The American and British armies do not have to withdraw from Iraq. They are
powerful and can stay as long as they wish, even if entombed like French
legionnaires in desert forts and sustained at great cost in lives and money.
Their governments are a different matter. They need reasons for occupying
foreign countries and now face humiliation in the greatest war of
ideological intervention since Vietnam. They are praying for their armies to
save them from this humiliation.
This week David Petraeus, the talented American general in Baghdad, reports on
the progress of his “surge” strategy to an impatient Congress. Two thirds of
Americans have joined two thirds of world opinion in wanting a swift
American withdrawal, defined as inside a year. Petraeus’s predicament is
therefore agonising. He cannot possibly offer victory. He can offer only
defeat or a desperate clinging on, as now. For George Bush, his
commander-in-chief, only the last is imaginable. Petraeus must therefore
forget about a better yesterday or a better tomorrow, and concentrate on
today.
Here he is trapped. The more optimistic his progress report, the more it will
support clinging on as now. Bush and Gordon Brown will grasp at any straw
that allows them to postpone withdrawal. They grasp at the success of
supporting the Sunni Islamic Army against Al-Qaeda cells in Anbar province,
despite Bush having to describe as “our friends” Saddamist thugs whom he
spent four years trying to eliminate, notably in Falluja.
Bush and Brown grasp at the lower kill rate that has followed the fortifying
and garrisoning of “forward operating bases”, mostly in the Sunni suburbs of
Baghdad. This has turned American troops into mercenaries defending the
Sunnis against Shi’ite militias and police. But it has brought respite to
parts of Baghdad and enabled the Americans to talk of the “political mosaic”
of Iraq, of sheikhs and tribes and local nation building from the ground up.
There is even a murmur of that formerly unmentionable word, partition.
Petraeus is, by all accounts, too intelligent a general to let these straws
become an easy reason for hanging on indefinitely. He knows that any soldier
can flood a theatre with armour and claim to have it under control, that
success can be assessed only when that control ends. He knows there is no
endgame to the surge. He has all but given up on a “retrained” Iraqi army as
future guardian of order in Iraq. Like the police it has mostly been
hijacked by the Shi’ites.
Petraeus knows he must also guard against the most desperate reason for
staying: “After me, the deluge.” With no political progress in Iraq, the
longer the stay the greater the deluge. The broken-backed Iraqi government
is useless, reduced to pleading for the coalition to stay largely for its
own protection. This is the trap into which the surge strategy walked from
the start. It was militarily excellent but politically vacuous.
The resolution in Iraq can start only when the state of denial in the White
House and Downing Street ends. This hurdle was well illustrated by the false
parallel drawn by Bush last month with Vietnam, from which he believed
America withdrew too soon.
In Vietnam America was aiding an ally against an external foe who sought to
conquer and enslave it. The American occupation of Iraq has been utterly
different. It was doomed not just by its cruelty and ineptitude but because
its neoconservative objective - a pro-western, pro-Israeli, capitalist
democracy - was ludicrously utopian. Occupation spurred insurgency and
destroyed order. The only real parallel was that in both Vietnam and Iraq
intervention led to the outcome America least wanted. In the former it
expanded communist influence in southeast Asia. In Iraq it is likely to
replace a secular, antiIranian regime with a clerical, pro-Iranian one.
Meanwhile, the degradation of Iraq has made it the most desperate and
dangerous country in the world. A once-rich nation is as poor, chaotic and
devoid of hope as the worst in sub-Saharan Africa. Two million people have
fled their homes. More than half the professional class has disappeared.
Those who have been turned back at the borders face famine, disease and
murder in camps disowned by the Americans and the British. Utilities are not
repaired and operate at or below their level under Saddam Hussein. Cholera
has appeared and child mortality is worse than during sanctions in the
1990s. Iraq’s heritage and its ancient Mesopotamian sites are looted.
None of this is getting any better. If Petraeus could offer a new political
dispensation to run alongside a gradual reduction of his surge, he might be justified in proclaiming optimism. He cannot do this, as a rush of
congressional reports has indicated – notably two indictments of current
policy from the Government Accountability Office and the National
Intelligence Estimate. None of the political items in Congress’s 18
“benchmarks” required of the surge has been met. The constitution brokered
last year by Zalmay Khalilzad, the then US ambassador, proposed ways of
sharing oil revenue and devolving security. Even that is in ruins.
