The Strategy from Hell

One has to wonder at the competence of the decision-makers about Iraq. The "plan" with the interim Coalition Provisional Authority was for the US to turn over control on June 30, 2004. That date is now in question (30 June Iraq handover questioned, BBC, 4/05/04), though many have wondered about the feasibility of such a move since it was first announced. It is clear that this was a "political" decision - political for the US Presidency, not for Iraq. The US has also been trying (supposedly) to get UN forces and a broader "coalition" involved in Iraq, and training Iraqi's to take over for US troops (though that too has been a losing battle). One has to ask, what is the strategy here?

While voicing that the US is there to give "democracy" to the people of Iraq, and place power within a "sovereign" Iraqi government, every move seems a deliberate attempt to undermine both. Looking at the situation in Iraq, one can't help but wonder if the Iraqi's might feel that they have exchanged one tyrant for another. Look at what's been going on: secret and indefinite detention of over 10,000 Iraqi's; censorship everywhere you look; sealed areas and towns requiring papers to move around; the only employment to speak of with the new regime and requiring a vetting process not dissimilar from the one Hussein had; death the consequence of dissent. So what has changed here?

We are hearing less and less about "foreign" fighters, and more and more about internal rebellion. It sounds like whatever "window of opportunity" to have peace in Iraq and the de-escalation of US presence and force is slammed shut.

The current outbreak of violence seems to be a response to the US shutting down Shi-ite cleric Al-Sadr's news paper because it was "telling lies" (US faces Iraqi revolt, Guardian, 4/05/04). The US has also launched an offensive against "radicals."

U.S. Forces Take on Shi'ite, Sunni Rebels in Iraq, Reuters, 4/05/04)

U.S. helicopters blasted targets in Baghdad Monday in an intensifying showdown with Shi'ite Muslim radicals resisting America's postwar plans for Iraq.

U.S. forces also tackled Sunni insurgents in Falluja, where four American security men were killed last week. Residents reported heavy firing overnight and a hospital doctor said five people had been killed and three wounded.

Troops used loudspeakers to announce a night-time curfew and sealed roads around the troubled town west of Baghdad. Schools closed and the streets were empty. The U.S. military said it had also shut the nearby Baghdad-Amman highway indefinitely.

In Baghdad, Reuters journalists said they saw two Apache helicopters attacking targets in the mainly Shi'ite Shuala district, where a U.S. tank transporter was in flames.

To complicate issues even more, the US troops are well beyond the euphamism "spread thin." Troops are working extended periods without break (7 days on 6 hours off); rotations have been extended and extended again, troops are being sent back to active duty when they are unfit to be on duty (Army sent mentally ill troops to Iraq, UPI, 3/12/04). In short, the soldiers who are there are most likely not functioning at heir best in terms of decision-making either. It is little surprise then that Naomi Klein would write The U.S. is Sabotaging Stability in Iraq (Globe & Mail, 4/05/04).

On Sunday, Iraqi soldiers, trained and controlled by coalition forces, opened fire on demonstrators here, forcing the emergency evacuation of the nearby Sheraton and Palestine hotels. As demonstrators returned to their homes in the poor neighborhood of Sadr City, the U.S. army followed with tanks and helicopters. As night fell, there were unconfirmed reports of dozens of casualties. In Najaf, the day was equally bloody: 19 demonstrators dead, more than 150 injured.

But make no mistake: This is not the "civil war" that Washington has been predicting will break out between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Rather, it is a war provoked by the U.S. occupation authority and waged by its forces against the growing number of Shiites who support Muqtada al-Sadr.

We are all watching the same failure to reweave a stable society in Iraq, and watching the unweaving of whatever good will had been built. As the violence escalates into an Iraqi war of liberation - Iraq vs US - it becomes less likely that an international aid and support presence will appear.

The only hope I see for Iraq at this time is a regime change in the US. Not necessarily because a different President would de facto do any better, but because Bush has painted himself into a corner. Any attempt by Bush to significantly change course would not be trusted. A new leadership could disavow the Bush policies and start relatively cleanly. This could be important not only in Iraq, but with our allies as well. Bush is trapped by both lies and rhetoric into getting tougher and tougher in Iraq (and elsewhere). To do otherwise would mean coming clean on the decptions and opening government to the light of day. I doubt that either of those things are likely to happen.

Posted by rowan at April 5, 2004 12:00 PM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |