The US is looking for a strategy to extricate itself from the volatile situation in the Middle East following the dismal failure of its policies. President George Bush launched the Afghan and Iraq wars as a face-saving operation following the Sept. 11 terror attacks, which inflicted a serious blow to the superpower’s arrogance.
The United States, which has never understood properly the social and political realities in the Middle Eastern region, embarked on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under false calculations.
The reported angry message from Bush to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf threatening to stop the US aid to Islamabad for Pakistan’s failure to eliminate Taleban and Al-Qaeda, betrays the US leader’s ignorance of the ground realities of the region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Vice President Dick Cheney’s surprise visit to Pakistan also confirms the main thrust of the message. Though the occupation of Afghanistan in likely to continue for some more time, eventually the embattled foreign forces will be forced to quit. They cannot hope to have better luck than the British imperial power, which was unable to control the country more than two years though it ruled the Indian Subcontinent over 300 years.
The NATO forces could not be better than the better-organized Soviet forces, which were forced to quit Afghanistan after a short occupation.
However Iraq has proved to be the quagmire in which the US ambition to wrest the control of the world is sinking. The US would not be able to escape from the imbroglio without the help of Iraq’s neighbors. Only they are in a position to end the civil war in Iraq.
Last month, the US president laid down a special plan for the security of Baghdad besides increasing the number of US troops in Iraq. The president made the plan after it became increasingly evident that several countries, members of the so-called “coalition of the willing”, wanted to withdraw their forces from Iraq. Even Britain, Washington’s loyal ally, has announced plans to withdraw from Iraq.
Bush’s new plan, however, suffers from the following flaws.
• He is downplaying the challenges the US is facing in Iraq. He attempts to portray the US soldiers in Iraq as the saviors of the emerging “democracy” in the country from extremists. And also to protect the American society from terrorists. Both claims are wrong.
• His decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq is an ineffective political game. These additional numbers will not be enough to win a decisive victory in Iraq. The move also means greater bloody encounters that would never end as numerous ethnic and religious groups are involved.
• The increase in the number of military comes at the wrong time, as this is the right moment for supporting the Iraqi authorities to bring the country under its control and counter the external interventions. American charges against Syria and Iran that they are interfering in the affairs of Iraq will only lead to a widening of the conflict.
• Bush did not indicate any framework for a final political solution. This suggests that the US is planning for a long-term occupation.
• Bush’s message also reflects gross misunderstanding of the age in which we are living; Bush and his ultra-right supporters behave as though they are colonial masters of Iraq.
The greatest American blunder was its launching of wars against Afghanistan and Iraq in the tradition of British imperial power.
These are some of the reasons why Bush’s new plan for Iraq is doomed to fail.
However as a face-saving effort to stop the violence in Iraq, the US is showing signs of readiness to hold some sort of dialogue with Iran and Syria. It has also agreed to attend the Baghdad conference scheduled for March 10, in which Iraq’s neighboring countries and five permanent members of the Security Council will take part.
Will the conference succeed in ending the crisis and will the US agree to withdraw its forces from Iraq? Or will the Bush administration commit another big blunder by striking Iran and plunging the whole region into carnage and bloodshed?