The one thing Petraeus can offer Washington is a smokescreen of partial
success behind which to begin a rolling disengagement: a steady withdrawal
of units to bases, transferring control in each enclave to whichever militia
group enjoys local loyalty. He would make the success of the surge a reason
for withdrawing rather than for staying.
For all the abuse thrown by Americans at the British retreat in Basra, it
offers a test of such withdrawal. Blood has undoubtedly flowed. Two newly
autonomous provincial governors have been murdered. The Iran-backed Badr
brigade has fought the Mahdists over the spoils of victory. Deals have been
cut with the Iraqi army and the militia-dominated police.
The result is hardly democracy but full-scale civil war has not broken out and
living conditions appear no worse than when Britain was supposedly in
charge. Now that the chief targets of insurgency machismo, British soldiers,
have departed there is a chance of a political equilibrium that might enable
the people of Basra to rebuild their lives and accept aid for their battered
infrastructure. Such a policy should have been put to the test three years
ago.
Rather than criticise the British for cutting and running, the Americans might
study how Iraqi factions have filled the power vacuum. If relative peace is
sustained with British troops confined to base, the same might apply even
among the more divided communities of the north.
Sooner or later Petraeus will have to try some version of the British way.
Wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan are not simple fights over
territory. They are messy interventions in other peoples’ affairs that
almost always yield a bloody nose. The American public has judged that
whatever Bush was trying to do in Iraq he has failed and should cut his
losses - and theirs.
If the price is high, if parts of Iraq see yet more factional bloodshed after
a withdrawal, Americans might argue that this was the inevitable fault of
past errors. America had done its bit. It toppled Saddam and tried to
postpone the subsequent settling of old scores. It failed to install a
political framework to achieve this, but so be it. The sting of occupation
must be drawn from the wound of Iraq.
Of course the best face must be put on withdrawal. Those whose arrival led to
more than 100,000 Iraqi deaths owe it to their victims to minimise any more.
That especially applies to the hapless agents of occupation, such as Iraqi
interpreters and officials, whose lives are at risk. Told that the invasion
was to restore order and justice, they are entitled to feel more than
cheated. They are entitled to asylum.
Iraq has been a disaster, an illegal act crassly perpetrated by supposedly
honourable powers. It shows what happens when crackpot idealism breaks from
the realm of think tanks and journalism and penetrates the body politic. It
validates the remark of the philosopher John Gray that “modern politics is
really a chapter in the history of religion”.
Last month the British began fumbling their way towards an escape from this
disaster. The danger for Petraeus is that he digs a deeper hole.
The paperback edition of Simon Jenkins's Thatcher and Sons, updated to
include Gordon Brown's accession, has just been published by Penguin.
simon.jenkins@sunday-times.co.uk
Why leave? If the US Army wants to act as cheap disposable mercenaries for Exxon then let them.
Remember the excuses to go in? The so called weapons of mass destruction? There were 2 Iraqi Ministries located close together in Baghdad, one for WMD research that had been closed down, and one for oil production. The Oil building was occupied by US forces immediately. It took 2 weeks for the US army to enter the WMD facility.
Next the stupid reason that the secular Baathists were allied with the ultra-fanatic Islamists. Only incredibly gullible people would believe this nonsense, and many apparently still do.
Saudi Arabia supplied 15 of the 11/9 terrorists and Kuwait 1. Neither country has been invaded. There were nil Afghanis and Iraqis involved in the attack but guess where the coalition are now?
If Bush had any morals he would demand Exxon "top up" the US Army pay to the same level paid to the private armies run by the oil companies. Fat chance!
Jeff Larsen, Christchurch, NZ
What no-one seems to notice is that America is a country of religious fanatics, and their political and military leaders are precisely in that mould. They see the Iraq thing not purely in terms of oil and democracy and freedom, but as a religious duty to expand Christianity to the Muslim world. Decisions are taken with divine inspiration and logic and sanity do not come into the equation. History is strewn with the evils of religion.
