Opinion - News Analysis   

U.S. finally waking up to failure in Iraq

Simon Jenkins

The Vietnam moment is at hand.

THE BAKER report on an exit strategy from Iraq, leaked this week in the United States, is as sensible as it is sensational. It rejects "staying the course" as no longer plausible and purports to seek alternatives to just "cutting and running." Stripped of political sweetening, it concludes that there is none. America must leave Iraq without preconditions and hope that its neighbours, hated Syria and Iran, can clear up the mess. This advice comes not from some anti-war coalition but from the Iraq Study Group under the former Republican Secretary of State, James Baker, set up by Congress with President George W. Bush's endorsement. Students of Iraq studies should at this point sit down and steady their nerves. Kissinger is in Paris. The Vietnam moment is at hand.

Earlier this week Mr. Bush telephoned Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to reassure him about rumours swirling through Washington that the Pentagon was about to topple him for being useless. It was reported that Mr. Maliki had just two months to get both his army and the escalating violence — running at some 100 deaths a day — under control. Washington was allegedly searching for a new "strongman" to pull the militias into line and assert the power of central government over Iraq's catatonic insecurity.

Lending force to these rumours, Republican Senator John Warner has spoken of a deadline for withdrawal and some version of a "three-state" solution. The Kurds are already autonomous. Let the same apply to the Sunnis and Shias. In the west of the country a Sunni body, the Mujahedin Shura, has come out for a six-province western region under Prince Abu Omar Baghdadi. In the south the Iranians are watching as the British cede control and a possible eight-province "confederacy" slides effortlessly under their de facto aegis. Every U.S. think-tank is now busying itself (at last) with alternative futures for Iraq.

Absolute collapse

Since accurate reporting is near impossible, the scale of that country's collapse under three years of American and British occupation is hard to measure. Civil war is normally indicated by death rates and population movements. Whether the figure of civilian deaths is 50,000 or 10 times that number is immaterial; either is a horrific comment on the impotence of the occupation. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates 365,000 internal refuges in Iraq this year alone. More are seeking asylum abroad than from any other country.

A third of Iraq's professional class is reported to have fled to Jordan, a flight of skills worse than under Saddam Hussein. U.N. monitors now report that 2,000 people a day are crossing the Syrian border. Over a hundred lecturers at Baghdad University alone have been murdered, mostly for teaching women. There are few places in Iraq where women can go about unattended or unveiled. Gunmen arrived earlier this month at a Baghdad television station and massacred a dozen of the staff, an incident barely thought worth reporting. The national museum is walled up. Electricity supply is down to four hours a day. No police uniform can be trusted.

The arrival anywhere of an army unit can be prelude to a mass killing and makes a mockery of the American policy of "security transfer." All intelligence out of Iraq suggests this is no longer a functioning state.

For all the abuse Europeans regularly heap on the American political process, it has one strength, its capacity for course-correction. A constitution heavy with checks and balances enables it to respond to new circumstances with brutal pluralism. Three years ago America went to war on a lie, a wing, and a prayer. That war has clearly failed and consensus is disintegrating. Congress subjects serving and retired generals to searing cross-examination. Senior figures go to Baghdad and, when they break free of their minders, report independently.

The debate must contemplate the painful but not unfamiliar experience of imperial retreat. As in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia the moment is delayed but the deed will be efficient. The Baker Commission, appearing in full after November's congressional election, realises the senselessness of the present bloodbath. It reportedly accepts that the continued presence of foreign forces does not prevent but adds to the chaos. American troops are in occupation but not in control. Their departure can hardly undermine security, except possibly that of Baghdad's green zone, and that is largely privatised.

A measure of the collapse is the astonishing suggestion that America find a new regime in consultation with Iran and Syria. This can only mean accepting some degree of confederacy, looking to the shadowy militias, warlords, and sheikhs for provincial and regional leadership. Last year's Iraq constitution negotiated by the American Ambassador in Baghdad, Zelmay Khalilzad, remains the best template for this. It is significant that Mr. Maliki, in a recent interview with USA Today, referred to the possibility of giving Sunni and Shia Muslims some of the autonomy enjoyed by the Kurds. Given the sheer scale of civil violence rife in and around Baghdad the price of such autonomy may be population migration, but that is happening on a massive scale already: Iraq is partitioning itself. It might at least presage a sort of political reconstruction, without which peace and prosperity are inconceivable. —

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Unprecedented intrusion
A President in disgrace
For an equitable rehabilitation policy
The end of a long friendship?
U.S. finally waking up to failure in Iraq
U.N. set for the long haul
Self-delusion of carbon-trading
Corrections and clarifications
Judiciary vs. legislature
Mattoo murder case

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu