Calling for the troops to go

Nov 23rd 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

A broad group of Iraqis, meeting in Cairo, has recognised a right to “national resistance” and demanded a timetable for foreign forces’ withdrawal from their country. The declaration comes as Americans are debating the war in Iraq more fiercely than ever. But the Bush administration continues to insist that its troops will not be hurried out

GEORGE BUSH has always said he will pull American troops out of Iraq as soon as he can, and no sooner. He has steadfastly rejected the idea of a timetable for withdrawal, which, he argues, would amount to a retreat before the job is done. But on Monday November 21st a broad range of Iraqi factional leaders, meeting in Cairo, called for just that. Though they did not suggest a specific date by which the troops should go, the agreement will focus minds, in both Baghdad and Washington, on the endgame for foreign forces in Iraq.

The Cairo conference, aimed at reconciliation between Iraq’s different ethnic and sectarian groups, took place under the auspices of the Arab League. The joint declaration marks an achievement for an organisation that has often been ineffective in handling regional disputes. All of Iraq’s major groups were represented in Cairo: Jalal Talabani, the country’s Kurdish president, rubbed shoulders with members of Iraq’s Shia-dominated government as well as senior figures from the Association of Muslim Scholars, a hardline Sunni Arab group thought to have some influence over the (mostly Sunni) insurgents. The fact that the factions met was itself a small step in the right direction; the fact that they agreed on a declaration was a bigger one.

To be sure, as with the new constitution that was thrashed out between Iraq’s different groups earlier this year, many fudges were written into the document. The agreement condemned “terrorism” but recognised a right to “national resistance”, leaving both undefined. Are attacks against American troops legitimate resistance? Clearly many Sunnis think so, while the Shias and Kurds will disagree. But in any case, they all hope the question will soon be moot: the declaration calls for an “immediate national programme to rebuild the armed forces” which should lead to a withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable.

Even though the meeting was a surprising success, it will take much more to bring stability to Iraq. While Sunni groups that have called for an immediate end to the occupation participated, it is not clear that they will be able to wield influence over the fighters trying to tear Iraq apart. Groups such as the Association of Muslim Scholars can only potentially sway Iraqi religious insurgents and former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party. The most vicious, foreign terrorists, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had no representatives at the meeting, and surely do not plan to call off their own brand of “resistance”, which often targets Iraqi civilians, especially Shias and those seeking to join the nascent security forces.

In December, Iraq will hold its first full parliamentary elections under the new constitution. Sunnis boycotted elections to the current, interim government in January. They are not planning to make that mistake again. In the politicking for the upcoming poll, there could be competition among the various factions to call for the quickest withdrawal of the Americans and other foreign forces—the occupation is deeply unpopular among Iraqis. This would increase pressure on the coalition forces to go. Iraq’s interior minister, Bayan Jabr, is optimistic, saying that the country’s own security forces should be substantially prepared to protect its people by the middle of 2006, and fully ready by the end of the year.

All rowdy on the western front

As Iraqis come together, America is experiencing the most bitter period of debate over the Iraq war so far. Mr Bush has been on the defensive, with 63% of voters giving him negative ratings last week on his handling of Iraq. In this context, said Jack Murtha, a conservative Democrat who served as a marine for 37 years, American troops are now an impediment to progress in Iraq. They should be withdrawn, said Mr Murtha, leaving a rapid-reaction force in the region.

Mr Murtha’s proposal caused uproar in America’s usually somnolent House of Representatives. Jean Schmidt, a first-term Republican member, relayed the words of another marine colonel of her acquaintance to Mr Murtha, that “cowards cut and run; marines never do.” The statement drew boos and jeers, and Ms Schmidt later asked that it be removed from the record.

Meanwhile, the Republicans offered a straw-man resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, a “stunt” (according to the Democrats’ leader) that won just three votes in favour.
The Democrats sense that many Americans now feel not just badly led in Iraq, but misled into Iraq. They have increasingly suggested, or stated outright, that the war was fought under false pretences. Vice-President Dick Cheney has responded that the charges of dishonesty are themselves “dishonest and reprehensible” and “corrupt and shameless”. Both Mr Cheney and Mr Bush himself have said they welcome fair criticism of the war, but they draw the line at being called liars.

They can take comfort, however, that congressional Democrats seem unable to offer an alternative to the administration’s policy in Iraq. If they call for a withdrawal timetable, they risk looking weak on defence, where Republicans have been perceived as stronger for decades. On the other hand, if senior Democratic figures such as Hillary Clinton try to look as tough as Mr Bush or tougher, they risk alienating their base. This identity crisis has helped to earn congressional Democrats an approval rating of just 25%, according to a Harris poll last week, two points lower than their supposedly beleaguered Republican counterparts.

The Iraqis themselves may offer both sides hope. By making a clear statement that they want American troops gone, albeit on an unspecified timetable, they may open the way for Republicans eventually to declare victory in Iraq, while Democrats claim a withdrawal for their base without appearing weak on security. Indeed, as the Iraqis made their call for withdrawal, reports surfaced that the Pentagon hopes to pull three brigades (of 3,000-5,000 troops each) out of Iraq in early 2006. More would follow at various “decision points” next year, if certain conditions are met. Condoleezza Rice, America's secretary of state, said on Tuesday that current troop numbers may not be needed much longer, as Iraqi soldiers are getting both more numerous and more capable. The Bush administration will still not call it a “timetable” for political reasons, but it may not matter if Democrats, Republicans and the Iraqi leadership all get what they want. Whether conditions on the ground in Iraq will permit such a “win-win” scenario is an entirely different matter.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.