|
Two months after the American people expressed overwhelming lack of
confidence in the President Bush and his war in Iraq by handing over
the House and the Senate to the Democrats after twelve years of
Republic control, President Bush finally admitted that strategic
mistakes have been made in Iraq. In a much awaited speech, he
acknowledged his own responsibility for the failures in Iraq and then
outlined a new strategy for ensuring the survival of Iraqi democracy.
The
twenty minute speech was full of rhetoric and staid platitudes about
the "burdens of freedom", "the hope of liberty", "the author of
liberty", the "decisive ideological struggle", and was very thin on
substance. It even had a "Borat moment" when he shared the intelligence
with American people that Al Qaeda planned to establish an Islamic
radical empire in the Al Anbar province of Iraq.
Indeed, the
new strategy outlined by President Bush had much less to offer than has
been expected by experts and pundits. There was no clear plan to bring
about a political solution to the Shia-Sunni divide; there was no firm
commitment from the US to provide economic relief to a country where
unemployment is reaching 60% in many areas and there was no indication
of how the US plans to regain the confidence of the Sunni population
who are resisting both the new Iraqi regime and US occupation.
The
plan basically has three new elements. One is a tactical shift in
fighting insurgency. In the past US troops would clear towns and
neighborhoods and then leave allowing the insurgents to return. But now
the President has made a commitment to clear and hold areas thereby
preventing insurgents from returning. The additional twenty one
thousand troops to be deployed are necessary for holding cleared areas.
Perhaps it has not occurred to the planners in the Pentagon
that if the insurgents and sectarian fighters cannot return to their
old neighborhoods in Baghdad, then they may shift their locus of
operation to other cities and provinces. According to this plan, by
November 2007 nearly all 18 provinces in Iraq will come under Iraqi
supervision, giving the fighters many options for new theaters for
their activities.
The second new element in the plan is of a
strategic nature and truly significant. The President has clearly
indicated that unlike in the past, when the US refrained from disarming
Shia militias and taking actions against them, the US now intends to
act against them. His exact words on this score were: "In earlier
operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and
American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those
fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces
will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods — and Prime
Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference
will not be tolerated."
The promise is clear. The US intends to
go after Shia militias and PM Maliki will not protect them. This
remains to be seen. Nouri al-Maliki's government needs that support of
the thirty seats in the Iraqi parliament that Shia militant leader
Muqtada Sadr controls. If Maliki will not provide political cover for
Sadr and his brigands then Sadr will not support Maliki's government
and it could collapse. It is clear that Washington is serious about
this. A day before President Bush made his speech, Maliki warned
Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi army to disarm or face US and Iraqi forces. The
grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani too has expressed his support for
disarmament of militias regardless of their identity. While Sistani's
influence on Iraqi politics has receded, he support is nevertheless
significant.
Will the new strategy work? The chances are remote.
This is clearly a case of "too little, too late". It also depends on
many contingent factors. For example, will the Iraqi forces which are
predominantly Shia act decisively against the Shia militias? Or will US
troops have to face the Shia militias on their own? In the short term
one can expect an immediate rise in US casualties, how long will
America public be able to stomach this?
The third element of the
plan is a decision to confront Iran. The President has deployed an
entire carrier force to threaten Iran, deployed a battery of Patriot
missiles to defend moderate allies in the region from Iranian
escalation and has said that US troops will target and destroy Iranian
and Syrian networks in Iraq.
The most important recommendation
of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study group was that US should establish a
dialogue with Iran and Syria and solicit their help in stabilizing
Iraq. Instead of listening and acting on this wise advise, the Bush
administration has once again succumbed to its neoconservative
instincts, and has decided to initiate a confrontation with Iran and
Syria. In a way, this is an escalation and even expansion of the war in
Iraq to now include Iran and Syria as targets of US military
operations.
There is a major problem with this new strategy
and I wonder if American policy makers realize it. With this speech,
President Bush has practically declared war on Shias. He has decided to
go after Shia militias in Iraq, and Shia regimes in the region. Until
now the US has been fighting only with the Sunnis - Al Qaeda and the
Iraqi insurgency. But from now on US troops will be fighting al Qaeda,
Sunni insurgents, the Mahdi and Badr militias and perhaps even Iranian
and Syria intelligence and commando units.
Apparently, the
Bush administration's appetite for war and violence is not being
satisfied with Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia; it is actually seeking to
open new fronts with more enemies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muqtedar
Khan is a Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.
He is also Assistant Professor at University of Delaware and a
Nonresident Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the
Brookings Institution. He is the author of Jihad for Jerusalem [2004]
and most recently Islamic Democratic Discourse [2006].
|
