This is Iraq, 15 months after US-troops rushed into the country, toppled its longtime dictator Saddam Hussein and hastily imposed a chaotic occupation, which spurred a series of ferocious insurgencies and a wave of fundamentalist terror which included numerous suicide car bomb attacks on civilian targets never seen before. This is Iraq, where things are named in a way that the opposite is true. It is now a sovereign country, though still occupied by a “multinational force,” consisting of 138,000 American soldiers and around 15,000 from other nations.

Sovereignty in name

The coalition force has complete freedom of operation, which cannot be stopped or vetoed by Iraq’s sovereign government. UN Security Council Resolution No. 1546, drafted in June, stipulates that the coalition should seek “to reach agreement (with Iraqis) on the full range of fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations.”

The “multi-national” face of this force is deeply questioned by the fact that its lead nation comprises almost 90 percent of troops. Amongst the remaining 10 percent are 300 Hungarian transport and logistic soldiers, and even smaller contingents from exotic nations like Mongolia, Fiji and Tonga.

Iraq’s interim government, though not elected, “reflects the broadest possible representation of social groups and religious and ethnic communities.” The new government, however, was created out of the USimposed Provisional Governing Council, with the only difference being that Ahmed Chalabi was dropped due to accusations that he provided false information to the US about Saddam’s weapons programs, as well as allegations that he disclosed sensitive information about Iran’s secret communications codes. “Same donkey, different saddle,” as a proverb in Iraq says.

These imposed and self-instilled bodies have the notorious deficiency to overrepresent US-friendly exile-groups. They exclude more radical communities like the strictly anti-occupation Shia movement of the fire-brand preacher Muqtada al Sadr, or vast segments of the Sunni community, which are outnumbered by Arab Shias and Kurds, but were formerly the administrative and military elite in Iraq’s recent history, not only under Saddam, but under Ottoman rule or British occupation.

Former agent in power

The new president, the soft-spoken Sheik Al Yawer, who always appears in his white “dishdashe,” the traditional Arab nightshirtlike clothing covering him from shoulders to feet, is the scorn of the same Sunni Shamar tribe that cooperated with Iraq’s British colonial or semi-colonial masters in the 1920s and 30s.

THE HANDING OVER OF POWER Sovereignty for the new provisional Iraqi authority is the first step in a long and arduous process as the country works to ward off chaos and destruction.

The president was a member of the old Iraqi Governing Council, and like new Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a former Baath functionary and secret agent sent abroadwhere he changed sides and became a CIA and MI6 confidant and exiled politician. Allawi, however, also survived an assasination attempt by Saddam’s agents in London. Shia by denomination, Allawi always tried to appeal to frustrated, deceived and predominantly Sunni members of the Baath party and the Iraqi security apparatus. His people are the same who provided false information to the British that Saddam would be able to launch weapons of mass-destruction within 45 minutes, an argument that found its way into Tony Blair’s infamous dossier from September 2002, which opened the propaganda battle in favor of the war to “disarm Saddam.”

Weapons left unverified before attack

Iraq was attacked, invaded and occupied under a pretext which could never be verified. Weapons of mass destruction were never found, despite a desperate search by more than 1,000-member specialized US task-force, the Iraqi Survey Group, whose leader, David Kay, recently stepped down admitting: “We were all wrong.”

The next justification used by coalition authorities was that Iraq was being liberated from a mass-murdering regime, from a quasi Middle Eastern Hitler – which alone made the operation worthwhile. While the majority of the Iraqis welcomed the removal of the brutal and inhuman Saddam junta, most now feel occupied by a foreign power. “US soldiers: Job done, go home,” can be read on popular graffiti in the Iraqi capital. And then infamous pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison were brought to light. “You want us to tell something about human rights?” many Iraqis now ask.

Iraq houses America’s largest embassy. Its 1,700-plus employees continue where the dissolved occupation authority stopped. The only difference is that Saddam’s Republican Palace - the former seat of Bremer’s authority - is now called the US Embassy annex. The new US Ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, did choose, for symbolic reasons, another building in the Green Zone as the formal seat of the US Embassy.

The fate of Saddam Hussein

With Iraq now a sovereign nation, Prime Minister Allawi could request the handover of top US prisoner Saddam Hussein and 11 other former regime leaders to Iraqi authorities. But as of yet, Saddam and the other 11 remain under tight US custody, the only way to protect them from being lynched by angry survivors of their rule, or freed by supporters.

