Bush’s admission of ‘not winning war’

I\AT YEAR’S END press conference in Washington on Wednesday, US President George W. Bush admitted for the first time that US is “not winning the war in Iraq”. But he insisted that “we shall win” provided strength of American troops in the violence-torn country is increased. His new Defence Secretary Roberts Gates has been tasked to propose changes in the military strategy so as to be able to accomplish their “Iraq mission”. The overwhelming majority of the people and their elected representatives in the United States are now convinced that Iraq adventure was a big blunder and that American troops are bogged down in the quagmire. James A. Baker Study Group has already suggested the gradual withdrawal of US troops and involvement of Iraq’s neighbouring countries of Iran and in resolving the crisis. President Bush has not disagreed with the findings of the Study Group but perhaps he is guided more by his bias against Iran and Syria than by the pressing need to disengage his troops who are facing tough resistance.
US President’s admission of “not winning the Iraq war” is in sharp contrast to the claim he made less than two months ago on 22”d October in a press conference when he boasted that “we are absolutely winning and we will win unless we leave before the job is done”. Now, Mr. Bush appears to have changed his stance. He does not know how long the American troops will take to “do the job”. He feels that this mission is going to be a long struggle. Instead of admitting his failures, Bush insists that continuing military operations is the only option to accomplish the task. Iraq is uncontrollable and for years to come the Americans will find the task increasingly difficult. Yes; American body count will continue to rise and a time will come when U.S. troops would seek neighbours’ help for a safe passage home. Till then, colossal damage would have been done to American troops and Washington’s credibility.
Past blunder should have made the Bush Administration realize the folly of Iraq adventure. It had been warned that sooner or later it would land into another Vietnam -like situation. President Bush’s insistence to continue military operations with increased troops’ deployment will be more disastrous. Iraq is already burning and bleeding. It is on the verge of collapse. The disintegration of the oil-rich state will complicate matters and exacerbate tension in the Middle East. Mr. Bush is responsible for the escalating violence. His dream of establishing democracy of the Western-type in Iraq will not be realized. The United Nations should now come forward to create conditions for peaceful resolution of the Iraq crisis. Bush’s military adventurism will not help.

Confrontational approach

Somalia has been at war with itself for 16 years. A generation has grown up knowing nothing but fear and insecurity. In 1991, the socialist regime of Muhammad Siad Barre was ousted by warlords who then fell to fighting among themselves. The country descended into chaos. A year later, the UN, prompted by Washington, sought to intervene and restore stability. In front of the world’s press and media, US Marines stormed ashore unopposed but within weeks the peacekeeping operation was crumbling as warlords launched increasingly savage attacks on US troops. After four years of failure, the UN quit.
Now thanks to Security Council Resolution 1725, the UN is about to try again to insert peacekeepers and restart peace talks between the warring parties. The position now is, however, very different from the earlier abortive international intervention. The grip of the warlords has been broken by Islamic fighters grouped together under the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC). They now control the capital Mogadishu and the greater part of the country. The interim government finally agreed to by the warlords in 2004 is now confined to a relatively small area around the western town of Baidoa. In the northwest of the country, the former British-ruled area of Somaliland has declared itself autonomous and has thus far managed to avoid becoming embroiled in the rest of Somalia’s troubles.
It is hard to see how the UN can believe its new intervention will work. For a start, it has made it clear that it is acting in support of the interim government in Baidoa. This has inevitably enraged the UIC which has vowed to attack any UN peacekeepers sent to the country. The UN’s thinking is clearly that if the warlords and clan chiefs have finally buried their bloody differences, their unity government deserves support. Unfortunately, this is to ignore the reality which is that the UIC has finally brought peace and security to those large areas of Somalia it already controls. At the very least, the UN would have been wise not to line itself up behind either side. This partial stance is certainly informed by a Washington-inspired fear that the UIC is another Taleban and is already giving shelter to elements of Al-Qaeda. Implicit in the stance the UN has taken is that the UIC should be persuaded to enter into partnership with the transitional government. Given the military success the UIC has enjoyed and the longed-for peace they have brought to the areas they control, it is debatable how much popular support a return of the failed warlords and clan chiefs would attract.
It would have been far wiser had the UN sought to accept the reality of events on the ground and worked with the UIC. Much-needed aid and reconstruction could be delivered through the UIC while the UN sought to undermine militant Al-Qaeda supporters by fostering moderates within the UIC ranks. Instead, the current confrontational approach favored by Washington promises further violence which could still spill over into a regional conflict.

—Arab News