ISLAMABAD, 24 April 2004 — In Washington the “Rumsfeld jubilance” of early war days has given way to caution, casualties and chaos. Rumsfeld who until recently relished his men’s “containment skills” after invading and occupying Iraq, has recognized their limits in Fallujah and in Najaf. Yet endless occupation and continuing ground operations are no option for the US.
For US the trouble spots are increasing. Casualties are on the increase. Over 800 US soldiers dead. The resistance gets more united and tougher as an adversary. In April the first US call for a cease-fire was issued after it failed in combat with Al-Moqtada Sadr’s militia. Car bombs, ambush and guerrilla attacks are on the increase across the country.
Second pro-US coalition desertions have begun. Spain is out and so is Honduras. The Dominican Republic, whose troops were attached with the Spanish unit, has announced it will withdraw its 302 troops from Iraq within “the next week”. Poland too may depart come September and the Thailand even earlier if military matters worsen. US Secretary of State Colin Powell made over thirty phone calls to convince members to “stay the course.”
Third Bush is under attack from John Kerry. Addressing his supporters in New York on April 14 Kerry’s criticism was unsparing. He said, “I think the approach of this administration has been consistent and stubborn in the way that it persists in this American occupation and in proceeding down its own road... It has made that mistake from Day One, and it is costing us money and I think it is costing us lives.”
Significantly a revealing note on US’s Iraq blunder has come from a former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas W. Freeman Jr, now president of the Middle East Policy Council. Caustically he wrote about US Iraq policy saying, “arrogant daydreams that inspire military actions can become humiliation nightmares that produce political debacle.”
However the foremost critic, former CENTCOM chief Gen. Anthony Zinni has spoken again. In his April 16 interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune, Zinni said, “I think that some heads should roll over Iraq...I think the president got some bad advice.”
Zinni, a former Bush administration special envoy to the Middle East has said, “whoever believed that an Iraq war would help to solve the Palestinian problem must live on another planet.” In his Tribune interview Zinni recommended the United States now rely on the UN to pull its “chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq...we’re betting on the UN who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war...Now we’re back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost.”
Last September in an NBC interview Zinni was brutal in his criticism. He then predicted strategic failure. “We are great at dealing with the tactical problems — the killing and the breaking. We are lousy at solving the strategic problems; having a strategic plan, understanding about regional and global security and what it takes to weld that and to shape it and to move forward,” he had said.
Fourth element that reins in US in Iraq is the UN. Its refusal to rubber-stamp any political or military moves by the US in Iraq. Technically on June 30 the US will hand over “sovereignty” to the Iraqi people. However by the end of April an interim government has to be set up following an agreement with the US on placement of troops, administrative arrangements and multinational forces. The United States has called for UN involvement. The UN is clear it must have political independence to design a consensus-based Iraqi-supported plan undertaking this task.
The cumulative effect of all these elements is a definite “no-win” for the US in Iraq. The electoral dynamics at home, the media’s power to expose facts and the global dynamics of multiple power centers, will also prevent an endless prolonging of a disastrous US policy which is costing thousands of Iraqi and hundreds of US lives and is indeed perpetuating misery of millions.
Washington’s grandiose plan of invading and occupying Iraq, greatly undermined an international system capable of conflict resolution. Its “no dialogue” with Saddam approach generated bitter yield no different from its Afghan “no dialogue” with Soviets policy. Like Afghanistan, Iraq too is being dragged into violence, destruction and bloodshed. Only unlike Afghanistan where the Afghans and the Pakistanis had to pay a price here the Americans too are paying a price in men, international stature and global goodwill. For its policies in Iraq Washington is widely condemned across the globe. The only recourse left for Washington is to go back to the United Nations. But not to use it merely as a fig leaf of multilateralism.
— Nasim Zehra is fellow of the Harvard University Asia Center.
