89 000 and counting

It's been five years since the war officially started in Iraq. Blogs of Iraqi survivors are now the focus of the international community. In one of these blogs, a 14 year old girl describes how she had celebrated Id . She describes how much it meant to her to be with her family, and how happy she was that there were no bomb blasts in her town and no one, at least in her family died that day.
Another 16 year old writes about how her father was forcibly evacuated from her house in Baghdad, knocked unconscious, tied and gagged. She writes about how she learned of her father's death, who had been shot in the head that night. And how much her life has changed ever since.
Such is a plight of a war-torn country. And as history has reminded us time and again, the worst sufferers of a war such as this, are the civilians.
Other bloggers describe how they have been displaced from their homes, how they've lost all that they'd possessed, except their lives, and how most unfortunately, they've all lost someone who had been a part of them - husbands, and wives, children and fathers, mothers and sisters - all as victims to the war.
The international communtiy now places the toll of iraqi civilian deaths since the war started to be 89 000. 89 000 lives were killed over the last five years. These deaths have affected families who find it hard to cling on to hope and faith. A far greater number of Iraqis have fled the country. The international community and UNHCR have placed an estimate 2.5 million refugees now living in Syria and Jordan. These numbers are harmless on paper, but each one of them is a life that has been forcibly evacuated or has fled out of fear from home. Furthermore, the number of asylum seekers has increased and rough estimates range anywhere from 25000 to 30000.

Such is the extent of civilian damage due to the war.

The war itself was started by the US government five years ago under the presidency of George W Bush, a time in which Iraq was suspected of possessing weapons of mass destruction. President Bush justified the cause of the war then by iterating his three goals of the war - to destroy the weapons of mass destruction, deport Saddam Hussein ending his dictatorship and establish a stable democracy in Iraq. This is one of the instants in history where a superpower in this world assumes the privilege of making radical changes in a society that is far removed from its own - the concept of western "civilization" reaching out to other "less developed nations" . Even after five years of brutal fighting, only one of the three goals has been achieved - the deport of Saddam Hussein. The first goal of destroying weapons of mass destruction can only be achieved if any of those weapons existed. On the other hand, the establishment of a stable democracy has been indefinitely postpond.
In spite of this, President Bush is convinced that the war happened for good. He talked about the "success" the US army had in deporting an Iraqi dictator in a recent speech that he gave to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the iraqi war. There was no mention , however, of how weapons of mass destruction have never been found, and how a stable democracy is still a dream to the Iraqi people.
On another note, US Vice president Cheney, this Monday, made a trip to Baghdad and praised the improvement in security situations in Iraq. The same day 60 civilians were killed in a bomb blast. Also to be noted is that this statement came from a man who traveled with a pack of well armed body guards and had not left the "green zone" of high security while he was in Iraq.

The war itself is now at a stale-mate. Back in the States, Bush's presidential term comes to an end. As US presidential-hopefuls fight for the presidency, they voice their opinions on the issue of Iraq. John Mc Cain the chosen republican candidate strongly supports the war, as he always had had. He believes the troops have to stay in Iraq to ensure the establishment of democracy in Iraq. Obama and Clinton both oppose the war, with each proposing plans on how the troops ought to be withdrawn. Either way, there is no convincing solution. The damage is done. A lot remains to be done in terms of establishing a democracy as well as improving security measures. If the US withdraws its troops, would it be helpful to a country that is already very unstable politically and lacks the intelligence of the US troops? On the other hand, how long can US interfere in something that is not its business?
Indeed, Bismarck in the 19th century had wisely observed that democracy can never be "brought" to a country. This had been clear to him after an attempt by the French revolutionaries to bring democracy to Germany failed. Had he been alive now, he would have felt something more than deja vu.
Thus the saga of US superiority continues in this world. Its foreign policies have always been controversial, be it its role in Central America or in Vietnam. As the international community watches on, the Iraq war continues. There is no convincing solution at hand as changes in government take place in the US. Globally the war has been condemned, but little has been done about it. As many countries do take a stand in the war, they fail to voice the double standards the US government resorts to, to justify anything that it does, be it as destructive as a war. There is a lesson to be learned as the war goes down in history, and as we still stand at 89 000 and counting.