[Irak]Le bilan apres 2 mois d'occupation [En anglais]
Voici des extraits d'un article tiré de The Economist de cette semaine (pourtant un magasine tres tres pro guerre), au sujet de l'occupation US en Irak :
AMERICA will stay in Iraq as long as it takes to get the job done, and not a day longer. So insists Paul Bremer, the ex-diplomat who heads the Provisional Authority that ostensibly runs the country. The phrase is meant to reassure Iraqis. But after two months under occupation, few seem impressed with the job America is doing. Worse, many Iraqis still don't know what it is that America is trying to achieve.
If it is to restore basic services, then yes, petrol queues are getting shorter, and the power supply less spotty. But if the aim is to improve security, Saddam and cronies remain at large, American troops are getting shot at more often, and Baghdad still shuts down under a nightly curfew. And if America's goal is to plant the seeds of democracy and good governance, the movement Iraqis perceive is backwards.
“America=Saddam”, proclaimed the placards in one of the demonstrations that have become a daily feature in Baghdad. Silly and overstated, perhaps, but the occupying powers do seem to be systematically alienating different segments of the population. This week, it was, among others, civil servants and soldiers rendered jobless by the dissolution of Iraq's 400,000-man army and overstaffed Ministry of Information. One group of pious Muslims protested the arrest of a Shia cleric. Another group gathered to condemn the invasion of privacy and female honour by American soldiers searching for weapons.
Even the exiled opposition politicians who have been America's main Iraqi allies have now taken offence. Announcing that he would simply appoint Iraqi advisers to various ministries, Mr Bremer put paid to the opposition's hopes of playing a leading role in choosing an interim government. The 25-30-man team would, in theory, gradually assume control of their ministries from American bosses. Yet the move appeared to abrogate the previous understanding that a yet-to-be-formed assembly of perhaps 300 representative Iraqis would themselves select a provisional national authority to fill ministerial posts. Chagrined, the opposition say they will go ahead and convene an assembly anyway.
The trouble is that America's instruments of control are not very effective. Declaring a ban on weapons looks well on paper. It was quickly realised, though, that the ban could not extend to the Kalashnikov assault rifles found in millions of Iraqi homes. Even restricted to heavier weapons, the ban has not persuaded many Iraqis to hand over what is in many cases their most valuable property.
Meanwhile, large swathes of the country, particularly in the Sunni and Baathist heartland north-west of Baghdad, remain danger zones for American troops. The soldiers themselves are not trained for the type of policing duties they are now required to undertake. Gaps in language and standard of living create constant friction.
In one recent incident, soldiers of the 4th infantry division killed four wedding guests in Samarra, a previously peaceable town, after mistaking a happy caravan of horn-tooting, gun-firing cars for attackers. Knowledge of the country is extremely rare among coalition officials: one of Mr Bremer's aides was recently overheard asking an Iraqi what the difference is between a tribal sheikh and a religious sheikh. And while America spends $1 billion a week maintaining its 150,000 men in Iraq, the country's 25m citizens survive on something like $10 a head
Afligeant, n'est il pas ?
Je n'ai pas le courage de tout traduire, si quelqu'un se sent de le faire, qu'il n'hesite pas..
Les parties en gras ne le sont pas sur l'article original, mais ce sont les parties que j'ai trouvé les plus choquantes.
Laissons quand même quelques mois pour que ça commence à se remettre en place. Reconstruire un pouvoir pourri jusqu'à la moëlle par un parti unique, ce n'est pas d'une trivialité sans nom (et je parle de l'Irak là )