|
New
Delhi, 09 August 2006
American long term strategy on Iraq was obviously designed to gain
access to Iraq's oil and to rebuild the country after ruining it and
the WMD bogey and regime change after 9/11 made it possible. But it
has taken longer than anticipated and the US economy has gained in
the bargain, by increased spending on Defence –– a la Cornelli
Barnett’s theory –– that increased military spending will fuel the
economy. We had done two analyses on this and feel once again we are
on track as we see Iraq breaking up into Shia and Sunni regions in
due course and maybe a Kurd sector –– then the reconstruction will
start!
India
needs to study this scenario as after the Lebanon bashing by Israel
with full support of USA, the Shia–Sunni divide is on the rise and
Iran is seen supporting the Hezbollah. The secret analysis of Gen
Abiziad, the Central Command Chief who speaks Arabic, was leaked and
he says that civil war was a distinct possibility. This has worried
Tony Blair too and the paragraph below taken out of the NY Times
editorial of 6 July is very relevant. As far as democracy is
concerned USA will air the choice always, but do nothing about it
and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are good examples.
The
following words from the Edit are relevant:
“America’s allies have an interest in not seeing Iraq turn into a
hive of terrorists and a font of regional instability. However,
before other nations become involved they would certainly insist on
a laundry list of American concessions, from a share in war-related
business for their contractors to an all-out United States push for
a renewed peace process among Israel, the Palestinians and their
neighbours.”
A Timetable Isn’t an Exit Strategy
NYT
America’s military experience in
Iraq
grows ever more nightmarish, it is becoming clear that President
Bush’s strategy comes down to this: Keep holding to a failing course
for the next 29 months and leave it to the next administration to
clean up the mess. That is abdication of responsibility cannot be
allowed to continue at the expense of American lives, military
readiness and international influence. With the Republican majority
in Congress moving in perpetual lock step behind the White House,
the job of pressing the issue has been dumped in the laps of the
Democrats. Unfortunately, they have their own version of reality
avoidance. It involves pretending that the nightmare can be ended by
adopting a timetable for a phased withdrawal of American troops.
Mr.
Bush’s cheerleading encourages the illusion that it is just a matter
of time and American support before Iraq evolves into a stable
democracy. The Democratic timetable spins a different fantasy: that
if the Iraqis are told that American troops will be leaving in
stages, at specific dates, their government will rise to the
occasion and create its own security forces to maintain order.
The
Iraqi government has not failed to develop adequate police and
military forces of its own because it lacks the incentive. It has
failed to do so because it is weak and divided, because its people
are frightened and because the strongest leaders in the country are
the men who control sectarian militias. A phased withdrawal by
itself would simply leave the American soldiers who remain behind in
graver danger, and hasten what looks like an inevitable descent into
civil war.
Democrats are embracing the withdrawal option because it sounds good
on the surface and allows them to avoid a more far-reaching
discussion that might expose their party’s own foreign policy
divisions. Most of all, they want an election-year position that
maximizes the president’s weakness without exposing their candidates
to criticism. But they are doing nothing to help the public
understand the grim options we face.
The
only responsible way out of Iraq involves all the things President
Bush refused to consider on the way in. That means enlisting help
from some of the same Arab neighbours and European allies whose
opinions and suggestions were scornfully ignored before the
invasion. Getting their assistance would be a humbling experience.
Americans may feel the war is going badly, but they have not been
prepared to acknowledge failure.
America’s allies have an interest in not seeing Iraq turn into a
hive of terrorists and a font of regional instability. However,
before other nations become involved they would certainly insist on
a laundry list of American concessions, from a share in war-related
business for their contractors to an all-out United States push for
a renewed peace process among Israel, the Palestinians and their
neighbours.
A
serious plan for disengagement from
Iraq
is not well tailored to the campaign trail. Real withdrawal will be
messy and unpleasant. Even under the best of circumstances, it could
well end in disaster. But the country cannot afford another election
cycle of bipartisan evasions.
Back
to Top
Disclaimer
Copyright
|