(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
No one should be surprised that President Bush's end to the Iraq war a year ago has been followed by continued violence and conflict. In recent weeks, fighting has escalated, and frustrated Iraqis are clearly showing that the occupiers are unwelcome.
Today, we know little about how the Iraqi people divide between those who support the US-allied forces, those who support the rebel groups and those who place themselves in a middle position. However, all experience from other areas of conflict indicates that it is the extremes that will set the agenda for a long time. We dare to believe that the path to a democratic and peaceful Iraq could be as long as it could potentially have been if the world community had used other means to break Saddam Hussein's regime. By choosing the path of war, the United States, the United Kingdom, and their allies have secured significant presence and control over development. At the same time, the doors have been wide open to the contrary: That the situation can get completely out of control.
Iraq is today populated by three significant groups – Sunni Muslim Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Sunni Muslim Kurds – of whom the two largest, the Shiites and the Kurds, did not escape power for decades. That the occupation in Iraq ignites the Kurds' hopes for independence is not surprising – and it must be assumed that they will not be comfortable with less independence than they got in practice after the war in 1991. In the south, the Shi'a population is now creating problems for the occupiers. They are the largest population group and can hardly demand power through a mandate other than their number. There are a number that are manifested primarily through religious identity and religious leadership.
The US problem is not least because they can hardly accept that the Kurds and Shiites are getting what they want: A separate Kurdish state, or an area with a high degree of autonomy, will be a significant challenge, not least for US-allied Turkey. And a Shiite Islamic regime in Iran is not exactly what the United States wants in Iraq.
No one should want the Iraqi people to use violence to achieve their goals – first and foremost because it is Iraqi civilians who will suffer the most from the violence. But it is almost impossible to envisage a smooth transition to democracy as long as the United States, Britain and their allies occupy the country.
Therefore, both Norway and other countries that are now present in Iraq should temporarily withdraw. At the same time, demands must be made of the United States that it hand over international control over Iraq to the UN, and that any American and British forces be subordinated to the UN. In such a situation, Norway should also be open to making soldiers available to the world organization. But in the meantime, the Norwegian forces must leave.
