Staying the Iraqi course

President George W. Bush has firmly asserted that the United States would stay the course in Iraq. This is understandable since great powers cannot afford to pull out of difficult politico-security situations without far more serious reverberations across the world. The Soviet Union had managed to plan their exit from Afghanistan by 1989, but that still led to unpredictable consequence of its intervention a decade earlier. The question that Bush needs to look over carefully is not that of staying the course, but what sort of course does the US wish to stay in Iraq? Would it continue to rely on massive firepower delivered from tanks and aircraft, or would it shift tracks to political-diplomatic solutions to deal with the situation on the ground? The way things have moved in recent days would indicate that without the latter course, America would need a miracle to solve the rapidly escalating challenges it faces.

With just about 10 weeks left for Washington to fulfil its commitment to hand over sovereignty to Iraqis, there is no indication how and to whom the transfer of power would take place. In any case the US-led military forces would remain in charge of security and stability which has started to slide down a spiral now. The US-organised Iraqi security forces are either unwilling or unable to fight Iraqis on the warpath, some even defecting to them. The Interim Governing Council, which had little legitimacy and less authority, seems to be now getting ready to abdicate its limited responsibilities and its members, when they speak, do so to criticise American policy in Iraq. One Shia member has suspended his membership from the Council and four more have threatened to follow suite.

Whatever mediation and negotiations are going on to reverse the spiral of insurgent war are being undertaken by Sunni and Shia religious groups and leaders. The course of wisdom would be to reverse the spiral of violence and arrive at a negotiated settlement rather than insisting on getting Muqtada ul Sadr 8220;dead or alive8221;. The opposition to the US-led occupation has expanded far and wide across the country except for the Kurdish north; and has deepened beyond any sectarian differences. Use of brutal, often indiscriminate, military force has only resulted in converting the Sunni triangle skirmishes into a broad-based war of national resistance which risks making Sunni Fallujah and Shia Najaf, now under siege, as symbols of Iraqi 8220;freedom8221; far beyond their original place. Washington may claim that the war in Iraq is about a war on terrorism. But there was no terrorism in Iraq this time last year. And the goal of bringing democracy is undoubtedly noble; but it could hardly be delivered to the people by gunships.