• Home
• /
• Opinion

Iraq for Iraqis

EVERY time President Bush or some other top US official certifies Iraq as being on the road to recovery, it is greeted with fresh fireworks from the other side, killing more people and maiming more there.

So with the suicide attacks that killed nearly 30 people near capital Baghdad on Friday. It follows a meeting in Washington, a week ago, in which President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nour Al Maliki patted each other's back for the so-called turn-around for the better and set the stage for a long-term presence of the US military in the war-torn country.

Without doubt, the level of violence has come down in Iraq in recent months, especially so in Baghdad, the epicentre of insurgent explosions in the past. That has to do largely with the friendly tone Al Maliki adopted vis-a-vis the Sunni rebels, of late. Yet, incidents like the Friday blasts, or the continuing attacks on oil installations, show Iraqis are still sitting on a time-bomb, fearful of being exploded into pieces any time. That the Sunni rebels who had a change of mind and joined the US led-anti-insurgency operations have been targeted this time sounds ominous. In other words, the fears that, with increase in camera-aided surveillance in the capital, insurgents are busy shifting their bases to other areas have now been strengthened.

The problem is also that while signs of optimism emerged on the security front in Baghdad, no matching breakthrough is evident in the matter of giving a push to the political process there. The Al Maliki dispensation will need to give more importance to bridging the sectarian divide, especially as efforts in that direction in Baghdad have borne fruits. The re-induction of Sunnis in sizeable numbers in the military establishment was a step in the right direction. More openness is the need of the hour.

Iraqis, cutting across sectarian divides, are keen that their nation attains full sovereignty, and without delay. They do not want to be lorded over. There is a general consensus that keeping the US military there for an unendingly-long period will neither serve US interests nor Iraqi interests. The allies are already deserting the ship, one after another, Australia being the latest. Then, why an agreement in the making for an open-ended US military presence there, as was discussed at the Bush-Al Maliki meet? Set to be finalised early next year, the proposed plan has raised new fears for the future: that it will leave little room for the next possibly Democratic government to fulfil its vow to get the army back to its base.

Clearly, it will not be easy to restore normality in Iraq as long as the basic causes that fuel violence there are addressed and issues resolved. It will essentially have to be a political process, backed only by limited security interventions. The success of the Al Maliki dispensation rests solely on its ability to speed up such a process in effective ways. Iraqis must be seen as Iraqis and their collective interests treated as supreme. The success of such a process will be the best antidote to insurgency as well.