The international community’s new preferred narrative about Iraq is that the violence has been greatly reduced; the U.S. is drawing down its military; the humanitarian situation has stabilized; and now it is up to the Iraqi Government, assisted by UN development actors, to rebuild the country.
While it is true that there is less violence in most parts of Iraq today than there was two years ago, the levels of targeted violence and civilian death remain much higher than before the U.S. invasion. This week’s bombing in Baghdad [1] underscored what we all know: Iraq continues to have a security problem. This is also evidenced by the simple fact that international UN staff cannot access areas outside of the green zone without U.S. military escort. For all practical purposes, the UN today has no new access to the vulnerable communities they serve than they did in 2007. Iraqi NGOs themselves continue to work clandestinely. Last week five Iraqi aid workers were killed point blank in their offices.
It is expected that the drawdown of U.S. troops will create new insecurities for a variety of populations; not least the several thousand Iraqis currently employed by and living on U.S. military bases. Innocent civilians from all ethnic and religious groups could easily be targeted or caught up in renewed violence in the struggle for political power in Iraq.
While there is no longer an outpouring of refugees from Iraq, displacement persists. Over 1.5 million Iraqis continue to be displaced inside the country without the ability to reclaim their original homes and properties. Some continue to live in makeshift shelters without food and water security. Fewer people returned home in 2009 than in 2008 [2]. In a recent UN survey, 92% of Iraqis living outside their country responded that they had no intention of returning under the current circumstances.
The U.S. has spent over $50 billion on reconstruction projects and yet Iraqis today lack access to basic infrastructure such as electricity. The UN’s plan to now “develop” Iraq, without the ability to even access the communities they seek to serve, seems dubious at best.
There is no doubt that Iraq needs basic infrastructure and long-term development and that the Iraqi government should take the lead and be fully autonomous to determine its future. At the same time, it is critical that the international community, and the U.S. in particular, pay close attention to the plight of Iraq’s displaced. As the military leaves, the U.S. should increase its humanitarian assistance until the ever-promised development finally arrives. This will take time. It is too early to simply turn away from these issues and too naïve to think that the preferred narrative is the only one at play.