| Analysis
IT was the most potent image of the Iraq war. For Iraqis, the 40ft statue of Saddam Hussein in the centre of Baghdad must have seemed as unassailable as the dictator himself, yet just three weeks after the US-led war began, those who had suffered under Saddam's regime were dancing on the toppled bronze figure, hitting it with their shoes in the ultimate Arab insult.
That moment of celebration came exactly a year ago today, and still resonates as a powerful symbol of regime change and regeneration.
For the US and its allies, the toppling of Saddam's statue was a more effective argument for the legitimacy of military action than any put forward by George W Bush or Tony Blair. A year later, though, the jubilation of that moment appears premature; the hope that the US would be welcomed with open arms seems naive.
"That moment became the symbol of the fall of Saddam," said William Bain, author of Between Anarchy and Society, which examines the moral obligations of occupying powers throughout history.
"However, if you looked closely, there were not that many people there on that day, just one or two hundred. If it really was the 'Reichstag moment' it was claimed to be, there would have been thousands upon thousands of Iraqis pulling that statue down, they certainly wouldn't have needed the help of US armoured engineering vehicles to topple it."
Since President Bush declared major combat over on May 1, thousands of Iraqi civilians have died in violence along with more than 600 Iraqi security personnel, scores of foreigners, and more than 440 US soldiers.
Yesterday, the top US general in Iraq admitted that two southern Iraqi towns were controlled by Shi'ite militia. Heavy fighting continued in towns and cities across Iraq. The depth of anti-American feeling is obvious – even Sunni Muslims, who had most to gain from the fall of Saddam, are taking part in the violent protests.
The image uppermost in people's minds now is of the burnt, mutilated bodies of two US contractors strung up on a bridge in Falluja after they had been killed by insurgents.
The contrast with the jubilant scenes in Baghdad a year ago could not be more striking. So where did the Americans go wrong?
"Iraqis may have hated Saddam Hussein, but they also hate America – the US was never going to be viewed as a great liberator," said Dr Bain.
"I think it is absolutely shocking that the Bush administration seemed to believe that the US only had to remove this one evil man and democracy would flourish – Iraq has always been more complicated than that.
"And if it did not believe that, then the lack of planning for reconstruction after the war is morally reprehensible."
Reconstruction, which has to be a primary goal if Iraq is ever to govern itself, has been forced to take a back seat as the troops struggle to establish some degree of security.
According to Jeremy Binnie, Middle East editor of Jane's Sentinel, the real work has yet to begin.
"So far the US has really only been involved in patching up and was just beginning real reconstruction work – with the awarding of contracts and the interim constitution – when these uprisings began."
The US has insisted on its commitment to handing over power to the Iraqis by the deadline of June 30, but the success of this relies on an extremely uneasy coalition of conflicting ethnic and religious groups.
Mr Bush, seeking re-election in November, knows he cannot afford to fail in Iraq. To cut and run would be political suicide, making the need for a handover of power all the more urgent to avoid a Vietnam-style quagmire.
Mr Blair will have dinner with Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, next Thursday, and meet Mr Bush the following day when Iraq will be high on the agenda.
The British and American leaders have denied the meetings are crisis talks, but with violence escalating daily in Iraq, it is difficult to see how they could be anything else.
Analysis
IT was the most potent image of the Iraq war. For Iraqis, the 40ft statue of Saddam Hussein in the centre of Baghdad must have seemed as unassailable as the dictator himself, yet just three weeks after the US-led war began, those who had suffered under Saddam's regime were dancing on the toppled bronze figure, hitting it with their shoes in the ultimate Arab insult.
That moment of celebration came exactly a year ago today, and still resonates as a powerful symbol of regime change and regeneration.
For the US and its allies, the toppling of Saddam's statue was a more effective argument for the legitimacy of military action than any put forward by George W Bush or Tony Blair. A year later, though, the jubilation of that moment appears premature; the hope that the US would be welcomed with open arms seems naive.
"That moment became the symbol of the fall of Saddam," said William Bain, author of Between Anarchy and Society, which examines the moral obligations of occupying powers throughout history.
"However, if you looked closely, there were not that many people there on that day, just one or two hundred. If it really was the 'Reichstag moment' it was claimed to be, there would have been thousands upon thousands of Iraqis pulling that statue down, they certainly wouldn't have needed the help of US armoured engineering vehicles to topple it."
Since President Bush declared major combat over on May 1, thousands of Iraqi civilians have died in violence along with more than 600 Iraqi security personnel, scores of foreigners, and more than 440 US soldiers.
Yesterday, the top US general in Iraq admitted that two southern Iraqi towns were controlled by Shi'ite militia. Heavy fighting continued in towns and cities across Iraq. The depth of anti-American feeling is obvious – even Sunni Muslims, who had most to gain from the fall of Saddam, are taking part in the violent protests.
The image uppermost in people's minds now is of the burnt, mutilated bodies of two US contractors strung up on a bridge in Falluja after they had been killed by insurgents.
The contrast with the jubilant scenes in Baghdad a year ago could not be more striking. So where did the Americans go wrong?
"Iraqis may have hated Saddam Hussein, but they also hate America – the US was never going to be viewed as a great liberator," said Dr Bain.
"I think it is absolutely shocking that the Bush administration seemed to believe that the US only had to remove this one evil man and democracy would flourish – Iraq has always been more complicated than that.
"And if it did not believe that, then the lack of planning for reconstruction after the war is morally reprehensible."
Reconstruction, which has to be a primary goal if Iraq is ever to govern itself, has been forced to take a back seat as the troops struggle to establish some degree of security.
According to Jeremy Binnie, Middle East editor of Jane's Sentinel, the real work has yet to begin.
"So far the US has really only been involved in patching up and was just beginning real reconstruction work – with the awarding of contracts and the interim constitution – when these uprisings began."
The US has insisted on its commitment to handing over power to the Iraqis by the deadline of June 30, but the success of this relies on an extremely uneasy coalition of conflicting ethnic and religious groups.
Mr Bush, seeking re-election in November, knows he cannot afford to fail in Iraq. To cut and run would be political suicide, making the need for a handover of power all the more urgent to avoid a Vietnam-style quagmire.
Mr Blair will have dinner with Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, next Thursday, and meet Mr Bush the following day when Iraq will be high on the agenda.
The British and American leaders have denied the meetings are crisis talks, but with violence escalating daily in Iraq, it is difficult to see how they could be anything else.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/13696.html | |
