As people become
increasingly curious about what the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group (ISG) headed by James Baker and
Lee Hamilton will recommend to George W Bush, the
US president himself is reported to have "launched
a sweeping internal review of Iraq policy". The
purpose is "to salvage US policy in Iraq, develop
an exit strategy, and protect long-term US
interests in the region".
The unstated
part of this review is that it underscores a
feeling of confusion, even despair, related to
Iraq. Bush does not want to
preside over the
second defeat of the United States, the first
defeat being the Vietnam War. But that is where
his administration seems to be heading. An
important question is how many more reviews and
commissions the US will need before it faces the
ugly fact that it might have to withdraw from
Iraq.
The Washington Post reports: "The
president has asked all his national-security
agencies to assess the situation in Iraq, review
the options, and recommend the best way forward."
What unique insights would these agencies develop
about what went wrong in Iraq? More to the point,
in what way would their insight would be different
from what is already well known about what the US
is faced with in Iraq?
Here are some plain
truths about Iraq. As much as the Iraqis
appreciated the toppling of a brutal dictator,
they now hold the US presence as the chief reason
for their continued misery and endless deaths.
That is an unfair assessment, but it is also a
factual one. It is hard to take a scientific
measurement of how many Iraqis want the Americans
to stay in their country and how many want them to
leave. However, the US might have reached a point
when its best option is to leave Iraq.
But
what happens if the US gets out? The sectarian war
is not likely to be affected either way. That is
an unfortunate development, which no one can pin
on the US presence, except through circuitous
logic. That logic goes along the following lines:
since democracy is about the rule of the majority,
America's insistence on inserting democracy has
only heightened the sectarian differences in Iraq.
The intensification of sectarian
differences is also related to sectarian-based
hatred. However, that was bound to happen because
democracy transformed the traditionally tormented
group, the Shi'ites, into a governing group. And a
governing group in the Iraqi political arena
brutalizes the group that is not in control of the
government. The Sunnis did that to the Shi'ites
when they were in charge, but the shoe is on the
other foot now.
What is the solution to
the sectarian war in Iraq? That is also obvious
but not attainable. The obvious part is that Iraq
needs professional security forces that can raise
themselves from sectarian-based hatred and serve
as an honest law-enforcement entity and work
assiduously to eradicate sectarian-based killings.
The unattainable part is that Iraq is not likely
to develop such a force any time soon, regardless
of whether the US stays or leaves.
Bush
faces a situation in Iraq where his previous
swagger is no longer in control. Because the
security situation in Iraq is worsening, the
American people want their country out. However,
for Bush, getting out would be an admission of
failure, and being forced out would be nothing
short of humiliation of the lone superpower, whose
forces could topple Saddam Hussein through an
impressive show of "shock and awe", but seem to
have become hapless before the rising tide of
insurgency and sectarian warfare.
It also
seems that Bush has ordered a review of Iraq
policy because he has a strong sense that the ISG
will make certain recommendations that go against
his staunch frame of reference regarding Iraq and
its immediate neighbors. While that ISG's
recommendations will be driven by a powerful sense
of realism aimed at minimizing America's losses in
Iraq and in the Middle East at large, Bush's
preference about those issues is driven primarily
by his private sense of moral certainty and his
fundamental beliefs, which do not allow him to
make concessions to the "forces of evil". And Iran
and Syria, in his frame of reference, present
nothing but evil forces.
As the ISG is
wrapping up its series of interviews, British
Prime Minister Tony Blair came out with his own
solution to the instability in Iraq and the larger
Middle East. He is interested in engaging Iran and
Syria. In addition, Blair told the ISG that the
most decisive step that the US must take is to
resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For
improving the security situation in Iraq,
according to Blair, Washington must "improve its
[Iraq's] army, end sectarianism within its
security forces, and distribute revenue more
fairly across the country". The Bush
administration has no particular quarrel with
those suggestions, but it is not yet ready to
assign the resolution of Palestinian conflict its
top priority.
Now that former defense
secretary Donald Rumsfeld is out of the picture,
the Pentagon is doing its own assessment for the
president with renewed vigor. According to
reports, the military brass is asking such
questions as "Where are we going? What are we
trying to do? Are we going to get there this way?"
US military officials are also looking at the
scenarios of keeping more forces as well as fewer
forces in Iraq.
In the meantime, the
Democrats have their own agenda, which assigns top
priority to a phased withdrawal of US troops from
Iraq. It is possible that the Bush administration
is also using its back channels to feel the pulse
of major Arab countries to see whether they have
an "Arab plan" for stabilizing Iraq, a plan in
which Iran has no role. The Sunni Arab states
would be most eager to play a leading role in
Iraq, but they have to be convinced that they have
the full backing of the Bush administration.
As 2006 draws to a close, Iraq has not
only become the most studied conflict on the part
of the US government for the purpose of finding an
"honorable" solution, but it is also a place where
America's foreign-policy failure is becoming
glaringly obvious. Like a heavyweight wrestler who
is exhausted in a long but losing battle, the US
refuses to go down.
That is one reason it
is conducting endless appraisals of its failed
foreign policy in Iraq. In the final analysis, the
Bush administration might even accept a defeat and
get out of Iraq. However, it is not at all ready
to lose its influence, prestige and presence in
the Middle East at large. Three other countries
also understand the implications of America's
defeat and ouster from Iraq. They are Iran, Syria,
and Israel.
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
.)
