WITH mounting American casualties and growing political heat on the Republicans in the November congressional elections, the pressure is on for President George W Bush to “finish well” in Iraq.
Every potential exit strategy runs the risk of plunging the country into further chaos and bloodshed. This explains why Bush has insisted in recent days that he is merely interested in adjusting the “tactics” needed to secure stability.
Yet plans are emerging for a dramatic change of course that could lead to an orderly withdrawal of coalition forces. The Pentagon is determined to force the faltering government of Nouri al-Maliki to shoulder responsibility for Iraq’s security.
Defence chiefs have come to the conclusion that the Iraqis will never be ready to let American forces leave without a “forcing mechanism” that would set target dates area-by-area for US troop withdrawals.
Bush held a teleconference yesterday with General John Abizaid and General George Casey, the top US commanders in Iraq. According to White House spin, it was little more than a routine call, but the generals have been urgently canvassing senior officers with experience in Iraq for their views on new tactics.
Casey has consulted Iraqi officials on “projections” for when the Americans can hand over control of specific areas. Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, said last week that the Iraqi government had to take control of its security “sooner rather than later”.
A raid on Amara by several hundred black-robed Mahdi army militia last week revealed how precarious it can be to leave security to the Iraqis. British forces, which had left the city two months ago, were placed on standby on Friday to return.
The setback has not thrown Rumsfeld’s plans off course. “The biggest mistake would be not to pass things over to the Iraqis,” he said, adding that there was “no doubt” some of the projections for handing over control would not be met. “In some cases, once we meet the projection, we may have to go back and do it again if it doesn’t work,” Rumsfeld said.
The Bush administration’s exit strategy increasingly coincides with some of the views of the Iraq study group co-chaired by James Baker, a former secretary of state and Bush family friend. It was commissioned by Congress with the president’s approval to come up with fresh options.
The group will report in January and is believed to favour setting political and military “benchmarks” enabling US forces to withdraw to its bases — and ultimately to nearby countries such as Kuwait — leaving US military advisers embedded with Iraqi forces.
Key differences remain over the wisdom of talking to Syria and Iran about the future of Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld are sceptical of the idea floated by Baker, but Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, is “interested and wants to be engaged”, according to a source close to the group.
The Baker commission is also interested in devolving power to the Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurdish regions of Iraq. Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, explicitly ruled out a regional “partition” last week but said America supported an “ongoing” debate about federalism.
Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative, said the influence of the Baker group on the administration was overstated: “I don’t believe Bush will agree to the proposals they are rumoured to be mulling over. He has two years left as president and he is not going to hand in the towel and pass responsibility to a commission.”
He warned that the fate of Iraq was unlikely to be decided in America: “The hope is that a political leadership will emerge in Iraq that can calm the situation and I don’t know how we can help with that. So far we’ve been picking the leaders, such as Maliki, and we’re not necessarily the best judges.”
Eliot Cohen, another prominent neoconservative, argued in The Wall Street Journal last week that all the “Plan Bs” for Iraq were so flawed that he would “quietly” endorse a coup by a junta of military modernisers. It would involve, he admitted, a “substantial repast of crow” for the Bush administration — an American expression for eating humble pie.
This way out
PHASED WITHDRAWAL
The Pentagon’s preferred strategy. Control handed to the Iraqis area by area. Troops to fall back to bases as a prelude to withdrawal.
For: a flexible exit strategy that would enable US forces to be massed in problem areas such as Baghdad.
Against: Iraqi security forces may not be up to the job, sending US forces back to square one.
TALKS WITH IRAN AND SYRIA
A key proposal of the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by the former secretary of state James Baker. Supported by the British.
For: would help to quell the insurgency in Sunni and Shi’ite strongholds of Iraq and reduce sectarian violence.
Against: Iran and America at loggerheads over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Syria may co-operate, but not Iran.
REGIONAL PARTITION
Power would devolve to three semi-autonomous Kurdish, Sunni and Shi’ite regions of Iraq, leaving a weak national government in Baghdad to handle foreign policy, border security and a fair share-out of oil revenues.
For: desired by the Kurds and a substantial section of Shi’ites.
Against: strongly opposed by Sunnis. Could lead to civil war.
IRAQI STRONGMAN OR JUNTA
Nobody’s preferred option outside Iraq, but disappointment with the government of Nouri al-Maliki is leading some US officials to think the unthinkable. Most likely scenario would be a back-room deal for an “advisory council” of generals and politicians to push Maliki out if he fails to establish order in coming months.
For: a method of last resort to impose order on Iraq.
Against: spells the humiliating collapse of Bush’s democracy project. This way out