Eric, ga - USA,
Private Eye - issue 14/27 Sep - Front Cover
Image on front cover entitled 'Iraq Surge Latest'
Below is picture of a smiling Petraeus cosying up to a laughing Bush - with Petraeus saying to Bush:
'Good news, sir. We're winning the defeat!'
Accurate call huh?!
Rodney Jenkins, London, United Kingdom
Executive order 39 is why the Americans will be in Iraq for years. It's the reason they are there in the first place. Regional control of oil and complete control of the Iraqi economy as laid out by Bremner, immediately post invasion dictates policy for the next generation. Going nowhere...
F.S. Summers, N.Y.,
This is a very lazy article that merely panders to popular enthusiasms without offering any insight or much original.
Iraq is going to separate into three parts. Iraq was always going to separate into three parts. That is, in fact, why Saddam had to use such extreme terror to hold the place together.
What will happen now is that the US/UK coalition will build sovereign bases along the fault lines that separate the communities, place heavy equipment there, and withdraw some troops, who can of course be sent back at any time.
Meanwhile the three communities in Iraq will set up their separate statelets, among great violence to begin with, but with gradual stability as they settle down to exploiting their own territories instead of fighting one another, and the US/UK coalition will set up bilateral relations with each little state.
If we can't handle the war to come with bases right in the Middle of the Middle East, that will be entirely our own fault.
jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US
This is the truth that no one wants to admit whether they are pro or anti war, however the current US leadership will never admit this because they always fought this war primarily for a domestic audience and never took the time to understand Iraq or the middle east on its own terms. I was glad when Britain started to withdraw because it will show the US that Iraq probably is better off without us and intent on its own civil war regardless of what we think is best for them. Any US or British leader with real courage would withdraw troops to rear bases at least and start to refocus their efforts for a world that's irretrievably different than it was 7 years ago.
Mike, Pittsburgh,
Mesopotamia, now Iraq, was cobbled together from three disparate provinces of the dying Turkish empire. They liked each other then as little as they do now, as they have throughout the intervening nine decades. Preserving the integrity of the country has always needed hard - harsh - control.
Remove this, leave them to their own resources, and they will, soon or sooner, fight a most bloody civil/religious war that can only end in disintegration. The way out, in both senses, is to accept that Iraq is going to break up whatever we do, and partition it - fast, in a single month, to deny diplomats time to fudge - with the movement of peoples that is bad-mouthed as ethnic cleansing but saves lives, before withdrawing even faster.
Britain did pretty much this in India in 1947, more successfully than is sometimes admitted.
Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France
Undoubtably, the best article of the month (re: Iraq)
absolutely stop on, i agree with every word.
stanzler, ny, usa
well done and perceptive article.
consider this... maybe all the US ever intended to do was establish a presence by building a fort in the desert. a really big one.
remember the US has fought countless small wars with the indians as we expanded west. The army did that from forts established through out the west. The difference here is under the scrutiny of the world media it is impossible to massacre entire races of people and get away with it. on the other hand we are doing a rather good job of screwing up the countries infrastructure. I guess rhat is the modern equivalent of killing off the buffalo herds the indians were dependent on for food.
ah yes the good old days
wt katz, scottsdale, arizona USA
One of Al Quaeda's assumptions was the West was weak and would never fight. Iraq might have been the wrong war, but there can now be little doubt in many minds that America and her allies will react to terrorist threats.
Bin Laden has to accept as much responsibility for the mess in Iraq as anyone else. He set out to provoke war and succeeded. If America had not responded to Al Quaeda's aggression at all, would the world be a safer place? I'm not sure.
Vietnam likewise showed the Chinese and the Russians that western democracy would fight, thus raising the cost for them of aggression.
No war is pretty, but if they are not fought, the results can often be worse. The calculation as to whether Iraq was a mistake or not, overall needs a longer term view.
Tapestry, London, UK
Simon Jenkins states: "The American occupation of Iraq ...was doomed not just by its cruelty and ineptitude but because its neoconservative objective - a pro-western, pro-Israeli, capitalist democracy - was ludicrously utopian".
Utopian? Desirous of a perfected society? The real problem is how such policy was sold, not its rationalization. Mearsheimer and Walt have studied the matter and have documented in detail the vast and effective power of the legions of affiliated Israel lobbies, to which the US is captive in fact. Political Zionism is the root problem, which falsely purports that Israel's security can only be based upon conquest, brutality, mass killing and the devastation of surrounding countries, but in history these always result in ultimate fiasco, exactly as is the case now in Iraq.
