Explosions, kidnapping and murder remain daily concerns in Iraq
three years after the country was invaded by the US-led
coalition.
No public gatherings were allowed in Baghdad over the weekend
because of security fears.
The anti-war marches and rallies in more than 200 cities
including London, Chicago and Sydney across the world expose the
unjustified nature of the war and the consequences of the
occupation of Iraq.
The opinion on the country's situation, however, is widely
divided.
Ayad Allawi, the former Iraqi prime minister, declared his
country to be in the midst of a civil war that could soon "reach
the point of no return."
Britain and the United States rejected Allawi's assessment,
offering optimistic remarks. British Defence Secretary John Reid
claimed that most of Iraq was under control, saying "there is not
civil war now, nor is it inevitable, nor is it imminent."
Appearing in the CBS program Face the Nation in
Washington, US Vice-President Dick Cheney played down the
ideas of civil war. He said the surge in attacks aimed at fomenting
sectarian conflict simply reflected the insurgents' "state of
desperation."
While Iraq is wrapped in a shroud of terror and violence,
juggling with words does not make sense.
According to figures compiled by the Brookings Institute, there
were 75 attacks a day in February, compared with 54 on average a
year earlier. The conflict killed 1,000 Iraqi civilians last month,
rising from 750 in February 2005. With a staff of 232,000, the
Iraqi security personnel can hardly control the situation. Despite
some 10 per cent of the world's oil reserves, Iraq had to import
oil products. Its oil production, the mainstay of the economy, is
in decline.
Worse still, the frequency of insurgent bombings and group
killings is growing.
The Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders were still struggling to
form a national unity government more than three months after
elections. The situation raises fears that a political vacuum will
play into the hands of insurgents and fuel violence.
Sectarian violence is threatening to explode into all-out
conflict.
The United States has been demonstrating its military supremacy
in Iraq. In March the US military launched the biggest air assault
on Iraq since its invasion in 2003, targeting insurgents near
Samarra, the city that has come to symbolize the threat of civil
war.
Military strength does not necessarily mean diplomatic
supremacy. The coalition forces have failed to win over the Iraqis,
with the Sunnis leading the insurgency.
The British and US leaders' optimistic notes on the situation in
Iraq have proved hollow.
Arab and Western leaders worry that if Iraq were to crumble,
sectarian violence would spread throughout the Middle East, and
Europe and the United States would also feel the impact.
Allawi warned the world that the Pandora's box is opening.
The United States has vowed to fight on.
The United States has not declared a timetable for troop
withdrawals, which General George Casey, its commander in Iraq,
said might not be possible until the end of the year or even 2007.
The war has claimed the lives of 2,300 American soldiers and has so
far cost US$500 billion in the past three years. The death toll of
the US military is dwarfed by estimates of the number of Iraqis
killed, which range from a conservative 30,000 to a more
speculative 100,000.
"Turning our backs on post-war Iraq today would be the modern
equivalent of handing post-war Germany back to the Nazis," US
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote in the Washington
Post on Sunday.
He addressed the dire consequences if his country pulled out of
Iraq too quickly.
Nevertheless, no consideration has been given to the roots of
Iraq's problems. No plans detail how to build a united, stable and
strong Iraq. And no programs have been hammered out to bring the
widely divided ethnic groups together.
Without compromise from these groups, democracy and sovereignty
are false hopes for Iraqis to nourish.
(China Daily March 21, 2006)
