Early in August the confidential valedictory letter written by the United Kingdom’s departing ambassador in Iraq arrived in the public domain. William Patey, after his strenuous and dangerous time in Baghdad, had reached what many regarded as the obvious conclusion, even if government ministers were determined to disagree. The current key aim of government policy in Iraq, namely the creation of an elected, respected and effective government in Iraq was under grave threat, due to the bitter rivalry between Shiite and Sunni militias.
In the ambassador’s own words:
“The prospect of a low-intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy.”
Invited to comment on the British ambassador’s views a few hours later Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of American forces in the Middle East, replied:
“Iraq could move toward civil war. I believe the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it.”
No doubt Sen. John Warner, the chairman of the US Senate’s influential Armed Services Committee, had these words ringing in his ears when he visited American troops in Iraq a few days ago. He is a loyal and highly respected Republican who has been a staunch defender of President George Bush’s policy on Iraq. He is not the sort of senator that those around the president can simply ignore.
Reporting on his visit the senator said: “The situation is drifting sideways.”
He thought “a change of course” would be necessary if the violence continued. He warned the United States was on the verge of losing control of Baghdad and went on: “I wouldn’t take off the table any option at this time.”
He seemed to be saying in code that the United States should be giving thought to a withdrawal. In truth the situation in Iraq is not drifting sideways — that was a tactful phrase — but collapsing. Three and a half years after the capture of Baghdad, and the removal of the hated Saddam Hussein from power, Iraq has been experiencing an outburst of death and destruction, torture and turmoil. In July and August official figures report that 6,600 Iraqis suffered violent deaths. This was a 13 percent increase on the figures for May and June.
Each month at least 3,000 Iraqis are being killed. To put that figure in some context less than 3,000 people were killed in the attacks on America on Sept. 11, 2001. The IRA campaign over three decades killed some 3,000 people, mostly in Northern Ireland. A day or so ago the television news reported some 100 Iraqis had died through violence in a single day — and that is common.
Nobody is in control. Iraq has a properly and fairly elected government under Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, who is regarded as an improvement on his predecessor, but the institutions of the Iraqi state are certainly not functioning properly, if at all. Outside the comparative safety of the Green Zone in Baghdad, where the seat of power is supposed to be, the government writ does not run. One can make comparisons with President Hamid Karzei whose writ does not run a short distance out of Kabul.
Manfred Nowak, the United Nations’ expert on torture worldwide, has said the situation is “out of control” in Iraq and the use of torture by the security forces, militias and insurgency may be “worse than in the times of Saddam Hussein.”
Behind the scenes in both Washington and London there is now a realization that defeat is a real possibility. I cannot believe that putting more troops and resources into Iraq at this stage is a starter — one reason being that President Karzai needs them badly. Suddenly taking away America’s 140,000 troops — many of whom spend much time in their secure bases — and leaving security to the 250,000 Iraqi soldiers and police who are loyal, in the main, to their own communities, would lead to the early fall of the government of Iraq. James Baker, the former excellent secretary of state, who is chairman of an Iraq Study Group set up by the White House, is considering devolving powers from Baghdad to the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions without demanding formal partition. Such a proposal is fraught with problems, but it may be the direction Iraq is going in. Sunnis, who would lack the massive oil resources of the other regions, would have much to say. The idea has been floated in Britain of the United Nations, with the full backing of the European Union, establishing a UN protectorate. That is one horse that is clearly not going to be running.
The nightmare for Washington, and other capitals, is a full-scale civil war in Iraq over the next year with Iran giving its full support to the Shiites.
