Adil E. Shamoo

Is Iraq on Its Way to a Civil War?

All indicators are pointing to a looming sectarian civil war on Iraq’s horizon. It is possible to avoid this civil war, but so far, the country’s leaders are not willing to compromise, and outside parties show little interest in stopping it. They should care more than they do: if not resolved, a bloody civil war in Iraq will fuel the rising conflict among Sunni-Shia across the Middle East — now in Lebanon and Syria — with the potential of spreading into other countries and inviting extremists to take advantage of the conflagration. 

Keep reading...Show less

Are Foreign Lives of Equal Worth to Ours?

When a U.S. civilian is murdered in a foreign land or in the United States, we rightfully feel angry, sad, and some of us demand vengeance. These are normal, primordial, and instinctive feelings of group loyalty and herd mentality that have bound communities and countries for thousands of years. Should such human traits, which are often beneficial, emotional and irrational, continue to justify the retaliatory killing of innocent civilians in the 21st century?

Keep reading...Show less

Building an Embassy Fit for an Empire

The headline reads: "Thousands of angry Iraqis pillage billion-dollar U.S. Embassy in Baghdad." The article details the ransacking of the grandiose American Embassy by Iraqi mobs.

This is the story I expect to read one day within the next decade.

In the 1950s, when I was in high school in Baghdad, my friends and I admired the technological advances of America and the West. But we resented the colonial tendencies of the West (especially, at the time, those of the British). Many demonstrations were held in front of the British and American embassies. The Iraqis are a proud people, and they resented foreigners meddling in their affairs. And the British were, in reality, running the country through a puppet regime.

You may call it false pride; you may call it a preoccupation with dignity; or you may simply call it an honest concern about sovereignty. In any case, this is what the culture of the region dictates.

So, with this in mind, why has Washington never taken the cultural context of the Iraqis into consideration? Instead, Congress has appropriated nearly $1 billion to build the largest embassy in the world. A significant portion of that money is for security infrastructure. This future "fortress" is housed in Saddam Hussein's former palace -- providing more bad symbolism to the Iraqis.

Why are we building such a mammoth embassy in the heart of Baghdad? The embassy complex is on 104 acres, with 21 buildings and facilities. It will eventually house a U.S. staff of 5,000. According to a recent report in the Washington Post, it has more than twice the staff and 20 times the budget of our Beijing embassy. The embassy will surpass all others in terms of size and staffing.

One would think that we would be more clever than that in camouflaging our occupation. Are we to believe that Iraqis will not take notice of this massive complex in the heart of Baghdad?

We will be attempting to legitimize our presence with a "negotiated" agreement with the government of Iraq. If that happens, the people of Iraq will know that their elected government no longer is representing them but rather has become another puppet government. More Iraqis will become radicalized and join foes of the government.

American forces left Saudi Arabia in order to reduce hostilities toward us and to prevent further recruitment by groups opposing the United States and the Saudi royal family. Why would our officials think that the same will not happen in Iraq?

The Roman Empire, which (depending on your definition) lasted from 1,000 to 1,500 years, was the longest-lasting empire in history. Empires are destined to decline. Despite our intentions to stay in Iraq for a long time, Iraqis will not allow their country to be an extension of the American empire.

Looking for Peace in Iraq

As U.S. politicians grilled Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and debated who was to blame for the poor response to hurricane Katrina, Iraq suffered its' worst day of killing since the war began. On Wednesday, at least 160 people were killed and over 570 were wounded causing chaos, confusion, and great mourning.

What's most troubling about the latest attack and the ongoing average 70 attacks per day is their nature: they largely target innocent civilians. Recently the Iraq Ministry of Interior estimated that insurgent violence has claimed the lives of 12,000 Iraqi civilians since the war began.

Nearly all Iraqis condemn these killings. There are even incidents now where some elements of the insurgency are attacking insurgents who target Iraqis.

The U.S. has been unable to quell the insurgency -- in fact, the military can't even secure a six-mile highway from the Baghdad airport to the city. Killing and jailing insurgents hasn't worked. Former Department of Defense General Jack Keane estimated two months ago that to date more than 50,000 insurgents had been killed, but that their active ranks remained between 16,000-20,000. The U.S. has shown all insurgents in the Muslim world that military power and occupation can't conquer their hearts and minds.

Recent declarations by U.S. and Iraqi officials that significant troop reductions may begin in early 2006 are welcome because they finally reflect reality -- the insurgency in its different forms can't be defeated on the military battleground. The reason is simple.

In every successful insurgency movement, you need a core group surrounded by multiple circles of support -- much as an onion has layers upon layers over its center. At the core of the insurgency are the fighters. They are surrounded by layers of support that enable them to function: people who provide or store weapons; others who provide financing and other needed supplies; and even those who allow the insurgents to hide.

Outer layers of this support are still powerful. Some people provide information to the insurgency and many others provide the psychological support to the insurgents. And there are others who provide support through their acquiescence, silence and indifference.

All of these elements create the breeding ground for a continued insurgency. And the primary cause for these layers of support is opposition to the U.S. occupation. Unfortunately, most policy makers, pundits and politicians (Republican or Democrat) don't talk about the elephant in the room: the occupation. They would rather discuss victory strategies than face the reality that Iraqis are fighting the "liberators" and occupiers.

Recently, I acted as a translator for a day to labor leaders from Iraq who were touring the United States. These courageous Iraqis spanned my native country's entire political spectrum. But they all were against the insurgents and at the same time wanted to end the occupation as soon a possible and peacefully. Moreover, over 100 members of the Iraqi parliament have signed a petition calling to end the occupation.

There are three things that could restore peace in Iraq: First, the U.S. (and the U.N. Security Council) must establish guarantees that the U.S. occupation will end. It should be made clear that it is the policy of the U.S. to leave Iraq as soon as possible. Second, the U.S. should declare that the U.S. has no intention of maintaining any permanent U.S. bases on Iraqi soil and cease building new military facilities.

Finally, the Iraqi government, U.N. agencies, and the U.S. should establish a set of benchmarks that can be used as a roadmap for getting out of Iraq and quickly. The U.S. has been forceful in pushing forth timelines for Iraqis to meet -- it is now time for the U.S. to do the same by setting their own benchmarks and timelines.

Iraqis, the U.S. public, and now even members of the U.S. Congress are calling for an exit strategy. It's time for President Bush to hear these calls and explain what the plan is and when U.S. troops will come home.

BRAND NEW STORIES
@2025 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.