Addressing the reality of Iraq
2:15pm
The next few days will be a big test of whether the political class on both sides of the Atlantic can think about the reality of Iraq. Too often, the war is debated as if it is 2003 and we can still choose whether or not to invade. As this sobering George Packer essay in the New Yorker makes clear there are now no simple or easy solutions to the Iraq crisis. As he puts it, “We might want to be rid of Iraq, but Iraq won’t let it happen.”
Given the situation on the ground today, the best course of action is to keep on with the surge. The numbers in today’s BBC poll of Iraqis show just how much work there is still to do. But there does not seem to be a better option than the surge. A phased withdrawal would leave the Coalition betwixt and between, unable to make a decisive impact on the ground but still a target. While any kind of full scale withdrawal would unleash hideous consequences including vastly stepped up sectarian violence and an increased risk of Iraq’s problems sparking a wider regional conflict.
I know this is easier to say as someone who supported the war, but whether one thought the war was right or wrong in 2003 should have little bearing on one’s current position.
Previous
Guy Aitchison
September 10th, 2007 4:09pm Report this commentIf you put 30,000 additional troops on to the streets there's bound to be some impact on the level of violence in those areas, but I don' think it's right to say that the 'surge' is the only option - certainly not for the long-term anyway. Much of the violence has simply been displaced to other areas of Iraq and will doubtless return when the troops are inevitably withdrawn at a later date. I find it interesting that so much attention is being devoted to Patraeus's report, and, as one of the opponents of the war, I take issue with this for several reasons. For one thing, as Packer says in his essay, it's just another short-term 'milestone' that allows the Bush administration and its supporters in the media to deflect attention from more fundamental questions about their failures in Iraq (see also the capture of Saddam, the constitution and 2005 elections, death of al Zaqarqi/saddam/his sons etc, etc). Secondly it seems highly unlikely that Patraeus will give an accurate and impartial view of what progress is being made. He is after all one of the architects of the surge and subordinate to Bush, who is his commander-in-chief. The opinion poll of Iraqis that I brought up on another thread provide a useful antidote here, and it's interesting to note how easily they are being dismissed by the pro war commentators/democracy zealots (I mean Bolton, not you James). I agree that a withdrawal would likely be followed by an upsurge in violence, but in the end this has to be a better option than a long protracted cycle of violence made worse by ongoing resentment at the US presence. What would be next? Another surge? Bush's bizarre comparisons with the war in Vietnam last month seem ominous...
Back to top