Nickatilynx
03-21-2005, 11:52 AM
It is a pretty much unbroken rule: wars never turn out as the people who plan them expect they will.
If you look back at the things which supporters of the invasion of Iraq said in March 2003, you will not find they predicted any of the following:
that after two years, coalition soldiers would be dying at the rate of almost two a day, and Iraqi civilians at around 20 a day
that the road between Baghdad and the airport would be probably the most dangerous stretch of ground in the world
that in one of the world's great oil-producing countries, most Iraqis would have to buy their fuel on the black market because of shortages at the pumps
that in some areas of the country, women would be forced to wear Islamic dress by gangs of religious extremists
that a major international report would suggest that Iraq could see "the biggest corruption scandal in history".
Yet the invasion's opponents did not necessarily get it right either.
There were forecasts of huge numbers of civilian deaths, of outright defeat for the coalition, of the creation of a Vietnam in which the Americans would eventually be driven out of Iraq altogether.
None of these things has happened.
No Vietnam
The situation in Iraq is nothing like the Vietnam War, and it will not be.
Iraq is not splitting up, and does not seem to be heading that way.
The numbers are too small, for one thing: 200,000 insurgents, 150,000 US troops, a total of 1,500 incidents since the campaign of resistance began.
According to one senior American officer recently: "We can live with the kind of casualty levels we're getting.
"It's not the kind of thing that creates big campaigns back home."
Even the cost to the US tax-payer - $4.7bn a month - is something the American economy can easily absorb.
When the Iraqi elections took place earlier this year, there was a widespread feeling in Britain and the US that the problem of Iraq had been sorted out.
Sunni issue
The governments of George W Bush and Tony Blair believed the undoubted success of the elections justified the invasion of 2003.
Fears that Iraq would disintegrate have not been realised
All the emphasis was placed on the fact that the two main sections of the population which had been repressed under Saddam Hussein - the Shia Muslims and the Kurds - had voted in huge numbers, and had effectively taken control of the country.
Far less attention was paid to the Sunni Muslim minority, which feared it had lost power and would now be victimised.
The resistance to the coalition and its Iraqi allies is rooted in the Sunni community, and certainly has not declined.
Weeks later, the country is still waiting for a government.
The negotiations between the political groups are still going on, and it is not yet clear when they might produce a result.
Yet although there is certainly a feeling in Iraq that the country is rudderless at present, the political process itself has not been discredited and probably will not be.
The delay cannot be blamed on the Iraqi politicians, anyway: it is the direct result of the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) which was agreed last year by hand-picked Iraqi politicians under the strong guidance of the Americans and British.
The TAL insists that two-thirds of the members of Iraq's new National Assembly should agree the new leadership. And since the main winners in the election, the mostly Shia United Iraqi Alliance, won only 51% of the seats, they are in heavy negotiation to get the remaining 16% they need. Hence the long delay.
There are a lot of things that are really worrying, two years after the invasion of Iraq.
The coalition has not yet shown that it has a serious answer to the uprising against them.
Shrinking coalition
The US commander in Iraq, Gen George Casey, said recently that "a combination of the political, the military, the economic, and the communications" would ultimately defeat the insurgency.
But of those, only the political aspect is even moderately positive for the coalition in Iraq today.
And in the meantime the coalition itself is shrinking, as ally after ally finds that supporting the American line is too unpopular back home.
Not everything is a disaster. The most serious anxiety at the time of the invasion was that the delicate balance between Iraq's population groups would be damaged, and that the Kurds and Shia would head for some kind of unilateral independence.
But Iraq is not splitting up, and does not seem to be heading that way. When a government is finally agreed, it should cement the union further.
Yet the basic problem remains: the Sunni population is as angry, resentful and resistance-minded as ever.
