During his time in his office as 43rd President of the United States, George H. W. Bush formulated a concept which he called the “New World Order”; he envisioned a one world government, and considered that such government could be brought about within a few decades. Bush’s son, President George W. Bush, may have been influenced by that concept when he chose to respond to terrorist attacks of September, 2001, with a preemptive military strike upon Iraq, and upon the Iraqi President, President Saddam Hussein, in the Presidential Office since 1979, having served as Vice-President from 1968 until 1979. Bush followed his instinct, ignored substantial issues and followed that course, with the goal of eliminating Hussein, whom he viewed as a criminal, and the additional goal of “Democratization” of Iraq, which is consistent with the plan of a “New World Order”.
At the time of the invasion of Iraq by the West, the Iraqi Air-force was buried under desert sands. Iraq was not enriching uranium, and as inspectors from the West on the ground discovered, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi Air-Force to this day is not able to defend its borders. Staff Lieutenant General Anwar Ahmed recently told reporters that “The Iraqi Air-Force is not prepared to deter any foreign attack.” He indicates the Air Force will not under any circumstances be up to modern standards until the year 2020.
Bush was able after years of destruction and bloodshed to influence the installation of a government in Iraq that was viewed as Iraqi in origin, but was yet friendly to the West, and Western concerns. Radio Free Europe reports that President George W. Bush visited Iraq in January of 2005 to meet with the newly elected Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, whom he praised. Bush said the world was hearing the “voice of freedom” from the Middle East. He praised the courage of the Iraqi voters, saying they had “firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the insurgents.”
The al-Maliki administration ruled Iraq for some five and a half years, until Parliamentary elections seven months ago. The United States avowed to let the people of Iraq decide their fate; the United States pledged non-involvement in fair and democratic elections. The Parliament was elected. Painfully, this Parliament is evenly divided between those in support of al-Maliki, and those who favor a return to the pre-invasion rule. The al-Maliki supporters have only a small majority. The 50/50 Parliament found difficulty in functioning. American General Patraeus, now at the head of the troops in Afghanistan, indicates that the U.S. now again will continue to influence Iraq, which must include the newly elected Parliament, in a pattern consistent with Western Thinking.
Iraq has been home to continuous successive civilizations since the 6th century B.C. The region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers is commonly considered the cradle of civilization and is the birthplace of writing, and of the wheel.
It is conceded that Bush’s plan for “Democratization” has met with some success. Many Muslims now support the al-Maliki government, with the increased security and the promise of freedom that it offers. Other Muslims though, yearn for the return of the earlier rule, perhaps embittered by the bloodshed and destruction of recent years. Those who are beginning to reach out for the security of the Westernized rule are in danger of being quashed by the insurgent labor of traditionalist Sunni groups; there may be danger of a new and bolder sectarian civil war. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been accused by the Sunni leadership, including Atheel al-Nujaifi, Governor of the northern Ninevah province, of arresting opponents, and pressuring the courts; he views al-Maliki as a “caretaker”, with “no mandate or parliamentary oversight.” Hayder al-Mulla, a spokesman for the Sunni-backed Iraqiya group, demands that al-Maliki and his allies “give up the post” of Prime Minister to acknowledge what they call the “narrow election victory” of Ayad Allawi, Iraqiya’s leader. Allawi served as prime minister just after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
There too has been talk of a Sunni “Awakening”; a force of former anti-Western insurgents who have switched sides to fight with the Americans against al-Qaida, the powerful anti-Western terrorist group with strong membership in Iraq. But these pro-freedom “Awakening” forces are now meeting with opposition. One member, National Public Radio reports, received a letter signed by The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group for al-Qaida, saying that he would be killed – his house would be burned to the ground, with all those inside it, because he had “sold himself, and honored the occupier”. We are aware too of a Shiite bloc preparation to press ahead in forming a government in the framework and make-up of the pre-invasion years. Progress is not irreversible.
Our concern at this time is that this division may lead to bloodshed and new chaos for the long-suffering people of Iraq. We hope such bloodshed will be avoided. Now we are in a tentative period holding hopes of a new era for Iraq; but powerful forces and emotions are still in conflict. Will the silence hold? Will we witness a great new day in Iraq, or is this only the still before the storm?Powered by Sidelines