So it will ultimately be for Israel unless it can decisively reject Political Zionism and turn toward justice and peace with the Palestinians. That I would gladly support.
tarquinis, Seattle, USA
U.S. and British forces trying to leave Iraq is like trying to put a 2 year old to bed: they ask you to stay, so you stay for 5 minutes. As you get up to leave, they again ask you to stay. You stay for 10 minutes hoping they'll forget. As you get up again, they ask you to stay again.
Moral: sooner or later you must leave them and let them grow up by themselves.
Adam Scott, Baltimore, MD, USA
Retreat from IRAQ is the best thing England can do at this end time.
Learn to clean your image and know who are your true enemies.
Iraqis are not your enemies, do research and get the truth.
Your future will be great.
Thx
clementine, abidjan, Cote D'Ivoire
The only reason given in 2003 for the UK and the US to go into Iraq was WMD.
There has never been an update on whether or not with hindsight those WMD really existed??
Also if they did, then where they are now?
It seems that the political chaos in that region resulting from the war of 2003 is just a bye-product to the main event?
One can only assume that, having already got so deeply involved in the quest for WMD, we have to retain a foothold in the Middle-East for as long as it takes to get the whole thing sorted.
Maybe more will be revealed when the Party Conferences take place in a few weeks?
Or maybe other less-relevant distractions will be created over which the Parties can fight a snap general Election?
I suspect the latter.
Even now no one seems to know what one of those WMD was supposed to have looked like.
Michael Blatchford, Bath, UK
Once again, England to the defeat......
Give yourself an award.....write a book.....
Get your prayer rugs now....
P Paul, olympia wa, usa
I thing the honorable General is going to Betray-us
Emanuel Glantz, Hawthorne, USA
Spot on! But the ruling classes of this debacle must be held accountable, reparations paid, the Blair and sychophants punished.
simonS, Bolton,
Gee, I dunno. Ask the Irish. And Kenya, Sierra Leone, India, Afghanistan, Ceylon, Nigeria, Jamaica, the Beothuks of Newfoundland -- the list does go on.
Mack, Kirbyville, Texas
The reason political progress is deemed so important is because it is considered a prerequisite to obtaining the cooperation of the populace. To survive, the enemy requires the assistance or at least the acquiescence of the people.
In this regard the surge has been a remarkable success among the sunnis and some among the shia.
If your definition of success require that an Iraqi central government creates a utopia by mandate, then the situation is hopeless.
Mike Sorensen, las vegas, USA
they (USA) have got it all wrong, USA & co think "democracy" comes first rest can wait. they should realise that for human beings food, shelter, security comes first and democracy can wait. Thats why many Iraqi's now openly say that Saddam's era was much much better!!
aéjaz, salford,
Just wait until Iran is occupied.
Scott, Durham, NC, USA
"In Vietnam America was aiding an ally against an external foe who sought to conquer and enslave it."
Does Simon Jenkins mean in South Vietnam America was aiding an ally against North Vietnam, and by his reasoning the South Vietnamese are now slaves of N Vietnamese? He has no idea! Does he know that of the top 3 positions in Vietnam, 2 are held by slaves and the third by an a person of an ethnic minority?
H Lon, London, UK
The great difficulty with this prescription is, I'm afraid, that those who could give it effect are most unlikely to take it seriously.
And that is a great tragedy for all of us.
John Reid, Wellington, New Zealand
As a British person, and after the humiliation you suffered after the hostage thing in Iran, and now your ignominious retreat from Iraq, I can certainly understand why you want us to lose as well. But this is bigger than saving shattered British pride by supporting the narrative that staying wouldn't have done any good anyway. Shall we wait a week, and see what happens in Washington before you go planning OUR defeat to save face after YOUR surrender?
Taniwha, Endwell, NY, USA
Simon Jenkins and his fellow British citizens must accept bloody reality and follow our stolid advance in confronting the deadly menace of Islamic terrorism.
