Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The Iraq war is irretrievably lost

By Gary Brown - posted Friday, 23 February 2007


Clearly John Howard, like his friend George W. Bush, remains in denial over the shambles that is Iraq.

Having invaded that country on pretexts now proven utterly false, the so-called “coalition of the willing” achieved a swift victory over the under-equipped and severely damaged Iraqi military. Winning the conventional war against Saddam’s forces proved easy; winning the peace - pardon the word, which isn’t really apposite - has proven impossible.

Recently declassified documents show that the Americans expected that post-conquest “stabilisation” of the country would take two to three months, “recovery” a further 18-24 months and “transition of civil-military activities” to international organisations, NGOs and the US-supported Iraqi Government another 12-18 months. By the end of 2006 the US expected to have just 5,000 troops left in Iraq! Just how they believed these expectations could be realised, is a question best addressed to Mr Bush.

Advertisement

But notwithstanding the disastrous real-world outcomes, Bush and Howard continue to argue that “victory” in Iraq is achievable via the “new strategy” recently announced. This strategy, one of escalation, amounts to the deployment of about 21,000 more US troops to Iraq, primarily to secure Baghdad, and pressurising the Iraq Government (such as it is) to commit more of its forces (such as they are) to the same goal.

The prospects of this approach were recently analysed in an incisive interview given to ABC-TV by Australian-born Martin Indyk (long since a US citizen and the Clinton Administration’s Ambassador to Israel - a most sensitive and responsible post). Indyk, at least, realises the bitter truth: the US and its allies are “going down to defeat” in Iraq.

The seeds of this defeat were sown not only in foolish expectations but in immediate post-conquest US behaviour.

Watching the final collapse of Saddam’s noxious regime on CNN, I was dismayed to see that the new overlords of Iraq had clearly made no plans for a proper and efficient occupation of Baghdad. The images of total disorder and systematic looting - even of the priceless treasures of the city museum, which contained some of the earliest relics of civilised humanity from the Sumerian era - spoke volumes about the conquerors’ attitude.

They went in to destroy the Saddam regime: when that was done, everything subsequent was of low priority, based on ludicrous assumptions about future developments and a shortsighted desire to keep dollar costs down.

As Indyk argues, all that is left now is damage-limitation. In his words:

Advertisement

We [the US] have to shift now from a policy of trying to intervene in the civil war to a policy of trying to contain this implosion in Iraq from exploding and affecting American interests in the wider region … what we need is a phased redeployment, essentially to the borders of Iraq, whereby we can deter neighbouring countries, like Iran or Turkey, from intervening and provide safe havens and humanitarian relief for the Iraqis who will be fleeing what increasingly will become a process of ethnic cleansing, and that is the best way, I think, that we can prevent defeat in Iraq from becoming a complete disaster for American interests in the broader region.

This unpalatable scenario is the Bush-Howard-Blair legacy. The Iraq war is a failure, and all that remains is to cut losses - human, military, diplomatic and political - as best as can be.

Whether Indyk’s suggested damage-limitation strategy, which involves an ongoing American presence in Iraq, but not continued engagement in the civil war, would work is another matter. In particular, it appears dangerously open-ended. But it certainly represents a better option than the escalation now being attempted.

Don’t expect those who so blithely led us over the Iraqi precipice to admit it, however. Stubborn and purblind, the three guilty leaders refuse to admit what they have done. Fortunately, all three countries remain democracies. Bush’s party has already paid the first instalment of the political price with its defeat in the mid-term Congressional elections, which left Bush a “lame duck” president. Blair is being forced from office, and Howard faces an election this year.

We were lied to in the lead-up to war; it is now clear that the Americans also deceived themselves and their allies in their hopelessly flawed planning for the post-conquest phase of the war. The US has lost thousands of soldiers killed, more thousands wounded. Australia has wasted billions paying for its token role in the disaster and may yet face worse.

If the “new strategy” succeeds in driving significant numbers of insurgents from Baghdad - or if they themselves redeploy (one obvious countermeasure for them) - then areas now relatively quiet could receive significant insurgent reinforcements.

As Australia’s Defence Force Chief, Air Marshal Huston, recently told a Senate Committee “any time you have a crackdown there is a possibility that people who are being the subject of that crackdown have the option to either stand and fight or run and go somewhere else”.

What this means is that even a successful clearance of Baghdad may simply transfer the problem elsewhere, perhaps including the relatively calm areas where Australian forces are currently deployed.

US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is already claiming progress because, in the few days since the US began its Baghdad operations, there has (according to the Iraqi Government - perhaps not the most reliable source) been a substantial falloff in attacks. But such a judgment is seriously premature.

It does not seem to have occurred to her - though US field commanders are wiser - that the insurgents are simply lying low or, as I have suggested, redeploying. I suspect that their strategy will be to lure US troops onto prepared “killing grounds” and try to inflict heavy casualties. They will certainly follow the spirit of Mao Zedong’s famous maxim for guerrillas:

The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue.

But it is the unfortunate people of Iraq who are paying the heaviest price and, if Martin Indyk’s projections prove even partially correct, they will continue to pay. They have exchanged a vicious dictatorship for a horrible civil war; their country is now infested with al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists who flocked there to kill Americans: they face the prospect, once the US is finally driven out, of yet another vicious dictatorship, probably Shia, after the civil war is finally fought to a conclusion.

Nor do the longer-term consequences look promising. American credibility in the critically important Middle Eastern region is already shattered. Once it finally acknowledges its defeat in Iraq, the US - almost certainly under a Democrat President after 2008 - is likely to repeat, with variations, its post-Vietnam behaviour. It will be reluctant to engage in future conflicts, its enemies will take heart.

If this last sounds like Bush, Blair or Howard talking, it is because in a certain sense they are right: the consequences of defeat will be significant. But they are wrong in their stonewalling claims that defeat is still avoidable. It is not. This war is lost; it was already lost when Saddam’s statue was being pulled down on that memorable day in Baghdad in 2003, and those who orchestrated it bear the responsibility.

Their willingness to spend ever more treasure and blood in a vain attempt to retrieve the irretrievable demonstrates that their mulish stubbornness is exceeded only by their indifference to the costs of the calamity they have engendered.

Soon (though not soon enough) we will be rid of Bush, Blair and Howard. It will take a lot longer, if ever, to repair the immense damage their rash adventurism in Iraq has done.

If there is anything good to come out of this, it is that the so-called neo-conservatives and their mad ideological belief that democratic institutions can be imposed on any country by force and made to work are utterly discredited. The chickens are coming home to roost on the White House gable.

In ancient democratic Athens, unsuccessful leaders were sometimes brought before the courts and prosecuted. It’s a pity that we haven’t preserved this feature of the Athenian democratic system, because Bush in particular would cut a fine figure in the dock of a tribunal (not, of course, constituted like the kangaroo court that might eventually “try” David Hicks) facing charges of gross incompetence, lying to his people and, above all, mass murder.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

35 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Until June 2002 Gary Brown was a Defence Advisor with the Parliamentary Information and Research Service at Parliament House, Canberra, where he provided confidential advice and research at request to members and staffs of all parties and Parliamentary committees, and produced regular publications on a wide range of defence issues. Many are available at here.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Gary Brown

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Gary Brown
Article Tools
Comment 35 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy