Something was amiss in the testimonies of US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and US general commanding the Iraq war, Gen. David Petraeus, before US Congress last week. Amid the carefully chosen words and phrases, one could look all day for definitive signs of optimism about the status of America’s war in Iraq and come out empty handed. And when the general says about the famous surge that “progress made was fragile and reversible” or that there had been “significant but uneven security progress” the sense of hope begins to dissipate.
Petraeus has asked for an open-ended suspension of troop withdrawal and his request has been echoed by Crocker. Few days later President Bush, speaking on the 5th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, supported that request. What that means is that 140,000 US troops will remain in Iraq until the end of the year, at least. For the Democrats that decision has one clear meaning: The president has left the problematic issue of the war in Iraq to his successor.
One can hardly blame Petraeus for making such a crucial and controversial request. The conflict in Iraq cannot be resolved through military means and the Bush administration has neither the means nor the credibility to launch a genuine political settlement. This is why the president is now calling on America’s Arab friends for help.
His decision to send the general and the ambassador on a trip to the Middle East to drum up Arab support for the Baghdad government is both surprising and puzzling. This so-called political surge will also take Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to a number of Gulf countries for the same reason. At the heart of the US mission will be a request that Arab governments boost their diplomatic ties with Iraq including the opening of embassies.
To solicit Arab assistance at this juncture of the US misadventure in Iraq is a bit outrageous. America’s Arab friends and allies were never consulted on US strategy and conflicting policies in Iraq. They were certainly opposed to the invasion and when America went ahead with its war they offered advice and plenty of warnings on the dangerous ramifications that will surface as a result.
Saudi Arabia and Jordan were among the first to go on record and warn Washington of the growing Iranian influence in Iraq and of the shortsighted policies of alienating the Sunnis. They and others questioned the Bush strategies which they saw as polarizing the country and pushing it toward bloody sectarian confrontations.
Moreover, the US made sure that neither the Arab League nor the United Nations plays an effective role in bringing Iraqi reconciliation or setting a timetable for foreign troop withdrawal. For five years the US insisted on a unilateral approach on Iraq. If it talked with its Arab friends it was over facing up to Tehran as if Iran was the only impediment to Iraq’s salvation.
America’s adventure in Iraq has been riddled by a series of mishaps, miscalculations and misunderstandings. It is farcical to believe that the US failure in Iraq is a matter of bad policy or ill-planned approach. The whole invasion scenario was wrong and illegal to begin with. To this date Americans look at the war in Iraq from a selfish vantage point that totally ignores the horrific suffering of millions of Iraqis. To them, Democrats and Republicans, the war is seen through the prism of American casualties, American tax money and American standing in the world.
But there is much more at stake here. The Arabs to whom Bush is now appealing for help will have to live for many decades with the repercussions of a divided and weakened Iraq. They are the ones who will have to consider the long-term consequences of an Iranian-style Shiite republic in parts of Iraq. And above all, they are the ones who will have to find ways to help millions of Iraqi refugees and displaced persons to regain their lives.
The US political offensive will likely get the cold shoulder. Not that Arab governments will not consider boosting their relations with Baghdad. Many will do that if it serves their interests and not because Washington has asked them to. But if America is now seeking Arab help, then, it will have to come up with answers and commitments. The fate of Petraeus and his troops is not an issue. America has lost that war already and cleaning up the mess it will one day leave behind is what concerns its Arab friends.
Clearly, the Bush administration has no answers because it has run out of ideas. It is now up to the next administration to sift through the Iraqi mess and decide on an honorable way out. But while such a possibility may solve America’s problem on the short run, it does little to alleviate Arab concerns. Leaving Iraq today or next year will not change the fact that sectarian, geopolitical and economic undercurrents have been put in motion. Dealing with them is going to prove difficult and complicated. The Arabs understand such risks but their influence on Iraqi affairs has never been weaker, thanks to stymied US policies.
Still, the fact that the United States is now seeking Arab help should not be underestimated. It is an opportunity to engage the Americans on the future of Iraq beyond the issue of opening embassies or boosting trade ties. The Iraq question will be a gadfly for the next US administration, and the region, and the Arabs should work together and with neighbors to present collective ideas on how the damage can be contained and hopefully find ways to save that crippled country.
— Osama Al Sharif is a veteran journalist based in Jordan.
