Victory may not ensure lasting peace

Now that coalition forces have taken control of Baghdad, military triumph in the war on Iraq is virtually guaranteed. But long-term peace and rebuilding may not be won as quickly.\nPictures of Iraqis celebrating may cover newspaper pages today, but some IU faculty members say the struggle for peace is just beginning.\n"It's much easier to militarily conquer a country, but it's always tougher to govern a country in times of peace," said Nazif Shahrani, chair of IU's Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. "The days following the end of the war will be crucial." \nU.S. and British leaders seem to be heeding the call. Preparations for Iraq's new postwar government are already underway. Even as fighting continues, the U.S. is initiating the first stages of an interim government that could be put into place as early as this week.\nSome critics consider such plans a snub to European nations attempting to stall the rebuilding of post-war Iraq until a large role for the United Nations is agreed upon. \n"I think it would be smart of America, particularly after not being able to get the support of much of the world to wage this war, to try to bring back support for what the U.S. is doing," Shahrani said. "The best way to do that would be to allow the U.N. to help in the reconstruction of Iraq." \nThe Bush administration has been hesitant to relinquish control to the United Nations. President Bush's national security adviser said the American-led alliance has shed "life and blood" in the Iraq war and would assume the lead role in rebuilding Iraq itself, with minimal support from the United Nations.\nNot including the United Nations or other countries in the rebuilding of Iraq could have detrimental effects on U.S. relations abroad. But that's not the only problem, said Salih Altoma, IU professor emeritus of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures.\n"There is a burden to face in convincing the whole region that America is truly committed to the ideas of democracy and that it is not there to colonize or impose its own regime," Altoma said.\nThe potential for Iraqi militants to overthrow the newly installed postwar government is also a threat. Most regular Iraqi soldiers will likely be rehabilitated into a national army after the war, but the paramilitary forces could be a much more dangerous threat. \nSome senior military officials have even warned that Iraqi militia groups who survive the war as "sleepers" could re-emerge later and destabilize the new postwar regime. \n"What happens to the Iraqis who have lost so many loved ones in this war?" Altoma said. "How can we insure they will not take any action against the U.S. in the future?"\nShahrani said the threat of rebellion will increase if U.S. and British forces choose to occupy Iraq. \n"If the Iraqis are not liberated as promised, people will certainly be resentful," he said. The U.S. and the U.K. forces have already conquered the country, but actually winning peace in Iraq, winning politically in Iraq, won't be able to happen for quite some time.\nPlans for Iraq's new post-war government are not yet finalized, but predictions are already being made as to who the next leader of Iraq might be. \nShahrani cited Ahmed Chalabi as the most likely candidate to lead Iraq next. Chalabi was born in Iraq but now lives primarily in the U.S. and London. He led one of the foremost opposition movements against Saddam Hussein's regime, the Iraqi National Congress, but has said he will not seek political leadership. \nThe conflict from Iraq is not yet over. Military victory may be certain, but the country is far from establishing stability and peace\n"Whatever kind of government is put into effect in Iraq after the war, what guarantee do we have that this new government can be accepted in the long-term? Iraq is an integral part of a larger world: the Arab world and the Muslim world. It cannot be unrelated from these two important influences that do not see eye-to-eye with the American way"