"The U.S. Has Lost the Iraq War"
Immanuel Wallerstein, Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University
August 15, 2005
Commentary No. 167, Aug. 15, 2005
"The U.S. Has Lost the Iraq War"
It's over. For the U.S. to win the Iraq war requires three things:
defeating the Iraqi resistance; establishing a stable government in
Iraq that is friendly to the U.S.; maintaining the support of the
American people while the first two are being done. None of these
three seem any longer possible. First, the U.S. military itself no
longer believes it can defeat the resistance. Secondly, the likelihood
that the Iraqi politicians can agree on a constitution is almost nil,
and therefore the likelihood of a minimally stable central government
is almost nil. Thirdly, the U.S. public is turning against the war
because it sees no "light at the end of the tunnel."
As a result, the Bush regime is in an impossible position. It would
like to withdraw in a dignified manner, asserting some semblance of
victory. But, if it tries to do this, it will face ferocious anger and
deception on the part of the war party at home. And if it does not, it
will face ferocious anger on the part of the withdrawal party. It will
end up satisfying neither, lose face precipitously, and be remembered
in ignominy.
Let us see what is happening. This month, Gen. George Casey, the U.S.
commanding general in Iraq, suggested that it may be possible to
reduce U.S. troops in Iraq next year by 30,000, given improvements in
the ability of the Iraqi government's armed forces to handle the
situation. Almost immediately, this position came under attack from
the war party, and the Pentagon amended this statement to suggest that
maybe this wouldn't happen, since maybe the Iraqi forces were not yet
ready to handle the situation, which is surely so. At the same time,
stories appeared in the leading newspapers suggesting that the level
of military sophistication of the insurgent forces has been growing
steadily and remarkably. And the increased rate of killings of U.S.
soldiers certainly bears this out.
In the debate on the Iraqi constitution, there are two major problems.
One is the degree to which the constitution will institutionalize
Islamic law. It is conceivable that, given enough time and trust,
there could be a compromise on this issue that would more or less
satisfy most sides. But the second issue is more intractable. The
Kurds, who still really want an independent state, will not settle for
less than a federal structure that will guarantee their autonomy, the
maintenance of their militia, and control of Kirkuk as their capital
and its oil resources as their booty. The Shiites are currently
divided between those who feel like the Kurds and want a federal
structure, and those who prefer a strong central government provided
they can control it and its resources, and provided that it will have
an Islamic flavor. And the Sunnis are desperate to maintain a united
state, one in which they will minimally get their fair share, and
certainly don't want a state governed by Shia interpretations of
Islam.
The U.S. has been trying to encourage some compromise, but it is hard
to see what this might be. So, two possibilities are before us right
now. The Iraqis paper over the differences in some way that will not
last long. Or there is a more immediate breakdown in negotiations.
Neither of these meets the needs of the U.S. Of course, there is one
solution that might end the deadlock. The Iraqi politicians could join
the resisters in a nationalist anti-American thrust, and thereby unite
at least the non-Kurd part of the population. This development is not
to be ruled out, and of course is a nightmare from the U.S. point of
view.
But, for the Bush regime, the worst picture of all is on the home
front. Approval rating of Bush for the conduct of the Iraqi war has
gone down to 36 percent. The figures have been going steadily down for
some time and should continue to do so. For poor George Bush is now
faced with the vigil of Cindy Sheehan. She is a 48-year-old mother of
a soldier who was killed in Iraq a year ago. Incensed by Bush's
statement that the U.S. soldiers died in a "noble cause," she decided
to go to Crawford, Texas, and ask to see the president so that he
could explain to her for what "noble cause" her son died.
Of course, George W. Bush hasn't had the courage to see her. He sent
out emissaries. She said this wasn't enough, that she wanted to see
Bush personally. She has now said that she will maintain a vigil
outside Bush's home until either he sees her or she is arrested. At
first, the press ignored her. But now, other mothers of soldiers in
Iraq have come to join her. She is getting moral support from more and
more people who had previously supported the war. And the national
press now has turned her into a major celebrity, some comparing her to
Rosa Parks, the Black lady whose refusal to move to the back of the
bus in Atlanta a half-century ago was the spark that transformed the
struggle for Black rights into a mainstream cause.
Bush won't see her because he knows there is nothing that he can say
to her. Seeing her is a losing proposition. But so is not seeing her.
The pressure to withdraw from Iraq is now becoming mainstream. It is
not because the U.S. public shares the view that the U.S. is an
imperialist power in Iraq. It is because there seems to be no light at
the end of the tunnel. Or rather there is a light, the light an
acerbic Canadian cartoonist for the Calgary Sun drew recently. He
shows a U.S. soldier in a dark tunnel approaching someone to whose
body is attached an array of explosives. The light comes from the
match he is holding to the wick that will cause them to explode. In
the month following the attacks in London and the high level of U.S.
deaths in Iraq, this is the light that the U.S. public is beginning to
see. They want out. Bush is caught in an insoluble dilemma. The war is
lost.
.
|
