The War in Iraq : Time for a pullout?

The War in Iraq is getting bloodier and makes for grim reading for the Bush Administration and more importantly for the families of the fallen both in the US and Iraq. The month of October has proven to be the bloodiest in terms of body bags for the coalition and the Iraqi police. The realities on the ground are clear – Iraq has descended into civil war and the it is the militias rather than the Iraqi Government that is in charge. Countless media reports have now shown that the Mehdi Army loyal to the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the Badr Brigade loyal to the Shia grouping SCIRI are now in control of vast areas of the Shia dominated South, Central and the East of the country. The Sunnis backed mainly by the Al-Qaeda and remnants of Saddam’s Baath Party are now competing for territory in Iraq. The Iraqi Police and defense forces have been reduced to the status of bystanders, chillingly, just waiting to be blown up by either warring faction for being loyal to the ‘infidel’ Coalition forces. Last week’s siege of the southern city of Amarah by the Mehdi Army was another example of the control exerted by the militias and the level of sophistication available to them thanks to the generous backers in Tehran and Damascus. The situation as it exists is untenable and a major military shift in US policy is urgent and necessary.

The response of the beleaguered White House has been to call in the Generals and take stock of the situation at hand. Reports indicate that Bush is going to “stay the course” and a pullout is not in the offing anytime soon. While the gung-ho attempts to remain committed to Iraq is applaudable, clearly a tectonic shift is required at the Pentagon and in Iraq to salvage what is left of the country. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld has been getting the necessary backing to stay in office by Bush and the far-right of the Republicans. While his planning for war has been impeccable his plan for keeping the peace has been dismal. Retired Army generals who have served under him are clearly asking for his ouster. Citing poor planning, inadequate troops on the ground and mismanagement leading to the Abu Ghraib scandal as some of the reasons that the Generals are seen backing away from their former boss. Some argue that the same Generals okayed the very plans they are now blaming Rumsfeld for having conjured up. As with any war, politics is the first shot to be fired. Republicans are blaming Democrats for backing such Generals and financing their airtime. Democrats are countering the Republicans by saying the war in Iraq was ill planned and the time has become for a re-think in strategy.

Bush on his own has also added fuel to the ‘change in course’ fire by accepting comparisons between the situation in Iraq and the famous Tet offensive in Vietnam that ultimately turned public sentiment against the unending war in Vietnam. The chorus has been rising within his administration to change course or face further backlashes at home and admonishment from the Islamic states for furthering a blood bath in Iraq. Bush’s response has been, well, vintage Bush, he has vowed to “stay the course” even if the only one’s backing him are “Laura and my dog Barney”. Such dwindling support for Bush is fast turning into reality and a course correction or a sobering reality check in equal measure is urgently needed.

It is pertinent to analyze the options that are available to the Coalition for its future in Iraq. Al-Qaeda and Jihadists were itching for the war to start in Iraq to reduce it to the quagmire it has now become. It has become a clarion call against the ‘crusade’ being carried out by Bush. A visible propaganda agenda for the group. The Coalition had also had made it seem that the elimination of the former commander of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would ultimately finish Al-Qaeda from Iraq. There lies the inherent flaw in the understanding of the Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is now a global movement and not a terror outfit. They work on a decentralized network of cells akin to Special Forces units of all major Armies. Killing one commander of Al-Qaeda will only lead to another one taking charge, as Abu Hamza al-Masri has done. Al-Qaeda can only be defeated if a sustained and unified offensive takes place against them by Islamic armies or population itself. Currently, with Shia-Sunni tensions reaching alarming proportions a sustained unified effort is unlikely. As for the militias on the ground, the Americans are to share the blame for not doing enough to contain clerics like Sadr. Further the alienation felt by the Grand Ayotollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest priest of the Shias in Iraq, has further moved the Shias away from the Coalition. More significantly, by allowing Sadr to take part in the recently held elections has only given political legitimacy to the militant movement. In such a scenario where a party, whether Shia or Sunni, that is in charge of Parliament on the one hand is also in charge of the street through strong arm tactics is a democracy for the delusional.

The need to engage Iraq’s neighbors and the key backers of various warring factions is a must. The Bush administration will have to forego history and a little pride and will have to talk to Damascus and Tehran. By keeping these two key players out of Iraq, it is only helping them fuel a covert system of backing the Islamic radicals in Iraq. A former Secretary of State once commented that in diplomacy you don’t talk to friends, you talk to your enemies. In the case of Iraq, the Americans are seen only talking to their friends rather than take Iran and Syria on board to get some achievable results in Iraq. White House officials do confirm secret meetings between the US and Iran on Iraq, but understandably, the US will not hold pubic conversations with Iran with their current face-off on Iran’s nuclear programme.

The other key facilitator in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia. Good relations between Bush and the house of Saud run generations back. Although, of late, the relationship between the two have soured post 9/11 and the War in Iraq. King Abdullah has been keen to shed his image as a friend of the US and has buckled under pressure from the religious Wahabis in the inner circle to gradually wean its relations with Washington. This led to US forces relocating in Bahrain and also to a further chill in the two countries relations. With the Saudis now not actively interested in peace, and with a majority of the Sunni militias getting its backing from Saudi financers, the road to peace is further winding. The UN is not interested in cleaning the mess the US created. It has lost too mush time and personnel in Iraq, with the bombings of its headquarters in 2003 killing its chief envoy, Sergio de Mello.

In such a tenuous situation, no single solution seems fit for use. A gradual troop withdrawal and maybe introducing a peacekeeping force under the aegis of the Arab League can help quell some of the violence. Then again the question of a federal re-structuring of Iraq, a plan backed enthusiastically by the Kurds, is always on the table. However, partitioning the country will never be acceptable to Bush, who will for all times to come be held responsible for the breakup of a secular though dictator state. But failing to find a credible solution will relegate Bush to the list of war-mongering leaders who knew war but could never make peace. That reality is now beginning to show on Bush.