Is It Time To Get Out Of Iraq?

Background

History
Historically Iraq was called Mesopotamia, meaning ‘between the rivers’ in Greek. This was home to the world’s first civilization- the Sumerian, followed by the Akkadian, the Babylonian and Assyrian as early as 5000 BC. This was indeed, the Cradle of Civilization to which we all owe a debt as the first writing, science and mathematics made their appearances in this part of the world. The country was ruled in succession by Persians, Greeks, Parthians, and Persians again by the 7th century. Then Islam took over the area and Mohammed’s cousin and son in law, the 4th caliph, made Kufa his capital. Then in 13th Century(inevitably) the Mongols invaded followed by the Turks who held sway until the first world war when they backed the wrong side and lost out at the peace settlement.

The British Connection
According to the Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916 Britain and France divided up the Middle East into zones of influence with UK having Jordan, Iraq and Haifa and France Syria, S.E. Turkey and Lebanon. The League of Nations made Iraq a British protectorate; it comprised three Ottoman Turk vilayets (regions) of Mosul, Basra and Bagdhad. These regions were very different in religious composition and economic potential but their cobbling together under the rubric if ‘Iraq’, went ahead anyway; British colonial administrators thereupon ruled the area and put down various rebellions against their authority. The king chosen to rule this invented kingdom was Faisal, a Hashemite descendant, rejected by Syria.

In 1932 Iraq was given its independence though the UK retained military bases. Faisal was succeeded by Ghazi but Rashid Ali as PM took the country close to Nazis Germany, possibly through opposition to Jewish settlement in Palestine. Britain feared he might cut off oil supplies to the west so invaded in 1941. In 1947 the Hashemite dynasty was restored but in 1958 the 14 July Revolution saw the army stage a successful coup. By this the army saw Abdul Karim in power followed by Salem Arif in 1963. In 1968 his brother was overthrown by the Ba-athist Party- a form of Arab nationalist socialism, also powerful in Syria- and soon Saddam Hussein had risen, bloodily, to the top.

Iran-Iraq War 1980-88
USA, USSR and France supported Saddam in this bloody, pointless war which ended with neither side gaining any advantage,. In late 80s Saddam launched the al Anfal campaign against the Kurds in the north, gassing thousands with Ali Hassan Majid (Chemical Ali) in charge. 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait causing the Gulf War. UN sanctions in the wake of the war caused hardship, some calculate 4-800, 000 children died.

Impact of 9-11 Attacks
According to Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack, Bush had resolved to ‘do something about Saddam, just five days after 9-11. Egged on by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld –who were apparently obsessed with Iraq-he ordered General Tommy Franks to prepare a war plan. Colin Powell, who was opposed to the idea, was sidelined; he did not speak to Condi Rice, his eventual successor, for some time after the decision was taken. Woodward’s record, based on scores of interviews with the principals including Bush, claims that once the CIA said they could not kill Saddam, he decided to invade. In early 2003 the Saudi ambassador was informed and, according to the author Blair too.

As US troops moved to the Gulf, various rationales were offered for the attack most people had assumed was in the offing: reputed links to al Quaeda; weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which were a danger to the west; and to bring democracy to Iraq. Of these, the first rationale, despite much effort by the White House, was proved to be false though the terrorist organization soon did move into the chaos of Iraq; the second proved false as exhaustive searches by Hans Blix and his UN team revealed nothing-even a Senate Committee on Intelligence confirmed this to be so; and the third has become an ongoing and tragic farce. In the USA over 70 per cent supported the invasion but in 41 countries the majority of people did not, even members of the eventual ‘Coalition of the Willing’. Massive numbers demonstrated against the war to no effect. In the UK accusations aired that: the Attorney general initially believed the war not to be legal under international law; the September 2002 ‘intelligence dossier’ claiming Saddam had WMD available at 45 minutes notice; and, by Clare Short, that Blair had decided to support Bush’s invasion whatever happened by summer 2002. Blair tried hard to assemble a UN resolution which would bolster the legality of the war but all his shuttle diplomacy, virtually on behalf of George Bush as a kind of surrogate Secretary of State, proved futile especially when France said they would in any event veto such a resolution. France soon became the scapegoat of the Iraq war hawks though Chirac’s position has been perhaps vindicated in retrospect.

Initially the invasion went well. 140,000 US-UK forces made rapid progress as Iraq’s central regions offered little resistance. In the end Baghdad was taken and Saddam’s resistance was symbolically broken when the huge statue of the dictator was hauled down by cheering crowds. However, George Bush’s May 1st 2003 appearance on USS Abraham Lincoln in front of a banner saying ‘Mission Accomplished’, proved woefully and embarassingly premature. It soon became clear that:
a) There was no well worked out plan for winning the ‘peace’ as opposed to the war.
b) There had been no welcome of a grateful nation in the wake of Saddam’s downfall, as some optimists in the White House had predicted.
c) There was an outbreak of looting and lawlessness in Iraq which scarcely recommended the US presence.
d) There was much evidence that the invading forces were being perceived as ‘occupiers’ of a colonial nature, intent on plundering Iraq’s plentiful oil supplies.
e) Insurgents comprising residual supporters of Saddam, assisted by Sunnis hostile to the Shia majority and, increasingly, terrorist elements from al Quaeda arriving from all over the Middle East and elsewhere.