Paul, Columbia, SC, USA
Iraq is not just the greatest foreign policy of the US since Vietnam, it is probably the greatest foreignpolicy blunder of the US - ever, by fanning the flames of Huntingdon's Clash of Civilisations. The story could run and run around the Islamic world for a generation or more resulting in the further spread and possible, if not probable, use of nuclear weapons.
We are about to inherir a whirlwind of our own making.
oldasiahand, Guildford, UK
Jim, can you spell "Republican stooge"? Mobile Alabama is such a nice, safe distance from reality, isn't it? Y'all have a nice day there, bubba!
Nick, London, UK
Work things out? are you serious? these guys have been at each others throats for 1500 years. You wanna just suddenly have these people take 1500 years of hate for each other and just magically "work things out"?
This is how ignorant people are of the area. These people have been brain washed and suppressed for 100's of years. The hate runs deep into their childhood. War only deepens their hate for the west and whoever they're taught to hate.
The idea that military is the only option to fight terrorism is stupid and naive. You fight fire with fire. You fight an ideal with an ideal. Terrorism is an ideal. Fight terrorism with a better ideal. Show these people there's a better way. Shoot the ones that actually attack in defense. Offensively fight the war via a better ideal. Demonstrate what democracy is about - show how effective it is. Don't go to war and force it onto people. That's not democracy.
Jeff, Grand Island, USA
Its hard to tell if this is a leftist or Bin Ladin himself, the propaganda isn't any different.
Gerry Kubly, Beloit, Wis USA
Yes, let us surrender it seems popular enough after all doesn't it? The simple fact is that in our more modern world of instant gratification ideals a long haul is shuddered at. Why should we have to work hard if it didn't immediately go right? Better yet why should we have to work to fix our own mistakes? Progress is being made in Iraq in spite of the repeated calls for surrender and withdrawal and yet Iraq very slowly becomes a little more peaceful in small steps. The violence is being curtailed slowly and Iraqis are turning against the insurgents rather than harboring them and yet at this vital change in the tide we are going to just pull out? No one pays attention to what the Iraqis might want in this either. The Iraqis (and most notably the Kurds) want us to stay and help rebuild their country. I would say it was our responsibility, we broke it after all.
Russell, Leeds,
Sadly like most commentators you seem to miss the big picture. Iraq is simply one battle in the 21st century energy war. The effect of our failure to secure !raq and to control the middle east energy supplies into the future will have a serious long term effect on western culture and democracy. Unfortunately the same commentators seem to believe that we can magically replace this energy supply by switching off a few lights and building windmills. Whats even worse many of our Leaders come from the same camp.
Roy Larter, Perth,
I hope that the states that went into Iraq in for their stated reasons which all proved to be false will do the right thing, whatever that may be and leave the Iraqi people happier or in a similar state as when they went in. It would be a total disaster to the states who went in if they failed and they would be damaged internationally for a long time to come. No longer would Britain and America be able to take the moral higher ground in future wordl politics. This escapade has caused more trouble internatiopnally than if Sadaam was left alone. There are many despots who are letft to run their little states with little harm to others beyond their borders.
tony, St Albans,
Simon Jenkins has consistently documented the disaster that is Iraq underpinned by his avid pacifist stance. Regarding the inept American conduct of the occupation which he records ad nauseum does nothing to advance a solution for that sad country and region.
Jenkins never attributes any blame to the real cause of the continuing bloody chaos which is plain for all with eyes to see, namely the seemingly irreconcilable diferences of the Iraqis themselves. Differences manifested by the worst (in)human traits seen throughout history, all being exhibited in the cauldron that is Iraq. Fanatical, barbaric religious differences still grounded in 8th century beliefs.
Jenkins never focuses on the real crux of the issue that will probably lead to Iraq and the rest of the middle east being consumed by Iran after the withdrawal of American forces.
Only the shias will remain after the conversion or elimination of the sunnis. Perhaps then stability, albeit back to the 8th century. Hooray.
Rodney, Bridgetown, Barbados
Jim of Mobile; your point being precisely what? For lack of kit consider the American lack of armored vehicle protection against IEDs - with the fight to the death between those servicing in this quagmire and the political classes being equally applicable to Bush and his neocon cohorts of 'wide stance' Republicans. Dhimmi doesn't enter into the equation, but I suppose it sounds erudite when thrown into the mix.