As the supporters of the invasion are finding two years on, you cannot step in, change the structure of a nation fundamentally and make everyone happy. There is a ferocious price to be paid, and on average two coalition soldiers and 20 Iraqi civilians pay it daily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
comments
John Simpson manages to offer a very easily understood and balanced view
A. Baily, London, UK
With a vast amount of continued coverage, it's difficult to know what to believe about the Iraq situation at the moment. Despite this, John Simpson manages to offer a very easily understood and balanced view. This still can't alter the sense of unease one feels at the quote from the Senior American Officer saying they can "live with" the current casualty figures.
A. Baily, London, UK
Dear Mr Simpson, Have been a devoted 'follower' of yours for many years, so it's a delight to see your words on the site, which I read every day. As usual, you have it exactly right!
Simon Bretherton, Orange, California, USA
An interesting article but it doesn't go far enough - the war in Iraq was wrong and until people admit that, we will struggle to get everyone to focus on the very real and frightening challenges the Iraqi people face now.
Brian Burke, UK
History will be the best judge
Stuart Hepworth, Portsmouth, Hampshire
Is the policy in Iraq failing? The polarity of Haves and Have Nots has been reversed - and that's created resentment, with radical and destructive interests jumping on this bandwagon. The perception of fairness and provision of non-partisan laws will be the best antidote - and this all takes time. History will be the best judge. It's too soon to make that appraisal - but the one thing that everyone should agree is that to have done nothing would have been the biggest failure.
Stuart Hepworth, Portsmouth, Hampshire
There's no dance around facts necessary, this war has been/is/will be an American failure of catastrophic status. It has done not one thing to enhance US security. Indeed, it no doubt jeopardises it by the enormous waste of resources.
Bill Spensley, Cape Cod, MA, US
John Simpson - a correspondent whose reports I actively go out of my way to read. Very balanced and with so much humility and experience, I don't find myself questioning his authority on any subject he chooses to speak about. Looking forward to more reports.
Paul Howard, Hong Kong
A splendid and insightful article on the real problems facing Iraq, which are no longer finding their way into the main headlines. It is reporting such as this that make the BBC (and John Simpson) great!
James Holden, Oxford
If you look back at the things which supporters of the invasion of Iraq said in March 2003, you will not find they predicted any of the following:
that after two years, coalition soldiers would be dying at the rate of almost two a day, and Iraqi civilians at around 20 a day
that the road between Baghdad and the airport would be probably the most dangerous stretch of ground in the world
that in one of the world's great oil-producing countries, most Iraqis would have to buy their fuel on the black market because of shortages at the pumps
that in some areas of the country, women would be forced to wear Islamic dress by gangs of religious extremists
that a major international report would suggest that Iraq could see "the biggest corruption scandal in history".
Yet the invasion's opponents did not necessarily get it right either.
There were forecasts of huge numbers of civilian deaths, of outright defeat for the coalition, of the creation of a Vietnam in which the Americans would eventually be driven out of Iraq altogether.
None of these things has happened.
No Vietnam
The situation in Iraq is nothing like the Vietnam War, and it will not be.
Iraq is not splitting up, and does not seem to be heading that way.
The numbers are too small, for one thing: 200,000 insurgents, 150,000 US troops, a total of 1,500 incidents since the campaign of resistance began.
According to one senior American officer recently: "We can live with the kind of casualty levels we're getting.
"It's not the kind of thing that creates big campaigns back home."
Even the cost to the US tax-payer - $4.7bn a month - is something the American economy can easily absorb.
When the Iraqi elections took place earlier this year, there was a widespread feeling in Britain and the US that the problem of Iraq had been sorted out.
Sunni issue
The governments of George W Bush and Tony Blair believed the undoubted success of the elections justified the invasion of 2003.
Fears that Iraq would disintegrate have not been realised
All the emphasis was placed on the fact that the two main sections of the population which had been repressed under Saddam Hussein - the Shia Muslims and the Kurds - had voted in huge numbers, and had effectively taken control of the country.