Political Developments
In October 2005 63% of voters voted on a new constitution with 78% approving it. Kurds and Shias endorsed it heavily but the Sunnis rejected it. 15th December elections were held for a 275 seat assembly on a PR basis; 25% of seats were reserved for women. The Shia, United Iraq Alliance won 128 seats and Kurdish voters 53. Sunnis boycotted the election for the most part. After six months negotiation Nouri al- Maliki became PM. In theory Coalition troops are in Iraq by invitation of the Iraq government to help restore order. According to a leaked opinion poll, in August 2005 82% of Iraqis were opposed to the occupation and only 1% thought they assisted the search for security. Bush and Blair made much of the democratic constitution and elected government but any hope that this would provide a beacon of liberal values in the Middle East never really got started. The reasons?

a)The fact that daily life for most Iraqis has seldom improved beyond bare subsistence with little food, only a few hours of electricity every day.

b) The military situation on the ground which has made life in Iraq very insecure.

The Insurgency
To the politically warring Ba-athists and Sunnis- the initial civil combatants in the wake of the invasion- have been added a potent cocktail of new ingredients to the stew of violent insurgency: al Quaeda terrorists, initially under Al Zaquarwi; jihadists from all over the Middle East, Europe and elsewhere; nationalists who just want to expel the foreign invaders and the religion based militias. Of all of them these two last have become the major cause of killings. Sunni militias have formed to defend their areas of the big cities, especially Baghdad though other cities too, but they have also begun to make revenge raids after Shia militias have been raiding their suburban areas, abducting innocent civilians and then murdering them by the score and allowing their bodies, often showing signs of torture, to be found in the streets, rubbish dumps and rivers. This has become a form of ethnic cleansing in practice but the internecine blood-letting is now out of control. Even hairdressers have been targeted by extremists, as their function in shaving off beards has been seen as contrary to the spirit of Islam. Bakers have also been targeted, simply for providing a popular service. What makes the situation especially despairing is that the Iraqi police and army, on whom millions have been spent in training, are often members of the militia which make up the death squads which roam the suburbs each night.

The Flight from Iraq
The Independent on 23rd October reported UN figures saying that out of a population of 26 million, 1.6 m have fled with 1.5m displaced. There is constant intimidation- eg bullets sent in an envelope- and threats to relatives as well as murders just in case the message has not got home. This is the biggest exodus from a country since the late 40s when Palestinians fled abroad. Destinations tend to be other Arab countries like Syria, Jordan but also Kurd areas in the north. Often those who stay are squeezed into small hovels, 6-7 to a room. Sunni pilots suspected of bombing Shias or Iran under Saddam are often the object of death squads as are other occupations like translators or anyone working for the occupation forces. Particularly keen to vacate Baghdad are members of the Christian minorities. The capital is being fragmented into small ghettos eg the Shias into areas controlled by the Mehdi Army. To make matters even worse the state bureaucracy is very inefficient and o get anywhere bribes have to be paid. Policemen can often threaten punishments unless paid bribes too.

Death Tolls
The monthly death toll of US troops was as follows from May 2003: 34, 30, 48, 35, 31, 44, 82 and 40. During 2004 it varied from figures in the forties to 135 in April and 137 in November. In 2005 the toll averaged around 50-60 and so far in 2006 it has been 60-70 with a record 86 so far in October. Civilian deaths of course, have been running at a much higher figure- closer to 100 a day and often a good deal more, victims of assassinations, roadside and suicide bombings, etc. The Lancet recently calculated, very controversially, that since the start of the war some 650,000 civilians had lost their lives- that’s one in 1 in 40 Iraqis. The USA has lost 3000 servicemen and the UK, over 120. The naïve idea underlying the presence of foreign forces is that the Iraq government should eventually be able to manage its own security. US –UK training of Iraqis has been in train for some time yet it is hard to see the indigenous government being able to suppress its insurgency.

This was brought home graphically when the four month old campaign to secure the most dangerous parts of Baghdad, using beefed up resources, has clearly failed. The Observer commented 22/10/06:

‘With that failure the entire failure of Iraq and the US and British led occupation has been brought to a tipping point not simply for Iraq and the region but for the Bush and Blair administrations.’

Coalition Members which have withdrawn troops: Since the war started a number of members of the ‘coalition of the willing’ have pulled out, including Spain, Netherlands, Korea, Portugal, Italy, Canada and Japan. The only solidly substantial members left seem to be UK, USA, Australia and Poland.

