Perhaps worse

Who's to blame for the situation in Iraq three years after the fall of baghdad? Doaa El-Bey reads on

---

Three years after the fall of the statue of Saddam Hussein together with his regime, the situation in Baghdad is believed to be the same, if not worse.

In an editorial in the Saudi- funded daily Al-Hayat on Monday, Abdel-Wahab Badrakhan wrote that the past three years had witnessed a new constitution, two elections and the emergence of a new, mostly inexperienced, governing group which he called "the new Iraqis".

"They reject any nationalist thinking as an ideology of Saddam's regime. They ignore the fact that Saddam did not represent nationalism in any way. They claim that they reform their own identity by showing more respect to democracy and pluralism. However, they not only failed to reach any acceptable formula but did not hesitate to imitate some of the most horrible practices of Saddam's regime. They cannot adopt division as a successful ideology because it would increase their dependence on the occupation forces," Badrakhan wrote.

He accused these new Iraqis of irresponsibility "because they accepted the division of Iraq and the dissolution of the army. By so doing they paved the ground for endless and unlimited conflicts."

On Sunday, in Asharq Al-Awsat, another Saudi-sponsored paper, Jabir Habib Jabir wrote that the fall of one of the most despotic regimes in modern history is the only good thing that happened to Iraq in the last three years.

"The changes in security, the rule of law and services are minimal. They cannot be detected by the naked eye," Jabir wrote.

He expressed concern that in the last three years, the Iraqi people had failed to produce a political group that has a clear national programme. As a result, the political process is passing through a bottleneck that can paralyse it completely.

Jabir blamed the failure to form a government on the Shia coalition which he said should give priority to preserving the unity of Iraq as a whole rather than to preserving the unity of their coalition.

Jim Hoagland wrote in the same newspaper that the situation in Iraq needs careful future planning and should focus on institutions rather than persons.

He said the withdrawal of US forces from Iraqi streets first, then cities by the end of the year could improve security in Iraq given it is executed within a clear political strategy.

Ghassan Al-Imam wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat on Tuesday that the threat of a civil war is looming. "The deteriorating security in addition to the absence of a responsible government created a power vacuum that can trigger civil war at any time," Al-Imam wrote.

He described US-imposed democracy in Iraq as a lame duck. The US thought that democratic tools like a new constitution and election would create stability in Iraq. It also mobilised the Shia and Kurdish army and police forces to fight the Sunnis, but discovered that these forces did not stay loyal for long. Instead, they allied with Iran rather than with America's so-called secular democracy. "Now, unfortunately, both democracy and political stability are absent in Iraq," Al-Imam said.

In Al-Ittihad of the United Arab Emirates, Nouri Hammadi Al-Duleimi raised a number of questions, the most important of which was whom to blame for the current situation in Iraq.

He first blamed the majority of the Iraqi people who revered Saddam as "a symbol of Iraqis" and a historic hero. He then blamed Saddam himself for unilaterally governing Iraq for decades.

Al-Duleimi also regarded high calibre army officers as responsible for the deteriorating situation in Iraq because they failed to give Saddam the real picture about the deficiencies or the negatives in the army.

Al-Duleimi accused international parties of failing to intervene in order to stop Saddam's practices. And he accused the US of deciding to invade Iraq without accurately considering the aftermath. "The fallout of the US invasion was an absolute catastrophe: no state, no acceptable government, no security and no services. Iraq is left in a state of complete anarchy, division and possible civil war."

Al-Duleimi said he believed the US argument that the experience of the occupation had taught the Iraq people democracy by helping them to write their own constitution and hold elections was not convincing. He raised the question of whether these achievements were worth the sacrifices and the present state in Iraq. He answered negatively.