Many options are being discussed in the policy-making circles of the US as well as in international media to deal with the desperate situation to provide the US an opportunity for a graceful ‘exit’ from Iraq. Mainly, four options are being discussed such as ‘division of the country on ethnic lines, sending in of more troops to have frontal engagement with insurgents to neutralise all anti US elements, talk with Syria and Iran to sort out the mess in Iraq, ‘cut and run’ leaving the Iraqis to their fate to dowhatever they want to do to themselves.’  

However, considering the history of the nation as well as graver than ever situation on the ground, none of them seems viable enough option to provide any face saving to the US.

Pros and cons of all these options spell disaster both for Iraq and the US interests in the region. Already Mr. Bush and his neocons have become a liability for their party and President’s ranking still stands below 37: Nov 7 mid-term elections are foregone conclusion. Only a lunatic and grossly insincere person can think of dividing the country on ethnic and religious lines: communities in Iraq are so intertwined and closely knit together that any such division is rather impossible.

The second option has run out of steam. Coalition forces are already demoralised and have realised that their chance to win any battle against such enemy as they are facing in Iraq is quite impossible. They need fresh thinking and intake of new strategy even to reduce their own losses in men and material.

Since the so-called conclusion of the war in 2003 about 3000 US troops have died and many times more have been injured who would have died in ordinary  conditions had the medical care not been improved so much. Further, under the influence of Zionist lobbies at home the US does not engage Iran and Syria, rather considers them as part of the problem: mistrust clouds all intelligence.

The erratic behaviour of the US with Syria and Iran on behest of Israel defies all logic and is a slight to American intelligence. How long can lunacy hold its sway? The US must engage with Iraqi neighbours and seek Syrian and Iranian help to fight off terrorist elements operating in Iraq and lessen the human sufferings there or wait for history’s verdict on its folly for not doing so.

If the US packs up quickly and ditches Iraqis to face the music, then the Americans should rest assured that Atlantic is not big enough ocean to ward off terrorist as well as nationalist outfits haunting them presently in Iraq. They must first clean their ‘Aegean stables’ before leaving Iraq: every catastrophe is of their own making.

Since long the US has been promising that Iraqi forces would be substituting for American ones to handle security issues themselves. However, the promise is over due. In February 2005, General Casey noted that in the year ahead the United States would begin to “transfer the counter-insurgency mission to the increasingly capable Iraqi security forces across Iraq.”

On last Tuesday he extended the timeline saying, “It’s going to take another 12 to 18 months or so till, I believe, the Iraqi security forces are completely capable of taking over responsibility for their own security, still probably with some level of support from us, but that will be directly asked for by the Iraqis.” On papers Iraq presently has about 300,000 troops and police officers, including some 115,000 army combat soldiers.

One wonders why it is taking so long to hand over security of certain areas to Iraqi forces. On the other hand to compound Bush’s difficulties, Iraqi leadership is emerging strong, slowly but sternly; if Bush had ever wished for a demagogue like President Karazi in Afghanistan all his hopes have been dashed to the ground.

The US has its own agenda that it wants to realise in a no-win position in Iraq: Neutralisation of Mehdi militia which is a hundred times stronger challenge to its presence in Iraq than Al-Qaeda’s threat to the US interests all over the world.

In the name of ‘political concessions to Sunnis and a crackdown on Shiite militias as the only way to halt the sectarian violence’ they are demanding of Maliki to crackdown on Mahdi malitia, one of the parties that had supported Maliki’s accession to power as replacement to Jaffari whose independent posture had earned American wrath at an early stage of New Iraq’s political life.  Muqtada Sadar and his Mahdi malitia have about 34 seats in Parliament and make out a very strong opinionated block in the political dispensation of an emerging nation.

Maliki is exerting himself as a leader of 24-million peoples and has  assumed  postures that are not unbecoming of a political demagogue in his difficult position.

Last Tuesday, he showed off public disagreement and demonstrated to his  detractors that he was not an American puppet, when the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, tried to turn up the pressure on Maliki by announcing that he had agreed to a ‘timeline’ for political reforms. Maliki responded the next day with what sounded like a rebuttal: ‘The Americans have the right to review their policies, but we do not believe in a timetable, and no one will impose one on us.’

However, there is only one way out of this quagmire. Iraq must be divided into federal zones with weak Centre with equitable distribution of oil wealth so that all Iraqis benefit from country’s wealth to grow and prosper without the fear of Saddam-like dictatorship in the future.

Keeping in view the history of the country and the region itself this is the only arrangement that can prevent the return of dictatorship to the country and also to placate the misgivings of jittery elements presently playing havoc with Iraqi society.

In his Eid message, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) also said, “Federalism will guarantee that the injustice of the past will not revisit our children nor our grandchildren.”There is no harm in dividing the country into federating units with maximum powers to local people to take care of themselves respecting the sovereignty and integrity of their country.

One good example is Pakistan where we have four federating units  (provinces)  with strong Central Government. After each decade the army chiefs think it appropriate to take over Pakistan: there is never any dearth of  sycophant  politicians to support military’s such action.

Dictatorship, autocracy, authoritarianism, absolutism in politics,  totalitarianism,  tyranny and repression are the order of the day in the lands of Islam. Of course, this does not spring from Islam; it does from vengeance, corruption, depravity, sleaze, dishonesty and personal vendetta of its secular leaders and so-called ‘enlightened moderation.’ However, the whole nation has to bear the  consequen-ces of the misadventure of the very few.

It is advisable that Federalism with greater autonomy should be encouraged in the lands of Islam so that Ummah is given an opportunity to straighten out its own affairs and pool down its energies to augment stress on scholarship, learning, education and training of its youths. Let Iraq be the first test case for the whole Ummah.

Information

Pros and cons of all these options spell disaster both for Iraq and the US interests in the region. Already Mr. Bush and his neocons have become a liability for their party and President’s ranking still stands below 37: Nov 7 mid-term elections are foregone conclusion. Only a lunatic and grossly insincere person can think of dividing the country on ethnic and religious lines:  communities in Iraq are so intertwined and closely knit together that any such division is rather impossible.

First appeared in Pakistan Observer on November 05, 2006