Saddam was brought before an Iraqi investigative judge July 1, who read Saddam the list of charges against him. The special tribunal, set up last December to put on trial members of the former regime for their assumed war crimes and crimes against humanity, is in such a disorganized state the investigative judge had to be “borrowed” from Iraq’s Central Criminal Court. Many of these realities have, for the most part, been kept secret from the American public, facts that point to a total failure of the US administration to handle the post-war Iraq. After 15 months, electricity is only on nine-to-12 hours a day, many areas are still without clean water and there is still a shortage of medicine and provisions for hospitals. Iraqi citizens remain horrified by the prospect of falling victim to unchecked criminals. Kidnappings for ransom are threatening the fragile middle-class. Whoever disposes large amounts of money transfers his business, family and very often himself to a neighboring country like Jordan or Syria.

Hope remains

The virtual power transfer to the Iraqi interim government has given the government an Iraqi face. While US troops still patrol the city, there are more Iraqi police officers, a fact much appreciated by local citizens. Allawi, despite his murky past, has proven to be a skilled politician, knowing the psychology of his compatriots.

His tough talk on security issues touches on popular feelings. At the same time, he is restricted by the complicated power balance which keeps this awkward leadership together.

People have started to go out in the evenings once again. While they are few in number and they return home early, it is a start. After midnight, Baghdad remains deserted. But life before occasionally proves to be colorful. Along Jadriya Street, in southern Baghdad, young families, businessmen and clerks flock to famous fast-foodshops with plastic garden chairs and tables. Hotdogs, kebab and soft drinks make them forget the nuisances of everyday life. “It’s the first time for two months that I am going out again,” confesses transport entrepreneur Abdelrahman Jalal. His friends and partners, Ramadan Hassan from Nasiriya (south Iraq) and Haidar Yussuf from Kirkuk (north Iraq) visit with him, allowing them all to overcome their angst. They trade long stories about unsafe transport roads and about truck loads of goods that disappeared through the actions of criminal gangs who roam around with heavy machine guns and RPGs. Jalal worked as sub-contractor for the US military until he was forced to leave after receiving threatening telephone messages. One such message said: “This will be your last load if you continue,” Jalal says. Jalal knows about three kidnappings on the street where he lives. One doctor and two children had been abducted and released, only in exchange for thousands of dollars. In rural Shia Nasiriya, life isn’t much better.

“Outside people came to the city,” says Hassan. They are followers of the militant preacher Muqtada al Sadr. Many of them make a living from criminal activities, stealing here and there. In multi-ethnic Kirkuk, tensions between Arabs, Kurds and Turcoman often result in shoot-outs and bombings. Jalal and Yussuf happen to be Turcoman, while Hassan is Shia. But they are old friends, and their ethnic backgrounds were never relevant to their friendship.

”The people are tired”

The people of Iraq do have hope with the formal changeover. “We are happy about the new government,” says Jalal. “The most important is that it should restore security.” Hassan agrees. “President Yawar is a Sunni, but he is also fully acceptable to the Shia. Most cabinet members are experts, people with knowledge and competence.” Allawi is a moderate Shia, but as a former Baathist and Pan-Arabist, he has good standing with the Sunnis.

“We hope, it will be a neutral and balanced government, that creates stability,” adds Yussuf. “That it serves the people, because the people are tired. They had too much to suffer. Three wars, the sanctions, and now the occupation – our fourth war.” Yussuf says he is tired, his hair is gray and though he is only 45 years old, his face is covered with deep wrinkles. He had been a soldier in Iraq’s eight-year war against Iran (1980-1988), when hundreds of thousands died on both sides of the battle.

Opinion polls show that a good part of the population is eager to provide the new government with a certain bona fide trust. One recent poll, authorized by the now-defunct US occupation authority, showed that 63 percent believe things will improve. Only 15 percent supposed the opposite. However, the same poll showed that 55 percent would like to see the US troops leave “immediately.” In January, the same number was only 28 percent, a likely fallout of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers. “This government,” says Mohammed Abdel Jabbar, an editor of Baghdad daily Al-Sabah, “can replace the lack of elected legitimacy with a legitimacy of achievements. The public support will build only if they achieve several basic demands: security, food, work and elections.”

This is especially so in advance of the first free elections, to be held, at the latest, by the end of January 2005. Big question marks loom ahead. Will there be enough security restored so that voters can be registered. Will polling stations be open? Ballots cast and counted without major attempts of intimidation and manipulation?

For businessmen in Jadriya, the answers are far in the distance, and prompt absurd jokes. “Suppose, Saddam somehow gets released, and there were elections. He would win them straight on,” says Abdelrahman Jalal. “Nonsense,” counters his friend Yussuf.

“If Saddam returns to power, not a single person will stay in the country.”