The first is that we have actually invaded the country. Thus, continuing to use the line, "we opposed the war from the start" to gain the moral high ground and credibility for oneself is not nearly as effective as it was, say, a year ago. Some of us did what we could to prevent the war in the first place, but now that it has happened - a long time ago at that - we must focus our discussion on the situation as it is currently.
This leads to the second simple truth: withdrawing troops now will lead to nothing short of civil war. I honestly find it difficult to believe that people can suggest this as a serious course of action. The immense power vacuum that withdrawal would create could not be countered by the fledgling Iraqi police force and the almost non-existent Defence Force. As such, armed groups of rebels (or however you wish to name them) would quickly tear the country to pieces in a manner not too dissimilar to the sectarian violence that has plagued Sudan for so long.
So if we accept these two troths about Iraq, we can focus on the key issue at hand: how to stop the violence and put the country on the path to a stable democracy. Both of these are, obviously, heavily intertwined. What also must be done is to improve the Iraqi standard of living so that the base population is not so disgruntled with the occupation and the authorities it has put in place.
Unfortunately, the average Iraqi person has become more impoverished as a result of the invasion. At the start of 2003, GDP per head stood at $1,060. By the start of 2004 it had fallen to $836. And with GDP growth estimates for the year falling due to the increased violence, the situation is hardly going to improve much with things as they are.
Most of the world is shocked by the US abuses at the Abu Ghraib jail; except perhaps for American conservatives who believe that a harsh land needs harsh rules. In fact, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma is quoted as saying, "I'm probably not the only one…that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment." Such views are deeply disturbing. If the US is supposed to be a land of freedom, fairness and equality, and claims to promote such dogma around the world, how can it justify such inhumane abuse? It is interesting to note that whilst Saddam never held more than 5,000 prisoners at the jail, the US holds 7,000.
The Iraqi people are not quite so horrified by these vile revelations as we might expect. They were used to similar treatment under Saddam. Yet the invasion was under the pretence these practices would be washed away. So much for that.
So if half of the American people's attitude is misguided, if not downright shocking, including that of the administration, then it will be increasingly difficult to direct effective policy against the growing violence. A much more refined and tolerant approach is needed: forget the gung-ho.
Iraq's new Interim Government (IG), which is due to take power on 30 June, looks to have the greatest chance of bringing some kind of reconciliation to the country. The selected President, Ghazi Yawar, is a Sunni leader and former exile who has been openly critical of the US in the past. The Prime Minister, Ayad Allawi, is a Shia with links to the CIA.
Mr Yawar is the choice of the current Governing Coucil, and may well lend some credence to the IG in the eyes of the Iraqi people. Unfortunately the US insists that the IG will have little in the way of true power, in particular over military matters. Colin Powell, US secretary of state, has ensured that.
So where will Iraq go from here? A lot relies on how much autonomy the Americans allow the IG to posses. Constant interference will lead the Iraqis to believe it is simply a sop to President Bush. Yet if this autonomy is achieved, along with a shift in US military attitude from that of aggressive occupiers to a more peace keeper orientated stance, and a determined effort to improve the lot of the average Iraqi, then it could lead to an end in sight for this whole debacle.
Personally I do not think that any three of these conditions will soon come to pass.
Sources:
BBC Website
The Economist
The Daily Telegraph
Politics Home
Index