Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iraq: A New Democratic Dawn - or Back to the Bad Old Days?
BAGHDAD - As the US and Britain steadily exit Iraq, a pre-invasion reality is returning for many. Essential services still don't work, while the old-world Ba'athist order is once again flourishing.
Iraqi special police force cadets in Najaf yesterday. (Photograph: Alaa al-Marjani/AP)
Saddam Hussein's loyalists have been removed from the extensive bureaucracies that once ran Iraq, but the often draconian rules they imposed over 30 years are back in vogue.
Security has improved across the country, to the extent of families being able to return to public parks and sports grounds even in provincial areas that are far less stable than the capital.
But the gains have been met by a rise in the influence of the system that made daily life here insufferable well before warfare - that of regulations.
Most things, from applying for municipal documents to voting and registering cars, have become more complicated over the past six months.
"Democracy is proving to be very rough-edged," says Ethar Ebrahim, in the well-to-do Baghdad riverside suburb of Karrada. "We can get out and about now," she adds, among the thriving streets with their shops, cafes and barbecue chicken grills, "but the time we are wasting on doing the simple things is just killing us."
Three international media outlets have had cars impounded since January when their drivers tried to enter the International Zone, which was handed over by the US military to the Iraqi army at the start of the year. The armoured cars were brought into Iraq at the start of the war six years ago and their papers no longer match the country's rapidly evolving regulatory environment.
Of far more concern to residents is what the new rules actually are. Myriad changes to the way things have been done throughout the past six years seem to be taking place each week; so too do the times that government offices open and what requests they will deal with.
Iraqis are also seeing a resurgence of two other factors that dominated the Saddam years: nepotism and corruption, both of which are regular subjects of complaint in daily newspapers and radio broadcasts.
On this score, Iraqis are far better off - even being seen to criticise an official, let alone a regime figure, would almost certainly have led to imprisonment, maiming or a death sentence under Saddam.
"My brother was sitting in a cafe and said something about Uday [Hussein, one of the dictator's sons]," remembers Samira al-Moussawi, an MP. "People nearby overheard him and called members of Uday's guards, who came to the cafe and dragged him away and cut out his tongue."
Complaining about the government will not expose the public to such savagery, but it is unlikely to lead to a result either. The latest global transparency index judged that only two states in the world were more corrupt than Iraq - Burma and Somalia.
The head of Iraq's Integrity Commission, Ibrahim al-Ukeile, says embezzlement is not that endemic in Iraq, but concedes that most ministries have a big problem. From his office inside the heavily fortified International Zone, Ukeile says his investigators are dealing with dozens of complaints about every ministry. He acknowledges that some are much worse than others. The oil and foreign affairs ministries, both future cash cows in Iraq, have been nominated in the past three years as prominent embezzlers. "It is true we have a problem here. We need ideologically motivated people to address this issue. And I am certain we have them. It will take time to get on top of things."
Iraqis seem to accept that some of the country's wealth will inevitably slip into the pockets of the powerful - but only if they are seen to get benefits as well.
So far, any moves towards the promised progress and prosperity seem painfully slow.
"We were getting one hour of electricity on average each day during the war," says Ebrahim. "Now we are getting around 12, which is much better. But down the road, in areas where parliamentarians live, their power is on 24 hours a day."
In the provinces, the situation seems much worse. Iraq's second-largest city, Basra, goes dark after midnight several nights each week and most of the city does not yet have sewerage lines or a reliable water supply. Deprived for three decades under Saddam and a short hop to the Iranian border, Basra became fertile ground for insurgency.
Small community projects have started up. Many small developments, such as school improvements, pavements and sewerage digging, are being funded by the British army and the Department for International Development, but large civic work projects are slow to get going.
Zainab al-Moussawi, a Basra resident, said: "We can talk about security all we like, but until we see results this living hell will not have been worth it."
- Posted in

26 Comments so far
Show AllThese people have been around for thousands of years, and if left alone they will eventually sift back into a way of life they understand and want. It isn't our place to be there stuffing them into our molds of how we think they should be. That just isn't going to work!
When our own revolution ended, our ancestors found their own way, and developed the new nation from their own perspectives. It wasn't easy, but they did it, and without someone with guns and bombs surrounding them and telling them how to do it. The Iraqis should be given the same chance, and without any of our micro-managing.
On one side of the River are the Persians, and on the other side of the River are the Arabs. East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet. And it also made a trillion dollars for the MIC.
As Iraq tries to move forward on its own, one question will be under constant discussion. What was truly accomplished by removing Saddam Hussein, especially in light of the horrific costs of the war and occupation?
q
there were several very important things accomplished- among them:
-Impressions - we didn't "back down" when someone challenged us
-Control - we destroyed the most powerfull Secular nation in the region
-Money - we got to spend lots of money
-Money - we got to secure oil contracts
-Tactics - we put in permenant military bases
-Tactics - we got to put military bases next to Iran and Isreal
-Politics - we moved troops from Suadi Arabia
-Politics - proved we actually could go 'unilateral'
(note: 'we' and 'us' and 'them' etc are very loose terms)
No one was challenging us and Israel is and has been the most powerful secular nation in the region (the idea that Israel is a theocracy is silly).
All of the other things could have been accomplished by bribing Saddam.
q
We can't afford this occupation. We need to get out of there now.
This war - and the ensuing occupation - was undertaken because policymakers - perle, cheney et al - thought that it would be profitable. That, coupled with Israel's security concerns, was the only motivation. Ok, maybe GWB wanted to avenge his daddy too. I'll grant that much.
