What Happens After US Withdrawal from Iraq?
Mahmoud al-Mubarak Al-Hayat - 16/05/07//
It seems that the question being asked behind the scenes in Washington today is not whether or not the US forces will withdraw from Iraq, but when and how, and, more importantly, who will take the place of the US troops in Iraq?
This is because the US losses in Iraq have reached a degree that Washington is no longer able to redress. Informal, reliable statistics point out that the number of deaths among American soldiers in Iraq exceeded 20,000 and the number of injuries until last January hit more than 50,000, including 20,000 seriously injured with permanent disability, in addition to the evasion of nearly 10,000 US soldiers of military service.
What is worse in Washington's view is that the situation in Iraq is not expected to improve. Resistance is becoming fiercer by the day, due to a growing of fighters seeking to join from inside and outside Iraq, and due to the evolution of tactics and methods of offensive followed by the Iraqi resistance, especially with regard to human suicide bombers the American 'cowboy' was unable to face.
Moreover, the death toll of Iraqis killed since the US-British invasion of Iraq exceeds 700,000, not to mention over 2 million displaced people. This actually causes concern for the Americans, who claim that they came to Iraq to achieve prosperity and make the country a model for the rest of the Middle East countries!
Needless to say, the scandals of the Bush administration in Iraq have not come to an end due to the mismanagement of the Iraqi crisis. These scandals included - to name a few - practices in Abu Ghraib prison, rape of Iraqi girls, murder of Iraqi civilians, and abuse of dead bodies, as was the case of Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, who is being prosecuted in California for the murder of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, burning their bodies and urinating on them. After all that, some of his colleagues testified in court that the Iraqi army committed these practices.
Perhaps the last scandal of the US administration in Iraq can be described as the 'theft of the century'. A draft report by the US Government Accountability Office, excerpts from which were published by the 'New York Times' two days ago, highlighted the loss of 100,000-300,000 barrels of oil every day from Iraqi oil production since the US-British invasion of Iraq, either because of corruption or smuggling operations, which meant the loss of billions of dollars of Iraqi oil revenues.
This fresh scandal reiterates once again charges of corruption. These charges are not new, as press reliable reports have referred to them. For instance, some time ago, a report by the BBC pointed out that corruption undermined Iraq's oil sector. The report quoted an Iraqi oil official as saying that petroleum products were smuggled illegally and crude oil was directly stolen from oil pipelines and leaks.
It is known that a lack of transparency in the verification of Iraq's oil revenues violates the UN Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003). Paragraph 21 of the above-mentioned resolution, which was issued on May 22, 2003, provides for the following: "…all export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas from Iraq following the date of the adoption of this resolution shall be made consistent with prevailing international market best practices, to be audited by independent public accountants reporting to the International Advisory and Monitoring Board…in order to ensure transparency…. All proceeds from such sales shall be deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq…" However, the US administration failed to implement this resolution. Recommendation 23 of the Baker-Hamilton's Iraq Study Group Report stated "The President should restate that the United States does not seek to control Iraq's oil".
It has been mentioned that a report was issued by a number of US Army Generals last January, which gave a six-month deadline to win the war in Iraq. According to this military report, unless the battle is won in that period, it would not be expected for the US troops to achieve military victory in Iraq.
As the deadline set by the report is approaching the end, perhaps it seems obvious for the Democrats and the rest of the Republicans outside the group of the President and his Vice President that the continued presence of the US forces in Iraq is futile from all political, economic and military aspects, in addition to damaging the reputation of the US.
Because of the Iraqi mess, the US administration - according to several reports - is looking for a way out today to preserve its remaining dignity, so that its withdrawal would be politically acceptable to its people. This can be achieved through, for example, a request by the Iraqi Parliament for rescheduling the withdrawal of the 'allied forces', because Iraq is able to preserve its own safety. This request is favored in Washington.
What is remarkable is that the current Iraqi government, represented by the Head of State and the Prime Minister, is requesting that the US forces remain in Iraq, possibly because the Iraqi government is certain that its continuation is contingent upon the presence of these forces. However, the US administration may enjoy the consent of a sufficient number of Iraqi MPs, who are expected to submit a request for rescheduling the withdrawal of these troops. The scheduling, which will be widely supported by the American domestic public opinion, may take place faster than expected.
However, before the US administration does this, the question that preoccupies the American decision-makers is: who will succeed the American forces in Iraq, since it is known that the Iraqi government has not been able to bring peace or maintain it?
It seems that the US administration will find itself between a rock and a hard place. The first option is to leave Iraq without paying attention to what will happen after the withdrawal of its troops. This includes risks, which may open the door wide for the Iraqi Resistance, which is inextricably linked to al-Qaeda, to do anything in Iraq. If the Iraqi Resistance, which is linked to al-Qaeda, manages to achieve its primary goal, the elimination of the government forces, which were brought by the occupation, will be much easier than expelling the US forces, especially as the Resistance will experience the ecstasy of victory, which might be difficult to be controlled.
If al-Qaeda manages to achieve its goals, the risks of this, from Washington's view, may not stop at the borders of Iraq, but may spread to neighboring countries. This has often been referred to by US President George W. Bush in his speeches that aimed to spread intimidation against the danger of Bin Laden's al-Qaeda. Recommendation 35 of the aforementioned Baker-Hamilton report also warned that the US should make an effort to isolate the al-Qaeda organization, due to its serious danger.
The other option is a US-Iranian alliance against the danger of al-Qaeda after the departure of the US forces from Iraq. It is not improbable from the political point of reality, although it may seem odd. Actually, what brings the US and Iran closer is more than what separates them. Regardless of the ideological difference, the real policy of Iran at the international level has proven to be 'rationality' in pursuing its national interests, even with its bitter opponents.
Tehran's 'rationality' appeared since the early Iranian Revolution in the informal dealing with Washington in the deal known later in the US as 'Iran Contra', as Iran accepted to conclude an arms deal with the 'Great Satan'.
Iran's 'rationality' also appeared evident in its cooperation with the US to get rid of the two regimes of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Regarding the former regime, it allowed American aircraft to cross its airspace to strike areas in Afghanistan. In the latter, it ordered religious authorities in Iraq to issue 'fatwas' not to defy the US troops, regardless of the ideological principles of the Revolution: loyalty and repudiation. Thus, it may not be surprising that when Washington intends to depart from Baghdad, it will find itself in the same trench with the present enemy and future ally. This will not be out of love for the Iranian clergymen, but because they are considered by the Americans as a lesser evil than the other option, and since there is no one better than the Iranian government to fill in the vacuum that will result from the withdrawal of the US forces. That's why today's enemies are often tomorrow's allies!
*Mahmoud Mobarak is an expert in International Law
|
