Aug 26 2007
The US and UK disagree about Iraq
Some in the US are annoyed that the UK government is running its troop numbers down so much in Basra, when the US is still trying to gain control in Baghdad and region through its surge strategy. The numbers of Uk troops left(under 5000) is now not significant compared to the large numbers of US troops belatedly being committed. The Uk thinks the US reinforcement will yield at best some modest and temporary respite in violence in the areas patrolled most aggressively. The problem is the lack of a political settlement, and the large numbers of Iraqis who have no commitment to making this present democratic government work. We now read that the Bush administration itself is becoming doubtful about whether this type of democracy can work in Iraq, which implies substantial movement from the heady early days after the success of the invasion, when we were assured that our troops were fighting for freedom and democracy for Iraqis. It is difficult to see any Presidential hopeful wanting to lengthen and strengthen the US military commitment to Iraq after Bush has gone.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
John, do you think breaking the country up into smaller autonomous regions is feasible? Perhaps with each autonomous region being part of a greater Iraqi federation? If the US troops leave as seems inevitable, could the UN offer logistical support by way of peace-keeping troops? We cannot allow Iraq to degenerate into anarchy or invasion from neighbouring powers. What can be done?
Reply: Past experience shows that partition can work - e.g. the Czech republic and Slovakia. History also shows that when it first happens in some places drawing the borders is difficult and can lead to mass movements of people across borders - e.g. India/Pakistan. If the borders do not reflect the different ethnic and religious groups and there is no great movement of people (usually these days condemned as ethnic cleansing) then there can be continuous troubes - as there were in Northern Ireland following the secession of the Republic of Ireland from the UK. In Iraq it might be better to attempt strong devolution of powers to largely autonomous regions reflecting the different religions to the greatest extent possible, coupled with a central power backed by the Iraqi armed forces to try to enforce reasonable treatment of minorities.The third option is to carry on with a Iraqi state, to complete the transfer of security to Iraqi forces paid by the Iraqi state, and for that state to find leaders who can discover the things that bind Iraqi’s together more - so far the only thing I have read about which seems to do that is the football team.
However, I do not claim to be an expert on the internal politics of Iraq, and think these issues are very much ones for the Iraqi people to settle for themselves.The West can give advice and can help with policing the transition, but one of the problems today is the appearance that the Iraqi government is the creature of the USA, dependent on large US forces.My comments are directed to the UK and US governments. The UK has reached the point where many think our armed forces are part of the problem rather than part of the solution, which is why I and others ask the government what is the point of leaving them still exposed to so much risk? If they are to stay, then the government should do much more to give them the equipment and political direction they need to cut the loss of life.
[Reply]