COMMENTARY A strategic game on
Iraq By Ehsan Ahrari
The Bush administration is desperately
trying to maintain the momentum stemming from the
death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and from the
creation of a unity government in Iraq by drawing
public attention to a summit on Iraq that took
place at the Camp David presidential retreat in
Maryland this week.
President George W
Bush's top national-security team was at hand:
Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Stephen
Hadley, and the military and intelligence chiefs.
In the games for which Washington is famous, the
announcement for the quest of a new strategy may
be just that: a game, a political ritual.
A number of top military commanders and
policy wonks joined the
top
civilian leadership, some in person and some via
video conferences, to generate a new strategy. But
why such a quest now, more than three years after
the invasion of Iraq?
If the Iraqi
imbroglio could be settled by creating much hoopla
about a "new" strategy, the Americans would have
been out of the country a long time ago. The
reality is that there is no new strategy. At best,
it is likely to be old wine in a new bottle. As
long as the top decision-makers are the same
people, no serious discussion can bring about an
end to the maelstrom in Iraq.
The
operative phrase in Washington this week is
"revamping" Iraq strategy, or even looking for a
new one. To initiate the search for the new
strategy, the most important issue is to look at
the "old" strategy and see why and where it needs
changing.
It comprises the following:
staying put in Iraq, killing the insurgents,
helping the national-unity government, lowering
the potential for a civil war, and stopping the
growing sectarian killings, which appear
unaffected after the death of Zarqawi. The US also
wishes to create a highly professional security
force before it pulls out, and intends to minimize
the influence of Iran.
So what needs to be
revamped here?
The chief problem with the
US strategy is its sustained presence in the
country, but pulling out is not an option.
Congressman John Murtha - a Democrat, a
former marine and an outspoken critic of America's
presence in Iraq - says the only effective way of
getting out of Iraq is by focusing on training
Iraqi forces. He is right. However, there are at
least two serious problems.
First,
training professional forces takes time, assuming
that the insurgency stops targeting them. However,
the longer the Americans stay in Iraq, the
stronger the insurgency is likely to become, as
the US presence is its rallying call.
Second, America's continued presence in
Iraq is perceived as a cover for its real purpose,
which is to colonize Iraq, making the strategic
environment in Iraq's neighborhood favorable to
the dominance of Israel.
True or not, this
is how America's presence in Iraq is being
packaged for public consumption by the insurgents.
Zarqawi was a master propagandist in emphasizing
this point. That is one reason, despite a high
degree of ambivalence among Sunni Iraqis toward
his gruesome tactics, that he managed to survive
as along as he did.
Why the summit
now? Critics say the summit appears to be
largely a public relations campaign aimed at
creating an impression within the US that Bush is
very much in charge of the "war" in Iraq.
Even the use of the word "summit" is
consequential, since it underscores the
participation of America's top leadership and
"experts" on Iraq and the Middle East. The
exercise becomes quite significant in light of the
killing of Zarqawi and the publicity it generated
- the US military got its man.
However,
this momentum will quickly dissipate if the
insurgents seize their own momentum by carrying
out gruesome attacks, especially on prominent
Iraqis.
People also point out that as long
as Bush relies so heavily on the advice of Cheney
and Rumsfeld, visible changes in strategy are
unlikely.
Congressman Murtha may be
speaking for a number of domestic critics of Bush
in this regard. He argues that the effectiveness
of the use of high-tech platforms to kill Zarqawi
underscores the fact that the US does not have to
remain inside Iraq. Thus he hopes that the summit
results in a timetable for a speedy withdrawal.
Regarding the advice of "experts" and
"specialists" on Iraq, what new advice are they
likely to give that they have failed to offer
before? If reliance on experts were the way to win
the war in Iraq, the US would have been a victor a
long time ago.
Or maybe the experts are
there simply to repeat what the administration
wants to hear. It is legendary at using this
tactic.
In short, don't expect the
"summit" to produce major policy pronouncements on
US troop reduction. The US military has to study
the impact of Zarqawi's death on the pace and
scope of the Iraqi insurgency away from the
glitter and limelight of public relations. This
can only come after weeks and months, not days.
When the US invaded Iraq, the decision was
easily carried out. Stabilizing Iraq remains a
Sisyphean task. No matter how hard he Bush
administration tries, the insurgents unfasten any
progress with considerable ease.
If there
is indeed a winning strategy for Bush in Iraq, no
one in Washington or Baghdad has found it yet.
Ehsan Ahrari is the CEO of
Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria, Virginia-based
defense consultancy. He can be reached at
eahrari@cox.net or
stratparadigms@yahoo.com. His columns appear
regularly in Asia Times Online. His website:
www.ehsanahrari.com.
(Copyright 2006
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing
.)
