Bush Admin. Plans Troop-Withdrawal Timetable with Iraq Gov’t

Related subjects: Iraq conflict, Middle East, U.S. Politics Comments Off

25 August 2008 :: staff

WITHDRAWAL LINKED TO ‘SURGE’, THOUGH ANALYSTS WORRY IT IS NOT PREFERRED STRATEGY, MAY BE SIGN OF WANING INFLUENCE IN CONFLICT ZONE

After years of protesting that withdrawal of troops was surrender, that it was opposed by Iraqis, and that a timetable was a “tool for terrorists”, the US government is now formulating an agreement scheduling withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, with the last forces out by 2011. The advance is largely based on political motivations of Iraqi officials, facing reelection, who have called for withdrawal sooner rather than later, many alleging the mere presence of foreign forces increases the risk of violence.

Fair or not, that point of view has been reported to be widespread among Iraqis. Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, CNN journalist Lou Dobbs and others in politics and the media, have been building up the idea that the “surge” —now being called the “surge strategy”, after McCain reclassified the “troop surge”, simply an escalation in numbers, as a “mindset” about how to conduct urban combat and “win hearts and minds”— has been an unmitigated success and is responsible for imminent “victory” in the Iraq conflict.

This point of view, also largely due to the efforts of candidate McCain, links the “surge strategy” to the coming about of what’s called the “Anbar awakening”. But the awakening —which saw Sunni populations abandon the insurgent groups based among them— was spurred largely because the rival Shi’a ethnicity had been forced out and the remaining Sunni enclaves perceived the violent insurgency as a threat to their own communities. This predated the troop “surge”.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said there can be no agreement on US force levels that does not include the 2011 “time-horizon”, and US officials are reportedly pushing for immunity from prosecution for all US personnel operating in Iraq since the invasion. Maliki is announcing the deal is sealed, but acknowledges that without some continued negotiation, the specifics of the deal may fall through.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

Maliki has been quoted saying: “There is an agreement actually reached, reached between the two parties on a fixed date, which is the end of 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil.” The plan reportedly includes the US officially ending its activities in patrolling towns and residential neighborhoods by the middle of 2009, and a steady draw-down of troops across the country, with the last US personnel departing Iraq sometime in 2011.

As a concrete withdrawal plan approaches, the political playing field also sees its boundaries shift and all sides will likely jockey for position, due to the high stakes of an election year, both in the US and in Iraq. McCain, and the leadership of the Bush administration, argue that the “surge” has been a success and has produced a significant reduction in violence across Iraq, though 142 Iraqi civilians have died in violence in the 7 days between 16 August and 22 August 2008.

Overall deaths from violence are reported down in 2008, but the type of attacks is reported to be diversifying, CNN reports 3 times as many suicide bombings carried out by women, many of them mentally ill women manipulated into the attacks by militant groups, and the influence of Iran across the Shi’a south is considered to be gaining ground. Much of the decrease in violence against Iraqis can be attributed to sectarian migration, forced by preceeding violence, and to the consolidation of influence among Iraqi militia and political power groups, some allegedly backed by Tehran.

So, while overall violence has fallen in the wake of the controversial troop surge, and much credit can be given to the work US forces have done in training and aiding Iraqi forces in more aggressive raids on militant outposts —according to media reports and information provided by coalition forces themselves—, there is the problem of long-term stability and what exactly “victory” means. For the Bush administration, a timetable for withdrawal is not a sign of success, but rather an unplanned obstacle to implementing their long-term strategy, reportedly spurred by Iraqis’ perception that foreign forces cause violence to escalate.

Baghdad, where much of the surge has been focused, is reportedly not safe enough for refugees to return to their homes. The New York Times reported yesterday that:

Out of the 151,000 families who had fled their houses in Baghdad, just 7,112 had returned to them by mid-July, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Migration. Many of the displaced remain in Baghdad, just in different areas. In one neighborhood alone, Amiriya, in western Baghdad, there are 8,350 displaced families, more than the total number of families who have returned to their houses in all of Baghdad.

Clearly, part of the statistic could be that many will not return, they have resettled or simply have chosen the relative sense of safety that may stem from being among people of their own sectarian beliefs. But the failure to return has also been described as a fear of new kinds of violence, designed to solidify militant control of certain areas or to run mafia-style protection rackets that keep civil society from taking root and allow black market dealing in abandoned properties.

While it is perhaps ironic that the deal is being agreed just as the Democrats launch the convention to officially nominate Sen. Barack Obama —who came to the Senate calling for withdrawal— as candidate for the presidency, the issue is hardly cause for either side to claim victory. Withdrawal could turn over much of Iraq to the direct influence of Iran, essentially the worst-case scenario from the US perspective, short of civil war with a genocide component, and it is not clear that Iraq’s civilian administration can hold back influence of fundamentalist groups, some of which are heavily armed and willing to fight for political power.

The Bush administration has said ultimately, withdrawal rates and scheduling will depend on the real security situation “on the ground”, language which makes the current policy more closely mirror the plan called for by Sen. Obama, an Iraq war opponent, than any put forth by McCain, a fierce defender of administration Iraq policy.