|
Former UK Foreign Minister Robin Cook writes that the UK/US draft plans
to withdraw troops from Iraq in 2006 will make matters worse. He blames US politics. - kwc Our troops are part of the
problem Robin Cook, The Guardian UK, July 15, 2005 I do not draw a
parallel between London and Baghdad to diminish the pain and horror caused by
the crime on our own shores, but because that appalling experience should give us
some insight into the violence that is now a daily occurrence in Iraq. And as
the occupying force we bear responsibility for its security. There may be room
for debate over whether there is a connection between the war in Iraq and the
London bombings, but there is no escaping the hard truth that the chaos in that
country is a direct result of the decision to invade it, taken in defiance of
the intelligence warning that it would heighten the terrorist threat And
still those who took us into the war are not frank with us. For months those of
us who have asked for a timetable for withdrawal from the occupation of Iraq
have been told that it would encourage the insurgents to circle that date in
the calendar. Yet at the weekend we learned from another leaked minute that the
Ministry of Defence has ticked the middle of next year as the target by when it
will have reduced the British presence to about a third of its present level. This has nothing to do with progress
against the insurgents, who are growing bolder rather than weaker. It is
entirely to do with American domestic politics. As George Bush sinks in
popularity back home, his desperation rises to cut his losses in Iraq. The leaked memo confirms that the Bush
administration is planning to cut its occupying forces to a third by the first
half of 2006, which would make it politically impossible at home for Britain
not to do the same. Apparently there is a
row going on between the Pentagon, which wants "a bold reduction", and
the US commanders on the ground, who know that they cannot contain the
insurgency with their present numbers and do not see how they will be able to
do better with fewer. For once I find myself on the side of the Pentagon. Heavy-handed US
occupation is not the solution to the insurgency but a large part of the
problem. US army rules of engagement appear to give much greater weight to
killing insurgents than to protecting civilian lives. It is alarming testimony to its trigger-happy
approach that statistics compiled by the Iraqi health ministry confirm that
twice as many civilians have been killed by US military action as by terrorist
bombs. The predictable result is that the US occupation breeds new recruits for
the insurgency at a faster rate than it kills existing members of it. Nor is it only the
fatalities of US forces that foster resentment. Homes in every neighbourhood
have been trashed by US forces in futile searches for insurgents. Every
extended family knows of at least one person who has disappeared into the new
gulag of detainees.
A year after President Bush promised to demolish Abu Ghraib it is being
expanded, rather than closed, to accommodate an even larger number than were
held there by Saddam. It is an inexorable
law of foreign occupations that the greater the repression, the stronger the
resistance.
The reduction in US forces may be planned for the wrong reason, but should be
welcomed as a step in the right direction. It does though present the coalition governments
with a rhetorical problem. They have repeatedly told us that they
would stay in Iraq until the job was done. Patently the job is not done if it
is measured by success in getting on top of the insurgency. It has therefore
been necessary to redefine what was meant by the job they promised to complete.
Last week an imaginative new interpretation surfaced. Apparently, when
Donald Rumsfeld warned that the insurgency could take a decade to contain he
did not mean the US troops would stay that long to defeat it but that they
would expect the Iraqi forces to do the job for them. In short, completing the job now is not
bringing peace to Iraq but equipping the Iraqis to fight their own civil war,
possibly for another 10 years. The Iraqi government itself appears to have a shrewd grasp
of its need to find other allies, hence its surprising agreement last week to a
mutual defence pact with Iran. It is striking how little events on the
ground in Iraq have figured in the key decisions of this sorry episode. The timing of the original invasion was
dictated not by the reports on the UN weapons inspections but by the momentum
of the US military build-up. Now the timing of the exit from occupation is
going to be determined not by progress in restoring security in Iraq but by the
date of next year's mid-term congressional elections in the US. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1528954,00.html |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
