American President Under Continuous Pressure Over Iraq

Prof Dr Colonel (Retired) K Prabhakar Rao

The Iraq war that became a focal point at the hustling in USA last year continues to haunt the American President. The report of BBC news states that, more than 3,600 coalition soldiers had died including more than 3000 US military men, but US forces generally do not keep complete records of civilians killed. Nor does the Iraqi government have a precise figure. Health ministry estimates in November 2006 ranged from 100,000 to 150,000 dead. This contrasts with a survey of Iraqi households in the Lancet, which suggested that - by July 2006 - about 655,000 Iraqi deaths were "a consequence of the war". These estimates are both higher than the running total of reported civilian deaths maintained by the campaign group, Iraq Body Count. Using two media reports as its source for each death, IBC says the civilian death toll is now almost than 69,000, including more than 3,650 police. But the organization also warns that many deaths may not have been reported (1).

The US nation and Democrats in particular are getting restless and jittery over the mounting casualties and continued stay of American troops in Iraq. Some are of the opinion that if USA withdraws from Iraq, the Iraqis and the insurgents would continue to fight till a stalemate is reached and the situation can be solved from outside like Bosnia. It is also opined that Americans should stay as long as Iraqis want them there. It is also the moral obligation of USA to stabilize Iraq and make the Iraqi Army and police strong enough to deal with the situation on their own as they have invaded and destroyed Saddam regime. On the other hand by declaring a time bound withdrawal program, insurgents have an advantage for planning their strategies and this would go against American strategy for which war has been waged in Iraq. President Bush has been fighting tooth and nail against similar efforts in Congress to impose a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. He vetoed legislation recently that would have required U.S. forces to begin leaving Iraq this year. The House on Thursday passed legislation that would release $43 billion immediately for military operations but would tie future money to Iraqi approval of laws dividing oil revenues among Iraq's ethnic groups and permitting some former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party to hold government jobs . In both Iraq and the United States, frustration is deepening among lawmakers and the public over Bush's elevated troop levels, a policy that has yet to prevent widespread violence. At the same time, Bush and al-Maliki are dispatching emissaries in an urgent trans-Atlantic gambit to shore up support (2).

In Iraqi parliament, majority of the members favor some type of freezing on the strength of US troops and current troop levels. On the opposite front on the issue of troop withdrawal, there were very strong voices too from the Iraqi leaders. "I don't think it's a good idea. Unless we complete building our forces so we are capable of defending the country, and bringing security to the country, then we are not ready for something like this," said Hachim al-Hassani, a secular Sunni from the Iraqi National List and a former parliament speaker. "A premature withdrawal could lead to a civil war in Iraq."

At home front, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham said the Democrats had picked a wrong and dangerous fight:

"Whatever mistakes the Bush team has made - and there are many - the Congress is about to make the greatest mistake of all and that is to tell the enemy what they have to do to get us out of Iraq on their terms, not ours. And a presidential hopeful, Republican John McCain, said setting a schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq would encourage insurgents. President Bush vetoed the Bill for time bound troops withdrawal and continues to veto such bills, but there were no concessions from the White House. Mr Bush "is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law," his deputy press secretary, Dana Perino, said in a statement. Thus there is war of attrition between the President and the Democrats (3) in both houses of America.

The suicide missions in Iraq are continuing. In the latest act, nearly 50 were killed in Iraq when a truck in suicide mission exploded in Makhmur 50 km south of Irbil and caused serious damage to the office of Kurdistan Democratic party of Masoud Barzani, leader of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. Makhmur is at the south of Kurdish controlled autonomous provinces and has substantial Kurdish population. The police Chief was also killed in the explosions (4). Deaths of US soldiers too are growing in Iraq. Sectarian murders have not stopped completely although reduced. To gain some thing, some thing has to be sacrificed. That is the law of universe. Nothing can be freely gained in this world. Same law applies to Iraq and war on terrorism.

