The reinstatement of 20,000 former Iraqi army officials and soldiers who served under previous leader Saddam Hussien’s Baath party is a decision which has stirred much criticism. Opponents of the decision claim it is a “political ploy” aimed at off-setting Iraq’s current progress.
According to Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki announced this plan simply to “appeal to voters.” Al-Malki’s move, in a sense, is ironic as a few of these candidates have officially been banned by the country’s Accountability and Justice Commission because of their loyal ties to the Baath party and its former regime.
The plan of reinstatement contradicts the Prime Minister’s previous stance presented in his anti-Baath election campaign. However, this not so shockingly represents the politics of the region as being unrepresentative and individualistic.
When was the last time an Arab leader actually remained true to his campaign slogan and kept up with implementing it? Exactly.
With regard to the United States’ stance on the issue, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer banned institutions such as the Baath party back in 2003. This ban included the Iraqi army as they were seen as a major threat against the formation of a new Iraqi society — a society whose goals, after almost seven years of U.S. occupation, remain unclear.
Any further U.S. involvement at this point remains unclear. The first thing that came to mind after reading about this was whether or not the war in Iraq and our subsequent delayed military presence there accomplished anything? And what becomes of the sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites, violence that has been further fueled by the banishment of the Baath party; does it get worse or is it supposed to disappear all on its own? Have the billions of dollars the U.S. has pumped into the reconstruction of Iraq, along with the thousands of American and Iraqi lives, all gone in vain?
It is understandable that the U.S. wants Iraq to be able to form its own government, democratically, but at what point will they intervene if the very government they set out to demolish eventually rebuilds itself with a possibility of coming back even stronger?
This leads us to further question the legitimacy of U.S. involvement in Iraq to begin with. If the country is keen on keeping part of what its population regards as a fascist regime, while the other part of the population praises it, who are we, the outsiders, to decide for them? This is the exact reason why entering Iraq in 2003 was a mistake, an argument which today has officially been proven true.
Money will always come and go, but the lives lost for a war, which has
solved nothing, are priceless and nothing short of tragic.
Could this be the worst decision in the history of American involvement? Time has already begun to tell, and the answer is, without a doubt, yes.
Dina Al-Hayek is a junior political science major and a columnist for the Daily 49er.
