I recently wrote that it was Time to Withdraw from Iraq because the swearing in of the new Iraqi government offers us the last best chance to leave under terms that might be considered less than disastrous. It now appears that the Bush and Blair administrations share that belief. Of course, they are not going to call it a ‘withdrawal’, they are going to call it a ‘transition’. And they aren’t going to withdraw troops from the worst areas of Iraq, only the areas that are suffering from relatively little violence. The correct description might be that we are going to do a ‘drawdown’ of troops.
The scope of the phased withdrawal, which will see the 133,000 US force levels cut to around 100,000 by the end of the year and British numbers almost halved, has already been agreed, one senior defence source said.
Bush and Blair plan to make the most of this announcement in the hope that it will take some of the pressure off for a fuller withdrawal.
[Lt-Gen Sir Rob] Fry, who is a key member of the joint Coalition/Iraqi committee examining the prospects for coalition forces to pull out, pointedly said the new government would be “extremely keen” to see coalition forces start withdrawing “in order that it can demonstrate its own sovereignty.”
The timing of the announcement has been on hold waiting for the new government to be sworn in, with officials ready to prepare the Bush-Blair summit within 48 hours of al-Maliki signaling the withdrawal should begin.
So, this is how it will work. Once al-Maliki appoints his chief security ministers he will announce the beginning of the end of the occupation. Bush and Blair will then appear within 48 hours to have a joint press conference where they will give the misleading impression that the war is almost over and that we will begin a transition involving a ‘phased withdrawal’ of troops. However, the drawdown of troops will be limited to approximately a quarter of those stationed in Iraq and will only involve soldiers stationed in relatively calm provinces. The insurgency in the Sunni Triangle will go on, as will the primacy of the American effort to combat the insurgency.
The Americans have already lost more than 120 servicemen in the past six weeks, making it one of the worst periods for casualties since last autumn.
Hopefully, the drawdown in troops will not contribute to increased peril for those that remain. Regardless, Bush and Blair will give lip service to ending the war and thereby lose their last best chance to end the occupation on terms less than ignominious.
It would be better if Bush and Blair used their joint press conference to dramatically lower expectations for the end result in Iraq. They should acknowledge that the new government is going to have grave difficulties maintaining order and providing security after we pull out. They should warn us, and the Iraqis, that there is a high risk that the current parliament will break up as minority parties respond to heavy handed efforts to provide security by resigning from the government.
Then they should announce a much fuller withdrawal plan…one that will have all allied troops out of Iraq by the year’s end, unless the Iraqi government makes a request that we stay in limited numbers in a supporting role.
When we actually leave, we would like it to appear to be by mutual agreement, not as a result of an inability to sustain our effort, or tantamount to a surrender to jihadists. The time to make that case is now. We should declare a limited victory, of sorts, in that the Iraqis have held elections and seated a government. We should announce our intention to abide by U.N. Resolution 1546, which calls for an end of the occupation by December 31st, 2006, unless otherwise requested by the Iraqi government. We should make it clear that the mission has been harder than expected, and that we have been unable to create conditions that will assure the success and future unity of Iraq.
Bush and Blair should show some humility, lay out the worst-case sceanrios, and implore the international community to be supportive of the Iraqi central government as they struggle to assert their dominance. No one should be under any illusions that the Iraqi government can do this without resorting to tactics that will be rightfully condemned by human rights organizations. Bush should also make absolutely clear that we have no intention of keeping permanent air bases or garrisons on Iraqi soil without the consent of the Iraqis (a possible exception might be made for Kurdistan, by the consent of the Kurdish government).
If they fail to do this, we will find ourselves in a vice created by Resolution 1546, whereby we will either be asked to leave and refuse, or will be asked to stay, and the government will lose all credibility. Moreover, we will become enmeshed in a giant ethnic cleansing effort on the side of Shiites against the Sunnis. This will be disastrous for more than humanitarian reasons. All of our regional allies are Sunni, while Iran is Shiite. We will shatter our regional alliances.
The damage is largely done. But only by announcing an intent to carry out a complete drawdown now can we limit the fallout and go some small way towards innoculating ourselves from the full measure of responsibility for the enormous tragedy that is about to ensure in Iraq. It’s not much to cling to, but it beats being there on the ground contributing to the carnage, actively alienating our allies, and nonethesless, being forced to leave under even worse conditions that cannot be spun as anything less than total defeat.
