Qubad Jalal Talabani,
the son of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, is a
representative of the Kurdistan Regional Government
of Iraq in the United States. In the Orlando area
for several presentations on Iraq, he spoke with
Sentinel foreign-affairs columnist John C. Bersia.
Question: Where
were your thoughts at the time of the 2003 U.S.-led
intervention in Iraq?
Qubad Jalal Talabani: I was a deputy representative
of the Kurdistan Regional Government in the United
States during the lead-up to the intervention. It
was quite a remarkable time, to hear about the first
missiles that struck the regime's institutions of
terror.
What do you say to the critics who maintain that
the intervention took place prematurely? |
Qubad Talabani, Washington spokesman for Kurdistan
Regional Government |
|
I would say it happened years too late, that the
international community collectively was at fault
for allowing the regime of Saddam Hussein to rebuild
itself after the first Persian Gulf War. He had
violated 17 United Nations Security Council
resolutions at the time of the intervention. We can
argue the legitimacy of this war for years to come,
but what we cannot argue is that the Iraqi people
were living under a tyranny, in fear.
Did the intervention and its immediate aftermath
transpire as you expected?
We all expected the regime to collapse and state
institutions as well. The Iraqi opposition had
foreseen looting to be a problem. Looking back, it
would have been useful had the U.S. military
prevented looting. Having said that, the Iraqis are
just as much to blame, for we were given an
opportunity to form an interim government very early
in the process, and we could not reach agreement on
the makeup of that government.
Was the insurgency problem a surprise to you?
The military did its job very successfully. The
United States was effective and efficient in
destroying Saddam's regime. But clearly he had a
counterattack planned, to fuel an internal
insurgency. We collectively did not see the threat
of that insurgency until it was too late.
How did that happen?
When the regime collapsed, there really wasn't
resistance but a period of a void. Nobody filled
that vacuum. Had there been an interim government
early on, we could have filled it. We lost a year.
In addition, when the U.S. presence became
officially referred to as an occupation, it was a
self-inflicted wound.
Why not cut U.S. losses and withdraw?
It would be unwise for the United States not to
finish the job. It is half-complete. You are still
democratizing society in America after a few hundred
years. We cannot expect to turn from tyrannical
dictatorship to Jeffersonian democracy in two or
three years. We have been ruled by personalities for
decades. We need to create institutions of
government, with checks and balances within the
political system that can protect people's civil
liberties. A premature disengagement would lead to
the collapse of our fledgling government, and would
turn the situation into a full-scale civil war.
Yes, but casualties and dangers for American
troops inevitably stem from that kind of commitment.
What do you have to say to their families and
friends?
This is the toughest issue I have to face. All I can
say to them is that the United States is the only
superpower; with that power comes responsibility,
and part of that in my opinion is to free the
oppressed. The brave men and women of the U.S. armed
forces freed the oppressed in Iraq. But the goal is
bigger than just that. It is about assisting a
democracy to stand up in a turbulent, radical part
of the world. If we succeed -- when we succeed --
your country will be left with a powerful ally.
How much does Iran complicate the crisis in Iraq?
We have different types of neighbors with different
types of interests in Iraq. Iran does not want to
see a completely destabilized Iraq. It is not in its
interest to have a civil war on its border. Iran is
a neighbor we have to be mindful of. The concept of
a secular democracy with a pluralistic society in
Iraq, where federalism enshrines the protection of
ethnic and sectarian groups, is something that the
entire region fears.
What is the worst-case scenario during the coming
months and years?
The country's descent into utter chaos, with a civil
war erupting and intensifying and the U.S. presence
becoming irrelevant. It would be foolish to pretend
there isn't a possibility of civil war. There has
been too much of a debate in Washington on the
technicalities of what constitutes a civil war and
what doesn't. There are increasing tensions and
violence. We have to put a stop to this, and this
cannot be done by the Iraqis alone.
And the best-case scenario?
It is to continue to meet the political goals and
deadlines that have been set out for us in our
constitution, to create a diverse, multiethnic,
nonsectarian government through a federal structure
and to continue marking successes against the
terrorists, with a focus on improving our economic
development.
As you look to the future, are you optimistic or
pessimistic?
We have to be optimistic, but cautiously so.
Optimism is a force-multiplier, and there are enough
high-quality leaders in the country. They, along
with the commitment of the U.S. government, should
help ensure victory in Iraq.
www.orlandosentinel.com
Top |
® 