John Wilson, Dayton, OH. , USA
Surely the eventual outcome in Vietnam was not more communist influence in South East Asia but more capitalism. In the long run, the USA won in Vietnam. And common sense suggests to me that, in Iraq, the people who have died at the hands of Al Qaeda and the various Iraqi factions are victims of those Iraqi factions, not of the US. It remains to be seen whether the Iraqis will choose an Iranian style clerical regime to rule them. In fact it remains to be seen whether the Iranians will put up with one indefinitely.
Tam Earl-Aine, Cheltenham,
Gentlemen:
It is absolutely crucial that ordinary Iraqis, viz. Shia and Sunni Muslims, work things out amongst themselves.
Occupation is a means towards this end.
The strategy of paying insurgents to switch sides (if indeed it is a strategy) is fraught with risk and likely to be perceived as a betrayal of trust by ordinary Iraqis.
Calascione, Middlewood, UK
Reasons for remaining in Iraq today
1. The democratically elected government of Iraq has requested that we remain in that country.
2. To prevent ethnic cleansing of Arab Sunni minority; a completely selfless act since this group is the main support group for Al Queda in Iraq.
Reasons for invading Iraq, destroying the Bath Party and executing Saddam Hussien.
1. Saddam invaded 2 countries; Kuwaite and Iran.
2. Saddam planned to invade a dozen more countries in order to bring all Arabs under his rule.
3. Saddam attempted to murder a US president; Bush Sr.
4. Iraq had ceased to be a nation under Saddam's rule and had become his private estate wherin he owned everything including the people.
5. Mass murder against the Kurds.
6. A clear intention by Saddam to aquire nuclear weapons and use them.
Doug Forbes, Columbus, USA
The only retreat that poor excuse for a human Bush is doing is retreatng to his comfy ranch !
Jim, London, UK
You've said it very succinctly, Simon, here as many times before. What Bush and Blair used to call the 'war on terror' was never going to be anything other than a self-perpetuating debacle. The nadir of foreign affairs and political ethics in my lifetime.
Tony, Glasgow, Scotland
Pretraeus will issue a cautiously optimistic report
that Bush will use to justify "staying the course" which will only delay the inevitable .The end result will be a pro Iranian theocratic totalitarian government. It's too bad that many more people will lose their lives before this end is reached. Bush wanted to change the face of the middle east. He has but the new face is not what he expected.
Bruce L. Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA
This is not just about Iraq. This is about winning or losing the Third (hot, not Cold) World War. Bush has failed to enlist the support of the democratic majority in America and around the world because he, like Simon Jenkins, has failed to articulate this central fact. Had he done so, Bush would have retained majority support. He hasn't - and is suffering the consequences.
The other critical point to be made is that the American neocons did not install democracy in Iraq. They installed Western liberalism, the antithesis of democracy. The democratic majority does not rule in Iraq. Western 'liberal' ideology rules in Iraq. Who's going to die for liberalism, an ideology as despised by the democratic majority in the West as it is by the democratic majority in Iraq?
There is a third way. Democratism - the rule of the democratic majority. In Iraq this would mean a division of the country into three autonomous parts, with the democratic majority rulling in each one.
Terry, London, Great Britain
I believe that trying to put a good face on withdrawal could end up Burning the Ass of the American people. I believe that American occupation of Iraq at this point is an uncomfortable situation for all nations. The New government of Iraq needs to stand up on it's own. The neighbors of Iraq, particularly Iran and Syria need to establish an investment in the peace of the country. I believe the united nations should vote on a proposal to empower the neighbors of Iraq to have border patrol peace troops on either side of the Iraq border as well as the urban areas. I believe the USA should bring the troops home now.
Stephen Ferraro, Farmingdale , USA/NY
Hmmm,
Having served with your soldiers I can tell you we will gladly cover your retreat from Iraq. Just consider that we' will do so only out of respect for the valor of your soldiers. We've seen your miserly efforts at supplying their "kit" and heard how you've treated them at home.
In a world of true justice, your political class should have to fight them to the death upon their return to your shores.
As for the future: it's really over "over there."
Britain -- can you spell dhimmi?
Jim, Mobile Alabama, USA