The killings and assaults across Iraq amounted to the worst sectarian violence since the American invasion, and underscored the ease with which instability can spread throughout this country. American commanders have said that they hope to draw down a significant portion of the 130,000 American troops here by the end of this year, and that enough Iraqi soldiers and police officers could be trained by then to take over responsibility for security in many areas. Yet, Iraqi security forces did little to contain the violence on Wednesday and today, and in some cases reportedly took part in attacks on mosques.
Many Iraqis, particularly Sunni Arabs, likened the rampages on Wednesday to the looting that took place in the days after Baghdad fell in April 2003, and asked in frustration why American troops had done nothing to halt the mayhem. The passivity of the Americans in the face of the violence has raised questions about whether the troops here would even have a chance of stopping a full-blown civil war.
Our eventual withdrawal from Iraq has for most of the occupation been premised largely on bringing stability and peace to the country. Certainly the hope has been that Iraqi forces could provide that stability, but regardless of how stability was arrived it, it has been seen as a necessary condition to the downsizing of our forces in Iraq. That's why the Bush administration has tried to emphasize for us any indications of an improving security situation. But as the insurgency has dragged on, stability has largely been de-emphasized as the ultimate goal. Instead, the Bush administration has shifted the focus on the willingness and ability of Iraqi security forces to take over the fighting for us. But while it is at least possible to imagine a situation in which our soldiers are withdrawn in the midst of a civil war or, to borrow the overused metaphor "standing down" as Iraqi forces "stand up" to take their place, it still seems to have been assumed among many that withdrawal would take place in the midst of a relatively "stable" amount of violence the country has experienced over the past year to two years (though not necessarily a complete end to the violence.)
The dramatic upsurge in violence has altered that formulation. While warnings have persisted that Iraq was steadily drifting towards civil war, I don't think anything could have prepared most people here in America for the level of violence that erupted after the bombing of the shrine. We see now first hand that Iraq is not merely a country who's political stability is gradually deteriorating, but rather that it rests on the edge of a knife, and that several or even one dramtic event could lead to outright civil war.
Paradoxically, the increased violence-if it stays at the current level-could make it both harder and easier to get out. By this I mean that if violence in Iraq appears to be worsening, and especially if it results in more casualties for our soldiers-then the calls to bring the troops home will increase on both the right and the left, and the Bush administration will feel pressure to speed up the timetable for withdrawal(whatever that timetable may be now.) At the same time, incrased chaos makes it difficult to justify bringing the troops home if it appears they are badly needed by the Iraqi government to maintain it's control and authority, not to mention the shame of watching our soldiers abandon Iraqis to a civil war that's entirely a result of our invasion.
As the article makes painfully clear though, there's real doubt that our troops, even if we maintain present force levels of around 150,000, can do anything to either prevent a civil war or control it if it breaks out. At this point, we don't even know if double or triple the amount of soldiers would be enough.
As I'm sure you the reader are aware, there is at the present no unified plan or idea on what to do about Iraq. Many on the left support immediate or near-term withdrawal. Some on the left and right favor a timetable, or benchmarks. Some on the left and many on the right advocate staying in Iraq until the "the job is done", by which they mean probably that the country is at peace and democracy secured. The Bush administration has offered no coherant plan for withdrawal, but we know that we are currently constructing four military bases in Iraq that are intended to be permanent. Democrats appear to be unifying around a plan for withdrawal, but it's unsure as of yet what that plan will look like or how much unity it can creat in the party or among Democratic voters. What is sure however is that this recent violence has greatly complicated the calculations for when and how our soldiers can come. When a withdrawal takes place will depend largely on what happens in the next few days, weeks and months in Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment