades, more than forty American interventions took place. All of them turned those countries into failed states. That is the situation, which all humanity is paying heavily for nowadays.
