Opinion - Editorials   

Dithering over Iraq

There are strong indications that the occupation army in Iraq will not be able to achieve its target of stabilising Baghdad by the end of September. When the United States drew up its plan at the beginning of 2007, it calculated that the induction of an additional 20,000 combat troops would be sufficient to accomplish the task. It also believed that the quelling of the sectarian strife would create conditions in which political reconciliation and the restoration of infrastructure would be possible. However, field commanders now concede that only a third of Baghdad's districts have been brought under control although the troop build-up is almost complete. Foreign troops have not received any significant assistance from the Iraqi army or police forces. The locally raised units made available for the Baghdad operations are either not strong enough or under-trained or under the sway of Shia political parties. Meanwhile, as expected, the resistance has become all the more active in areas outside the capital. Such being the ground reality, an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens have concluded that it is time to bring the soldiers home since the army is involved in a futile exercise. However, American politicians — apparently haunted by the fear that they could be accused of cowardice — are still dithering over the issue.

The Republicans know they are on the defensive and many of them are likely to cut their links with the Bush administration when the promised "fall turnover" fails to materialise. But, it is up to the Democrats to set the terms of the debate, which they have failed to do until now. They might not have been at fault in refusing to push through a funding bill that would have set a timeline for a troop withdrawal in the event of the Iraqi government not fulfilling the benchmarks set for it. They lack the strength in both Houses of Congress to overcome a presidential veto. All candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential election have declared that troop commitment in Iraq cannot be open-ended. However, only those who have no hope of securing the nomination or currently are not members of Congress have categorically called for an early withdrawal. Two of the leading candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, do not appear to envisage an Iraq that is completely free of U.S. troops. Their opinion could have been moulded by the concern that chaos would be unleashed if a powerful military is not on hand to prevent it. It is just as likely that Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama and the rest are hedging their bets and will continue to do so until a further deterioration of the Iraqi situation forces them to make up their minds.

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

Stories in this Section

Deploying reserves imaginatively
Dithering over Iraq
A general battles to hold his position
A fusion solution to the energy problem
The Venezuela media battle is about race too
"Flab in armed forces needs to be reduced"
Corrections and Clarifications
Governor's decision
National shame
Review reservation

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu