Iraq mission leaves many questions unanswered

Paul Malone

Canberra Times columnist

In 1980, in preparation for a planned visit to Iraq to cover an OPEC meeting, the Iraq government gave me a glossy book on the country – Mesopotamia yesterday – Iraq today.

I had no illusions about the book – it was government propaganda. But it's instructive to leaf through it today and compare attitudes with those of the self-proclaimed Islamic State caliphate that now seeks to rule the region.

The book produced by the Ministry of Information in Bagdad proudly displays photographs of ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian artefacts, artworks and buildings. The authors sought to remind the world that this region was one of the major cradles of civilisation.  They also acknowledged their Islamic heritage and the caliphates that ruled the territory from the time of Mohammad.

Most strikingly, it is clear that the early "Rightly Guided Caliphs" – the first of whom actually knew the prophet – did not have the magnificent ancient artworks, buildings and statues destroyed.

That is something today's fanatics have chosen to do, using sledgehammers and drills to turn the Iraqi heritage of sculptures and statues in the Mosul museum into rubble. 

"The prophet ordered us to get rid of statues and relics, and his companions did the same when they conquered countries after him," one of the vandals says in an IS propaganda video, apparently not realising that had the artefacts been destroyed by the early caliphs they would not be there to destroy now.

Even worse, the modern-day self-proclaimed caliphate seeks to make a virtue out of the slaughter of people of other faiths.  

This was not the practice of all caliphs of the past. While fighting the Christian Byzantines, the Umayyad caliph, for example, accommodated Christians in Syria and in other parts of his empire.

The foolish Bush-Blair-Howard illegal invasion of Iraq unleashed mayhem in the region and the consequent United States decision to dissolve the Iraqi army put thousands of men out of work and provided manpower for a Sunni insurgency.  The election of a Shiite dominated government under Nouri al-Maliki led to further Sunni hostility. Disillusioned Sunnis now provide a support base for IS fanatics. Military officers who once answered to former president Saddam Hussein now assist IS. 

Saddam was no angel. History records his invasion of Iran and his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, for example, but by the time of the US, British and Australian invasion he had given up plans to develop weapons of mass destruction. He also had no time for Sunni extremists like Osama Bin Laden.

My 35-year-old Iraqi Ministry of Information book pushes a progressive view of the country. Treasures such as the lyre decorated with lapis-lazuli and a pure gold bull's head are featured, as are Hellenistic statues. Women are shown in traditional dress working in the fields and also in modern dress working in technical areas. They are also taking reading and writing lessons, with the government boasting of free education for all and promising to eliminate illiteracy by the end of the decade. 

Perhaps the most noticeable sub-section is headed Iraq, The Land of Coexistence.  Here the authorities note that the Kurds have their own language and culture and they claim that the March 1974 declaration of a law on self-government "ended a costly and destructive fraternal war." 

This is a coloured view of the situation. But in a far-from-perfect region, Saddam – a member of the Sunni Muslim minority in Iraq – was a secular leader. So, too, were the Assads in neighbouring Syria, members of the minority Shiite Alawite sect. 

Both regimes protected Christian and other minorities.  Christians supported these dictators, not because they loved what they were doing, but because they feared the alternative.

Sadly now in cities like Mosul, the alternative has arrived. When IS took the city. local Sunni Muslims joined the fanatics to drive out Christians who had lived alongside Muslims for generations.

Before the 2003 US invasion it is estimated t there were more than 1 million Christians in Iraq. Now fewer than 200,000 survive and reports suggest that those who remain want to leave.

Similarly in Syria, where Christians have lived for close on two millennia and where until recently they made up 10per cent of the population, the fear is that the overthrow of Bashar Al Assad's government will see them driven away for ever.

In this turmoil the Abbott government, with the support of the Shorten opposition, has decided to send another 300 Australian soldiers to train Iraqi forces to fight IS.

One objective is the recapture of Mosul. 

Here it is worth remembering that when confronted by IS midway through last year, the US-trained Iraqi forces abandoned Mosul and left much weaponry behind. At the time it was said that US government officials were "alarmed" at how quickly the Iraqi army disintegrated.  

The years of training and the $US25 billion spent on equipping and sustaining the security forces proved useless. Many more Iraqis now know how to fire weapons of various types but we do not know who they will choose to fire at.

While IS is good at wreaking havoc, recent reports suggest that it is struggling to administer the territory it controls, with services collapsing, prices soaring and disease spreading. In Mosul the water is reported to be undrinkable because chlorine supplies have dried up.

It is clear that the US-led air campaign, which has Australian and allied support, is having an effect. But sending more troops to a country divided along religious, tribal and ethnic lines is another matter. 

Many questions remain unanswered.

Will the Australian trainers receive an assurance from the Shiite military men they train that they will act to protect Christians, Kurds or Yazidis attacked by Shiite or Sunni forces? Can we be sure that there will be no repeat of the green-on-blue insider attacks that became such a frequent occurrence in Afghanistan?  How long will we have to keep sending troops to train military personnel before the Iraqis can fend for themselves?  And can we be assured that this will be the peak of our involvement?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/iraq-mission-leaves-many-questions-unanswered-20150307-13utxj.html