|
Stay the course?
16.10.2006
By Khaled Salih
|
|
|
|
Last August, Britain's
Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that however
difficult the situation in Iraq is, "stay the
course, stand up for those people who want
democracy, stand for those people who are fighting
sectarianism, stand up for a different vision of the
Middle East based on democracy, liberty and the rule
of law.
" US President George W. Bush and his supporters
have continuously repeated the same message in many
ways and on different occasions.
Less than ten days ago, the Republican chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John W.
Warner of Virginia, aired a different idea: "In two
or three months if this thing [the Iraqi prime
minister's plan to improve security] hasn't come to
fruition and this level of violence is not under
control, I think it's a responsibility of our
government to determine: Is there a change of course
we should take?" Some would say that dividing Iraq
into three federal units is the only viable
solution.
Others argue that the Bush administration must
accept and publicly acknowledge its failure in Iraq,
leading to withdrawal as an inevitable outcome.
|
Khaled Salih is Kurdistan Regional Government
spokesman. He is also a senior lecturer in Middle
East politics at the University of Southern Denmark.
He is coeditor (with Brendan O'Leary and John
McGarry) of The Future of Kurdistan in Iraq
(University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005). |
There is no doubt that an American withdrawal will
happen; the question is when and how. From
Kurdistan's perspective, it is difficult to see how
any quick and messy US military and political
withdrawal could bring about a better alternative to
the current situation. A premature withdrawal
plunges Iraq's major political processes into more
chaos and deeper conflicts.
Under such circumstances the Sunni Arab insurgency
would escalate, with hopes to recapture Iraq's
political, military and security institutions.
Iraq's Shi'ite political forces and population would
do their utmost to avoid failing in their historic
opportunity to come to power and rule themselves.
Kurdistan's achievement in terms of self-rule,
stability and prosperity could easily fade away.
Inevitably, more violent killings would follow as a
consequence of haphazardly abandoning the emerging
political arrangements based on Iraq's negotiated
constitution under US and coalition protection.
The idea of a federal, democratic and pluralistic
Iraq can hardly survive without long-term American
military, political and security commitments. On the
contrary, a more likely outcome would be
intervention by neighboring countries and terrorist
groups to promote their own interests, exact revenge
or punish those who sided with the Americans against
Saddam Hussein's regime or dared to dream of a
better and democratic future.
In such circumstances, Kurdistan would pay a much
higher price than we can anticipate: not only is the
Kurdish leadership seen to be actively supporting
redrawing Iraq's political system, but the entire
population is viewed as supporting foreign forces,
ideas and values.
An American withdrawal before Iraq's political,
military, security and economic institutions can
survive on their own would invite extremist groups
to penetrate Iraq's borders and cause more
destruction than we have seen.
Kurdistan is particularly vulnerable in such a
scenario because of its geographic location and in
view of the difficulties implied in controlling the
region's mountains. If extremist groups managed to
survive in Afghanistan, create a rule of horror and
extend their influence across continents before they
were confronted militarily, Kurdistan can
potentially function in the same way for
anti-Kurdish, anti-US, anti-western and
anti-democratic forces.
Panicked, unplanned and chaotic withdrawal is not
the only answer to criticisms and demands for a
different course of action in Iraq. It is not
difficult to imagine the US rearranging its military
and political presence but still remaining in Iraq.
One option is to withdraw more from Baghdad and
other cities in the hope that Sunnis and Shi'ites
conclude that they cannot eliminate each other and
therefore must find a modus vivendi.
Another option is to reduce the US military presence
to a minimum level but keep the airbases the US has
managed to build in Iraq in order to limit the
capacity of extremist groups and to deter
neighboring countries from embarking on a military
adventure in Iraq. A further advantage of
maintaining the airbases is the expected escalation
with Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons and Iran's
non-compliance with UN Security Council demands and
resolutions.
Even if the US military and airbases cannot function
to create democratic institutions in Iraq and
support liberty and rule of law in the Middle East,
they can prevent the collapse of the current
regional order and possibly prevent regional wars
over the issue of weapons of mass destruction.-
Published 12.Oct.2006
Khaled Salih is Kurdistan Regional Government
spokesman. He is also a senior lecturer in Middle
East politics at the University of Southern Denmark.
He is coeditor (with Brendan O'Leary and John
McGarry) of The Future of Kurdistan in Iraq
(University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005). The views
expressed here are personal.
bitterlemons-international org
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 