President has already vetoed a bill by the Democrats. The Democrats controlled- house passed another war spending Bill that would be also vetoed by the President. How long the President would do these? This has also put some of his Republican supporters in tail spin and it has been reported that they have approached the President to state that their patience was weaning away and if by Sept 2007 there was no progress, it would be very difficult to extend support further for the Iraq war. But what is progress? This, no one knows in Washington and in Government and probably can not be defined even either. As per Vice President Dick Cheney who had a quick trip to Iraq, the Sunni Sheiks of Anbar province are not co operating with Alqaeda groups and turning against them and this was a good sign. Can this be seen as progress of some sort? Probably “yes”. President too is of opinion that things have improved in Iraq much before his introduction of more troops in Iraq. Yet, the Republican and Democrat representatives (They will be surely) in the houses of US are not fully convinced as there is no measurable and quantified progress. Situation is more fluid and is more subjective and slows (5). A lay man would understand that peace should prevail in Iraq. All suicide missions, sectarian conflicts must cease. Rule of law has to prevail. When these occur generally people believe that Iraq is stable and it is the time for pull out. However all these things can not occur at once and simultaneously particularly in a country devastated by war and meddling by neighbors. On the other front Iraq is major oil producing country and oil politics always played great destabilizing role in Middle East affairs.

It is well known that Iran has been meddling in Iraq and it would be very essential to counter this interference from Iran, if things have to be improved in Iraq. In recent developments, it has been reported by Iran’s foreign ministry that Iran was ready to talk with US about security in Iraq during meetings in Baghdad. It is believed that it received the request through Swiss Embassy which was the usual route for such communications. These talks would be restricted to only Iraq. It is also known that mid level US and Iranian officials met and discussed briefly during a week end’s Iraq summit two months ago. The new summit would soon be held and the level of summit would be also decided as per Mohamed Ali Hosseini spokesman for Iranian foreign ministry. However this has not been welcomed by Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of hard-line newspaper Kayhan and called the discussions as serious and big strategic mistake (6). Thus opinions are found differing on the proposed talks between US and Iranian officials about Iraq in Baghdad. However talks are always welcome as these would help in reducing tensions and would ease the situation.

Situation at times is made critical by certain statement by the leaders. US vice President Dick Cheney said from the deck of a US air craft carrier in the Persian Gulf that US and its allies would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and dominating the region. Quickly responding to the threat President of Iran immediately responded by saying that Iranian people were committed and prepared to retaliate against all such actions. In spite of the tense word the USA and Iran announced on 13 May, 07 that they has agreed to meet for talks in Baghdad to discuss security and stability in Iraq in the presence of Iraqi government. Iranian President Ahmerinejad has said “We decided we were ready and prepared to do this to support the Iraqi people (7).” Thus we see that some talks are going on in Baghdad to ease the situation. One good thing is that the requirement of taking Iran into confidence in solving crisis in Iraq has been recognized and the past and proposed talks in Baghdad are the result of thus recognition. Iraq problem can not be solved unilaterally. There are many local stakes. Even Saudi Arabia had voiced that they would support Sunni fighting groups if US troops withdraw. They see that Shia is likely to dominate the scene with Iran in backdrop and the Saudi rulers are allergic to Shia domination (8). Thus Iraq has already become the centre stage for future Arab interference and meddling. Even if USA leaves Iraq, very soon it would be hot bed of serious Shia Sunni confrontation and would be eternal boiling cauldron in Middle East. If the United States leaves, the central government in Iraq will collapse, and the beneficiaries will be Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda, the three major terror actors in the world today. It would not just be a psychological victory, but a territorial one. Al-Qaeda would gain a base in Mesopotamia; Syria and Iran would share spheres of influence in what's left of the Iraqi state.