Far less attention was paid to the Sunni Muslim minority, which feared it had lost power and would now be victimised.
The resistance to the coalition and its Iraqi allies is rooted in the Sunni community, and certainly has not declined.
Weeks later, the country is still waiting for a government.
The negotiations between the political groups are still going on, and it is not yet clear when they might produce a result.
Yet although there is certainly a feeling in Iraq that the country is rudderless at present, the political process itself has not been discredited and probably will not be.
The delay cannot be blamed on the Iraqi politicians, anyway: it is the direct result of the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) which was agreed last year by hand-picked Iraqi politicians under the strong guidance of the Americans and British.
The TAL insists that two-thirds of the members of Iraq's new National Assembly should agree the new leadership. And since the main winners in the election, the mostly Shia United Iraqi Alliance, won only 51% of the seats, they are in heavy negotiation to get the remaining 16% they need. Hence the long delay.
There are a lot of things that are really worrying, two years after the invasion of Iraq.
The coalition has not yet shown that it has a serious answer to the uprising against them.
Shrinking coalition
The US commander in Iraq, Gen George Casey, said recently that "a combination of the political, the military, the economic, and the communications" would ultimately defeat the insurgency.
But of those, only the political aspect is even moderately positive for the coalition in Iraq today.
And in the meantime the coalition itself is shrinking, as ally after ally finds that supporting the American line is too unpopular back home.
Not everything is a disaster. The most serious anxiety at the time of the invasion was that the delicate balance between Iraq's population groups would be damaged, and that the Kurds and Shia would head for some kind of unilateral independence.
But Iraq is not splitting up, and does not seem to be heading that way. When a government is finally agreed, it should cement the union further.
Yet the basic problem remains: the Sunni population is as angry, resentful and resistance-minded as ever.
As the supporters of the invasion are finding two years on, you cannot step in, change the structure of a nation fundamentally and make everyone happy. There is a ferocious price to be paid, and on average two coalition soldiers and 20 Iraqi civilians pay it daily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
comments
John Simpson manages to offer a very easily understood and balanced view
A. Baily, London, UK
With a vast amount of continued coverage, it's difficult to know what to believe about the Iraq situation at the moment. Despite this, John Simpson manages to offer a very easily understood and balanced view. This still can't alter the sense of unease one feels at the quote from the Senior American Officer saying they can "live with" the current casualty figures.
A. Baily, London, UK
Dear Mr Simpson, Have been a devoted 'follower' of yours for many years, so it's a delight to see your words on the site, which I read every day. As usual, you have it exactly right!
Simon Bretherton, Orange, California, USA
An interesting article but it doesn't go far enough - the war in Iraq was wrong and until people admit that, we will struggle to get everyone to focus on the very real and frightening challenges the Iraqi people face now.
Brian Burke, UK
History will be the best judge
Stuart Hepworth, Portsmouth, Hampshire
Is the policy in Iraq failing? The polarity of Haves and Have Nots has been reversed - and that's created resentment, with radical and destructive interests jumping on this bandwagon. The perception of fairness and provision of non-partisan laws will be the best antidote - and this all takes time. History will be the best judge. It's too soon to make that appraisal - but the one thing that everyone should agree is that to have done nothing would have been the biggest failure.
Stuart Hepworth, Portsmouth, Hampshire
There's no dance around facts necessary, this war has been/is/will be an American failure of catastrophic status. It has done not one thing to enhance US security. Indeed, it no doubt jeopardises it by the enormous waste of resources.
Bill Spensley, Cape Cod, MA, US
John Simpson - a correspondent whose reports I actively go out of my way to read. Very balanced and with so much humility and experience, I don't find myself questioning his authority on any subject he chooses to speak about. Looking forward to more reports.
Paul Howard, Hong Kong
A splendid and insightful article on the real problems facing Iraq, which are no longer finding their way into the main headlines. It is reporting such as this that make the BBC (and John Simpson) great!
James Holden, Oxford