US Must Set Deadline for Departure
Multinational forces must disengage and leave Iraq to its people, but their departure should be phased rather than immediate.
US Must Set Deadline for Departure
Multinational forces must disengage and leave Iraq to its people, but their departure should be phased rather than immediate.
October was one of the bloodiest months for United States troops in Iraq since 2003, with more than 100 soldiers killed. This drove President George Bush to admit that the situation has parallels with Vietnam, where the US began to lose the fight, morale sank and it was finally forced to withdraw.
The daily casualties show that Iraq is a tough place for US forces to be. They would do better to set a deadline for a withdrawal.
According to an ABC opinion poll last month, 53 per cent of Americans believe that US forces should not stay in Iraq. Other polls show similar results. The Project on Defence Alternatives, an independent US research centre, recommended that American troops should be gone from Iraq within 400 days.
Whatever the Americans do, whatever excuse they find for staying on, will be unacceptable to the Iraqis. This is because the main pretext for invading Iraq – the presence of weapons of mass destruction - turned out to be a big lie. No one believes this any more, and consequently the US troop presence is unwelcome and detested in Iraq.
Many Iraqis hold the Americans responsible for the continued violence, because of the involvement of US troops in murder, abuse of prisoners and rape.
To some extent it is true that a multinational withdrawal from Iraq might lead to civil war or to the break-up of the country. But the US government is responsible for many of the problems, through mistakes such as dissolving the Iraqi army, allowing weapons to circulate freely, leaving borders with neighbouring countries unprotected, and failing to take tough measures against criminals and terrorists.
The catalogue of errors is too long to list, but it paved the way for sectarian violence as armed groups emerged that had a variety of backers but one goal – to slaughter civilians.
People believe that the US feeds the violence between the Shia and Sunni communities, because it is slow to react when a clash erupts. After an incident in which dozens of civilians have been murdered, US forces show up, block the roads for a couple of hours, and leave.
Every time I chat to the Iraqi army officers whom I know, they tell me that Americans regularly release dangerous criminals, whom Iraqi forces then have to expend efforts on re-arresting. One former detainee in a US jail said the Americans held onto individuals who had killed their own troops while releasing those who murdered Iraqis.
I believe in a gradual withdrawal according to a clear timetable, taking place over one or two years because a sudden pullout would carry high risks for security. As Sheikh Harith al-Dhari, head of the Association of Muslim Scholars, one of the main Sunni groups, said, "We are not so stupid as to demand the immediate withdrawal of American troops.”
The withdrawal should be accompanied by a restructuring of the Iraqi army, to create a better sectarian balance. Those of its members who retain allegiances to armed militias should be removed, while loyal soldiers of the old Iraqi army who were accused of being servants of the Baathist regime should be taken on again.
If America was serious about dealing with Iraq, it would not have allowed Iraq to reach a point where dozens of people are killed every day. The Americans act alone, without consulting the Iraqi government and security forces. There is no coordination, and the relationships is so tense that these days each blames the other for the deteriorating security situation.
The US should think seriously about setting a timetable for pulling out, as well as about resolving the problems it has caused and easing the tensions in Iraq.
Hostility towards the Americans is natural, because they are strangers in our country. The death toll is escalating among US forces as well as the Iraqi civilian population. What they are doing is of no use, so they should leave without being asked – just as they came here without being invited by the Iraqis. They must leave the home to its owner.
Duraed Salman is an IWPR contributor in Baghdad. This is one of two opinion pieces presenting alternative viewpoints on the debate over whether (and when) US-led forces should leave Iraq.
The daily casualties show that Iraq is a tough place for US forces to be. They would do better to set a deadline for a withdrawal.
According to an ABC opinion poll last month, 53 per cent of Americans believe that US forces should not stay in Iraq. Other polls show similar results. The Project on Defence Alternatives, an independent US research centre, recommended that American troops should be gone from Iraq within 400 days.
Whatever the Americans do, whatever excuse they find for staying on, will be unacceptable to the Iraqis. This is because the main pretext for invading Iraq – the presence of weapons of mass destruction - turned out to be a big lie. No one believes this any more, and consequently the US troop presence is unwelcome and detested in Iraq.
Many Iraqis hold the Americans responsible for the continued violence, because of the involvement of US troops in murder, abuse of prisoners and rape.
To some extent it is true that a multinational withdrawal from Iraq might lead to civil war or to the break-up of the country. But the US government is responsible for many of the problems, through mistakes such as dissolving the Iraqi army, allowing weapons to circulate freely, leaving borders with neighbouring countries unprotected, and failing to take tough measures against criminals and terrorists.
The catalogue of errors is too long to list, but it paved the way for sectarian violence as armed groups emerged that had a variety of backers but one goal – to slaughter civilians.
People believe that the US feeds the violence between the Shia and Sunni communities, because it is slow to react when a clash erupts. After an incident in which dozens of civilians have been murdered, US forces show up, block the roads for a couple of hours, and leave.
Every time I chat to the Iraqi army officers whom I know, they tell me that Americans regularly release dangerous criminals, whom Iraqi forces then have to expend efforts on re-arresting. One former detainee in a US jail said the Americans held onto individuals who had killed their own troops while releasing those who murdered Iraqis.
I believe in a gradual withdrawal according to a clear timetable, taking place over one or two years because a sudden pullout would carry high risks for security. As Sheikh Harith al-Dhari, head of the Association of Muslim Scholars, one of the main Sunni groups, said, "We are not so stupid as to demand the immediate withdrawal of American troops.”
The withdrawal should be accompanied by a restructuring of the Iraqi army, to create a better sectarian balance. Those of its members who retain allegiances to armed militias should be removed, while loyal soldiers of the old Iraqi army who were accused of being servants of the Baathist regime should be taken on again.
If America was serious about dealing with Iraq, it would not have allowed Iraq to reach a point where dozens of people are killed every day. The Americans act alone, without consulting the Iraqi government and security forces. There is no coordination, and the relationships is so tense that these days each blames the other for the deteriorating security situation.
The US should think seriously about setting a timetable for pulling out, as well as about resolving the problems it has caused and easing the tensions in Iraq.
Hostility towards the Americans is natural, because they are strangers in our country. The death toll is escalating among US forces as well as the Iraqi civilian population. What they are doing is of no use, so they should leave without being asked – just as they came here without being invited by the Iraqis. They must leave the home to its owner.
Duraed Salman is an IWPR contributor in Baghdad. This is one of two opinion pieces presenting alternative viewpoints on the debate over whether (and when) US-led forces should leave Iraq.