So although I'd agree, that the US should "get out of there now", I disagree that US policymakers feel "we can't afford this occupation".
I think Obama and his courtiers still think it will pay off if they ultimately can seize control of the oil, and perhaps by leveraging this base against other nation states in the region, especially Iraq.
That's possible. But I think it would be cheaper just to buy their oil.
There is no 'exit' from Iraq.
There is no plan for the US to leave Iraq, contrary to what Obama might say in his prettified speeches.
50 000 combat trrops and 58 major bases will remain in Iraq, and the US has won the concessions that the US military that will continue to control Iraqi airspace and coastal waters, as well as blanket immunity to prosection for any and all crimes past, present, and future that US forces and 'contractors' have committed, or will commit.
So. Is Iraq a 'free democracy' as US M/I/C PRopaganda would have you belive? Or is it an undeclared 'petro-colony'?
Walk in peace.
the last line in the article says it all.
for some insight into the "reconstruction" and "training of iraqi police/troops" (lots of profanity, so careful if at work):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GrdTakvl8&eurl
Just another con by the MIC. Change we cannot believe in! If Obama was honest he would say: I promised to end the Iraq war so I am removing our troops ASAP and abandoning the policy of permanent bases in Iraq; furthermore, we will only have a small contingent of troops there by the end of this year, also, there were no WMD's and Saddam is gone, so what the hell are we doing there!We need to get out and save the billions of $ we are spending in Iraq on our economy which is worse than any terrorist threat. NOW, THAT IS CHANGE I COULD BELIEVE IN!
I cannot vouch for its authenticity, but here's a communique from the Iraqi Resistance to Obama. http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22130.htm
(Apparantly, anchors aren't being allowed to imbed urls, so you'll need to copy and paste the url into your browser.)
Whether or not the U.S. keeps 50,000 soldiers permanently in Iraq, one thing is clear. Eventually Iraq will revert to its previous incarnation under Saddam Hussein. Whatever dictator winds up running things may not be as brutal but he'll be a dictator, pure and simple.
Actually, I think the chances of another dictatorship rather slim. The Baath was a minority party that had to use force/dictatorship to maintain control. Those it oppressed--the majority--are now in control and loathe the past dictatorship and the current occupation, but have embraced the democratic openings and are unlikely to return to the "dark side." Plus, the strongest argument against any continuing occupation is maturation of Iraq's nascent democratic institutions, which are still in the process of being moulded, a fact recognized by most of Iraq's Shiite leadership. I admit it's too early to tell just what shape Iraq's new institutions will have or the degree of Islam's inclusion, although I suspect they will be more enlightened/democratic than Iran's.
That's why the "Out Now"mantra is so naive!
We have to be careful as we exit Iraq to make sure that society doesn't collapse into civil war. If it does, we won't be able to leave.
We can't abandon Iraq to another brutal dictatorship. We owe the people more than that.
We owe the Iraqi people the quickest exit we can mount and a Trillion in reparations just to start. There is absolutely NO justification for what the USA did to Iraq, or to all the other countries that have felt the impact of US bombs and CIA monies--NONE. You are saying it was correct for Hitler to do what he did as you try to defend the same actions by the USA.
"...a pre-invasion reality is returning for many." a black humor
edweg
Quote: "On this score, Iraqis are far better off - even being seen to criticise an official, let alone a regime figure, would almost certainly have led to imprisonment, maiming or a death sentence under Saddam."
This does reflect the experience I had in Iraq in May 2002. My group met with a Lebanese UNICEF worker who commented on the issue of free speech. He noted that Iraqis did have some freedom to criticize lower-level officials, and especially to criticize the poor municipal services provided by the government (the Ba'ath party emphasized that citizens had a basic right to services). Certainly, almost no one dared to criticize Saddam or his family. But low-level functionaries were not a part of the Saddam god-head.
"Democracy is proving to be very rough-edged," says Ethar Ebrahim, is this supposed to be some kind of a joke? A country and its population living under the jackboot of foreign occupation can only make light of the situation.
Everybody should just calm down and read Juan Cole's article in Salon called, "We're really leaving Iraq:: Some Iraq war critics are fretting about Obama's speech on Friday, and his plan to stay a little longer. But here's why there's no reason for alarm."
Obama really is a progressive.
He really is anti-war.
And we really are leaving Iraq.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/03/02/obama_iraq/index.html
But aren't you just glad that Saddam is gone?!
Yes.
I knew you'd say that. It was sarcasm man, and it was a question that an administration official touring Iraq back in the early days of the war kept asking Iraqis anytime they said there were no services, the violence, etc.
The perpetual US occupation of Iraq is to secure access to the oil needed for the US military industrial complex to continue domineering the planet and for the US advertising marketing propaganda complex to continue domineering the nation. Neither the world nor the nation want to be domineered but they can't help it - they are addicted to the opiates. The world is addicted to supplying US material consumption and the nation is addicted to consuming the materials supplied. USans "upgrading" their cellphones, SUVs, vacation condos and McMansions each and every year make the occupation urgently necessary. Next it will be important for USans to maintain two of each item at a time, then three. The energy and material consumption has to increase in volume, always... This system has to be secured - militarily.
We invaded and destroyed Iraq because of the Zionist/Neo-Con takeover of our foreign policy in the Middle East.
This has nothing to do with terrorism, Saddam, democracy or oil.
It's what Israel wanted.
buona descrizione dei dettagli. Grazie per aver condiviso
Oyun | Sinema | Hava durumu