Home > What Can the U.S. Do in Iraq?
Wars and conflicts International USA
Amman/Brussels, 22 December 2004: Iraqi hostility toward the American-led occupation, more widespread and deeper rooted than the U.S. has acknowledged, means the Bush administration’s policy there can no longer achieve its original aims. But Washington can salvage the situation if it now focuses on realistic goals.
What Can the U.S. Do in Iraq?,* the latest report from the International Crisis Group, highlights the freefall of Iraqi confidence in the U.S. Soaring resentment feeds the insurgency, making the transition process a source of, not the solution to, the legitimacy deficit. The U.S. should recognise the new realities under which it operates and accept the dual disengagement course Crisis Group lays out: gradual U.S. political and military disengagement from Iraq and, no less important, a clear Iraqi political disengagement from the U.S.
"Washington has to realise: you occupy the Iraq you have, not the Iraq you might wish to have later", says Robert Malley, Director of Crisis Group’s Middle East/North Africa Program.
To preserve the hope of a united Iraq rallying around a credible central state:
- U.S. and Iraqi authorities should agree on and articulate a clear vision of where they want to be by late 2005, when the transitional process is to end, in particular the extent of the political and any military roles the U.S. will still play, and publicly define the schedule and scope of American disengagement from Iraq.
- The U.S. should design a counter-insurgency strategy more focused on subordinating military operations to political initiatives, and on gaining popular support rather than eliminating insurgents. It should emphasise that military operations are to protect civilians, consult more on reconstruction, and accept Iraqi efforts to revise decisions made by the occupation.
- Parliamentary elections and a subsequent constituent assembly must be — and must be perceived by the Iraqi people to be — not a linear continuation of the process underway since the war but a fundamental break, whether the vote is on 30 January or later.
- Iraqis must believe they are building a unified, independent state, and the new state must define itself at least partially in opposition to U.S. policies or risk defining itself in opposition to many of its own citizens.
The report argues that U.S. pursuit of the impossible has become an obstacle to achieving the possible: a stable government viewed by its people as credible, representative and the embodiment of national interests, and capable of addressing their basic needs.
"The credibility of Iraqi institutions depends essentially on their ability to respond to the Iraqi population’s needs and aspirations, which inevitably will entail distancing themselves from the U.S.-led occupation", says Peter Harling, Crisis Group’s Middle East Analyst.
Contacts: Andrew Stroehlein (Brussels) +32 (0) 485 555 946 Jennifer Leonard (Washington) +1-202-785 1601
Forum posts
23 December 2004, 04:18
It was never meant to do anything decent in or to Iraq! The Bush Administration started very weak,
even after 9/11 Bush showed any kind of ability, therefore and because of the almost bankrupt -
despite what’s on the news, we have eyes - economy.
The Anglo/British capitalism survives only on the misery the do to other countries. Hitler’s war against
Britain freed the British colonies from slavery and more exploitation. Of course this so called free
market system - freedom for the greedy - failes now to provide enough jobs. America is loosing
it’s way to the military/industrial and religious complex.
Two more years of Iraq and the country is done.
12 January 2005, 05:28
At this piont, We can only hope to train Iraqi police to take over. Nearly 5 MAJOR mistakes has put the U.S. in a catistrophic situation. too few troops, dismantled the Iraqi army. did not seal boarders before the war. No real justified reason for invading. The Bush administration’s arigence, pride, and just plain hard headed appraoch has coast the lives of too many for a cause that could very well end up in civil war. The Powell Docrine should have been taken very serouisly as well as the advice of Retired General Erick Shinseki. President Bush and his Secretary of Defence should study the Bible more, This has nothing to do with Religion as much as it has to do with history of the people and region we are dealing with. The common foot soldier knows that it will take much more than 100 grand to hold down a country the size of Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld has managed to ignore all the warning signs with a two demensional approach that has put our military in the worst shape since Vietnam. "Did I say Vietnam"? The Generals adive are ignored, the mid-level Officers are no more the robots, and We have the odasity to be angry at a young specialist who had the courage to ask the Secretary of Defence as to why we arn’t properly armored. If this had been asked behind close doors as some officials would have prefered. Mr Rumsfeld would have angerly ignored this soldier just as he has everyone else including Colin Powell.