U.S. influence in Iraq continues

Beth Boscardin

 

The blasting, the fire, the noise, the bodies have all seemingly disappeared, leaving relatively little grief and even less concern for the majority of the United States. The peace rallies are generally finished; any public interest regarding the political well being of the United States has long since been exhumed by complaints of high gas prices, expensive food, bad weather and plotting politicians.

 

Junior Ellen Stryker emphasizes how ordinary American influence in Iraq has become, and said, “It’s kind of become an everyday thing. We hear about a civilian dying every now and then, but it’s not of major concern.”

 

After the anticipated capture of Iraq Dictator Saddam Hussein on Dec 13, 2003, the war ended, everyone could come home and no one would bat another eye toward the Middle East, at least according to many citizens, not only in America, but worldwide. As evidenced by huge peace rallies on Saturday March 19, the anniversary of war’s beginning, many citizens want their military out of Iraq. Not as many attended these peace rallies, compared to last year, however, they were quite an affair.

 

Especially in America and Britain, activists questioned the legitimacy of the war, as it was broadcast as protection against weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have yet to be found, leaving civilians and politicians alike wondering at the severe mistake in the secret services departments of the U.S. government.

 

Junior Jessica Warren is among the critical. “ I don’t support us being in Iraq because we apparently didn’t have a real reason. They haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction, so they didn’t have a proven reason or any evidence to back it up,” she said.

 

While many oppose keeping American troops in the Middle East, some do believe they are still impacting world relations for the better and should remain. “I think they’re serving a purpose because they are protecting us and civilians of Iraq,” said sophomore Caitlin Eagen.

 

Tony Blair, British prime minister, is under intense scrutiny in his country for his support of the war because the majority of British voters were opposed.

 

While United States President George Bush is under pressure from those questioning the lack of WMD, many laud him for his nation building. Whether this practice is one America should encourage, is up for debate.

 

Junior Alee Taylor supports the government’s decision to invade Iraq as a humanitarian means of rebuilding the political situation. “I think it’s a good idea to build governments. It’s kind of like the domino effect. If we can start building democracies instead of communist societies, the world will be a better place in the end,” she said.

 

On March 9, members of different religions, economic status and lifestyles met in Iraq; all were called to join a twenty-five person U.S. appointed council, led by overseer American Paul Bremer. They were appointed to help plan the future democratic government of Iraq.

 

March 9, though, was no ordinary meeting. Five days after the previously planned date, the three major ethnic groups, Kurds, Sunni and Shiites, agreed to sign an interim constitution especially guaranteeing freedoms of speech and religion for both men and women.

 

Committee president, Shiite cleric Mohammad bahr al-Uloom, led the fiery negotiations between the Kurdish people and major Shiite leader Sistani. The Shiites pulled out of the scheduled signing day, due to attacks on holy sites in Karbala and Baghdad, which moved the original date from Wednesday March 8. After proving the Kurds, as a people, did not organize the attacks, the opposing Shiites relented.

 

The second setback originated from the intense, almost inherent bitterness between these two ethnicities. Sistani refused to sign, thinking the Kurds had too much power in the government. However, this was rectified after the equality of representation was reaffirmed to all leaders.

 

This document highlights the values and doctrines America wants to plant in Iraqi government. Emphasizing freedom and equality, Bush seeks to prevent future dictatorial takeover.

 

Currently, the new committee of leaders does not have the complete government control that still lies with outside coalition provisional authorities, but, if all goes as planned, the committee will take it’s place, leading the country by June 30.

 

By 2005, the first actual elections should be held for positions in the National Assembly, much like the United States Congress and for governates, who will lead different areas of Iraq.

 

In the months following these elections, the system will be under intense scrutiny by the entire world. As one of the first “nation-building” experiments, it will show whether a republican, federal, democratic and pluralistic government can be impressed on another society in this fashion.

 

Back