Continuing Controversy About Origins of War: Bob Woodward, in Plan of Attack, based on high level interviews, has already been mentioned as providing evidence of a clear desire to invade after 9-11 come what may. In October 2006 the journalist told Andrew Marr that Blair must have known of these plans by very early on in 2003 too. On 1st May, 2005 The Sunday Times published a leaked memo written by number 10 aide Mathew Rycroft- now ambassador to Saravejo- which recorded the head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, reporting to a Blair and others meeting that Washington was determined to invade and that the intelligence and evidence was being ‘fixed around the policy’. He also reported that the UN did not figure in these plans and that post invasion preparations were not a priority. At this time Blair was assuring British voters that no decision had been taken to invade one way or the other.

Recent Attacks on Bush-Blair Iraq Strategy: Several retired generals in the USA criticized the Iraq war as things began to go wrong but the most sensational departure from the agreed US-UK line was when Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British Army, launched a broadside against it in an interview with the Daily Mail. Despite the constitutional fact that generals have no right to set policy or indeed, criticize it, Dannatt criticized:
a) The original decision to invade and the presence of our troops as part of the problem.
b) The policy of introducing a functioning democracy as too ‘ambitious’
c) And argued resources should be redeployed to Afganistan where our troops had a valid reason to be and a chance of winning.
Faced with open revolt by a soldier prepared to say what all his colleagues were thinking, Blair, not strong enough to sack him, decided to say he ‘agreed with every word’ of the general. A clever attempt, but it didn’t fool anybody.

In the USA the most remarkable revolt has been within moderate republican circles, terrified the Mid –Term elections will turn out to be a referendum on ‘Bush’s Doctrine’, in Iraq and elsewhere. David Mack, a leading diplomat during the First Gulf war said: ‘any talk of victory is an illusion’. Even staunch republican senators now talk of siding with democrats unless a major shift occurs in policy. David Warner, respected republican senator, came back from a visit to Iraq to recommend a ‘change of course’. James Baker’s Iraq Study Group (ISG), was set up by Congress with Bush’s explicit support and seems to have been given the right to ‘think the unthinkable’. So far leaks have suggested it has proposed: a) a partition of the three regions; b) talks with Syria and Iran about the future of the country- despite both being part of the earlier demonized ‘axis of evil’. Dick Cheney, however, the Vice President, refuses to budge and still thinks victory is achievable.

Bush, clearly rattled by this opposition just before vital elections, has tried in his weekly radio broadcast to accept the case for change but only to ‘tactics’ not ‘strategy’. Earlier he appeared to accept columnist Thomas Friedman’s case for comparing the present state with Vietnam’s Tet offensive which presaged US defeat in that conflict. Richard Haas, formerly a Bush adviser, damned the situation by discerning a ‘tipping’ point whereby many factors combine to produce sudden change. He declared the ‘stable, democratic Iraq…virtually no chance of succeeding’. Former UK ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, described Iraq as a ‘failure’ and a ‘mess’, warning that ‘only bad options remain for the coalition’ and that a massive effort in regional diplomacy was needed to solve this problem. UK foreign minister Kim Howells, suggested British troops should be out of Iraq within a year.

Worst of all was the comment by Alberto Fernandez, the Director of Diplomacy at the State Department’s Near Eastern Affairs:

‘We tried to do our best in Iraq but I think there is much room for criticism because there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq.’

On 21st October The Guardian’s coverage identified eight options available to decision-makers in Washington and London:

1. British Out Now- not being seriously considered yet.
2. US Coalition Out Now- early exit unlikely as would be seen as humiliation.
3. Phased Withdrawal- Baker has suggested this and it is the most likely strategy.
4. Talk to Syria and Iran- humiliating but may happen at clandestine level
5. Iraqi Strongman, eg Allawi- unlikely
6. Partition Iraq- to some extent it is inevitable anyway; even Margaret Beckett (remember her?) has suggested this might happen.
7. Re-deploy and Contain ie withdraw to bases outside Iraq and offer long distance support to Iraqi forces- not impossible.
8. One Last Push-a final gamble would seem a bit desperate.

Partition idea would encounter problems of: oil which is in Shia zone; integrated urban populations; resistance from nationalists. But it is happening via ethnic cleansing process in the cities and may well be tried as a solution. The ancient incompatibility of those Ottoman vilayets, may come to the fore once again.

Current Policy Directions
It seems as if both US and UK are banking on Maliki being able to impose his own security within 12-18 months. Then the troops could withdraw with some kind of order, if not honour. But, it’s hard for the weak Iraqi government to seize hold of the problem of law and order when 140,000 troops armed to the teeth have abjectly failed. The police and army together number over 300,000 but they are riddled by the militias and training is still rudimentary in many cases.

So what is my answer to the question posed by this briefing? Conveniently a poll was published in The Guardian, 24th October which canvassed national opinion on this question. 61% of respondents wished to see British troops out of Iraq by the end of the year; about the same proportion as in the USA. In The Guardian, the thoughtful Simon Tisdall suggests a federal solution to the problem –whilst very popular with a number of politicians- is fraught with problems and may lead to a patchwork pattern of warring nascent statelets. He thinks the Carnegie Endowment study is on surer ground when it urges a: ‘major international aid package could greatly reduce the potential level of violence and ethnic cleansing’ that might accompany federation of partition.