In such situation is it wise to abandon Iraq to the hungry wolves around having removed Saddam Hussein from the scene? There is another aspect of non existence of democratic rules in Muslim nations. It is a world phenomenon. Islam and democracy do not go together. Except Turkey, ably supported by Army to preserve democracy as spelled out by Ata Turk or Musatfa Kemal, no other Islamic country has functional genuine democracy and all are suffering the sadistic dictatorship of clergy or princely rulers ably supported by the bearded Mullahs. Even if USA leaves Iraq, very soon this nation would fall to the fundamentalist elements in Muslim world that would fight among themselves. Islam although claims to be a great uniting force, it is an eye wash and it suffers from serious intersectarian bickering, jealousies and Shia and Sunni forces would be always at each others throat undermining each other fully knowing that these conflicts would ultimately destroy them. In fact, Muslim world is on the path of self destruction due to sectarian conflicts and hatred. This is the greatest difference from Christianity. Although Catholics and Protestants differ with each other, now they are not fighting with hatred as Muslims do. Therefore they are flourishing while Islamic States are going down day by day. With all these Muslim nations in possession of nuclear bombs very soon in near future, one could expect their inevitable self destruction very soon. But this is the way Islam functions to day and has been functioning in the pas too. Therefore, many are of the opinion that the efforts of Americans and the sacrifices of Americans would be wasted out in the deserts of Middle East after so much struggle, where people have no real respect for rule of law and democratic traditions which is the hall mark of modernity in the world and the basic foundation of American culture and most of the Christian nations. Then why waste American blood in these desert lands for a thankless cause that under any case would be wasted out?

In recent development, Pakistan President Parvez Musharraf has proposed an all Islamic peace keeping force under United Nations that should be stationed in Iraq once USA pulls out to keep control over the situation. Although it has some merit, the forces have to comprise of Shia and Sunni sects and as usual they would be a party to the already confused state in Iraq. The solution could be impracticable. Pakistan President expressed great concern that Islamic nations are going down day by day while western nations are progressing rapidly in all spheres. Most of the Islamic nations are obsessed with the faith and in turn are spending valuable time and efforts in the direction of faith and as a consequence are destroying themselves. For western nations, progress and growth is more important than the faith which is sidelined from actual governing and development. There is some truth in his view. But all the Muslim nations are in the grip of Mullahs and fad of fundamentalism and religious faith. They see the world with eye of Islam. Hence they are in the pitiable state today and no solution appears in near future except destruction due to mutual attrition and wars. Middle East particularly Iraq can not be left in lurch by the Americans and they have to stabilize before they leave. The Iraqi army and Police should be built up to the level of self competence to manage their own affairs before the Americans leave. Democrats can not take a blind step of withdrawal that would destroy the state of Iraq and American pride and interests would be jeopardized. There has been also a thought that Americans must withdraw from entire Middle East which is the main charge of Osama Bin Laden for conducting raid on WTC towers. Can America take orders from Laden what they should do? He also would give orders that American should not place troops in friendly countries in Gulf at their request. Or else he would attack USA. Will USA accept this nonsense and brow beating by a mere criminal? A ridiculous proposition indeed. The American nation would be seen as one without a spine. War on terrorism must continue hammer and tongs if these threats have to go. President George W Bush has a difficult period ahead of him and time is short. But he is confident of extricating his country out of the crisis in Iraq and like a Texan he would like to fire from the hip drawing out of vintage holster. Let us wish and hope, he would achieve it soon. God bless America and its people in this crucial hour.

Bibliography

1. Iraq violence in figures, International version, BBC news, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456995/html/default.stm

2. Iraq may demad time table for withdrawl, Drudge retort, May 11, 2007, http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:xOkS3awvllEJ:www.drudge.com

/news/94223/iraq-may-demand-timetable-withdrawl+Withdrawl+of+US+forces+from+Iraq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9

3. Us Senate votes for dead line. BBC news, UK version, http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:J_yrPpJYCaoJ:news.bbc.co.uk

/1/hi/world/americas/6501583.stm+Withdrawl+of+US+forces+from+Iraq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2

4.. Thomos wagner, 67 Killed in Iraq suicide bombings, Deccan chronicle, Hyderabad, AP, India, Date May 14, 2007, PP 12

5. Sheryal Gay Stolber ( Newyork time service), Sept. deadline for Bush, Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad, AP, India, Date May 14, 2007, PP 12

6. Nasser Karimi, Iran ready to talk with US on Iraq, Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad, AP, India, Date May 14, 2007, PP 12

7. Jim Crane, Iran vows revenge if US strikes, Deccan chronicle, Hyderabad, AP, India, Date May 15, 2007, PP 13

8. Prof Dr Colonel ( retired) K Parbhakar Rao, Are the relations between Saudi Arabia and USA getting strained? www.faithcommons.org, April 24, 2007, 09:11

Bookmark/Search this post with: