Military victory no longer possible in Iraq

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I really don't give a damn what Henry Kissinger has to say these days, but perhaps his recent comments in Tokyo deserve some consideration.

Although he remains "basically sympathetic to President Bush" with respect to Iraq -- which is already enough to question his sanity and credibility -- he does not think that "military victory" (defined as "total control over the whole territory, imposed on the entire population") is possible. (Was it ever?) He does not support a quick U.S. withdrawal, which he claims would lead to chaos, but, overall, his recommendations for what to do now are much closer to the James Baker's Iraq Study Group than to Bush and the neocons:

Kissinger said the best way forward is to reconcile the differences between Iraq's warring sects with help from other countries. He applauded efforts to host an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's neighbors — including Iran, Washington's longtime rival in the region.

"That is the sort of framework out of which it is conceivable that an agreement should emerge," Kissinger said. "One needs to be prepared to negotiate with adversaries."

Kissinger said that fighting in Iraq is likely to continue for years, and that America's national interest requires an end to partisan bickering at home over war policy.

"The role of America in the world cannot be defined by our internal partisan quarrels," he said. "All the leaders, both Republican and Democratic, have to remember that it will go on for several more years and find some basis for common action."

There are problems here, however:

1) Is it even possible for the U.S., the current occupier of Iraq, "to reconcile the differences between Iraq's warring sects". Is it possible to reconcile them at all?

2) The fighting in Iraq may "continue for years," but what role should the U.S. play in that fighting? Should it remain a foreign occupier waging an unwinnable war against sectarian insurgents in the middle of a civil war, or should it back away and leave only a strategic anti-terrorism force in the country, with supporting resources nearby? Kissinger claims that withdrawal would lead to chaos, but what if the U.S. presence is actually making the situation worse? I worry, too, about what will happen to Iraq once the U.S. leaves -- which is inevitable, sooner or later. The slaughter of innocents witnessed so far could be but a preview of much more widespread genocide to come. But, again, the U.S. need not withdraw entirely. It could remain in some capacity to target terrorists/insurgents and otherwise to step in where necessary. If at all possible, such a peacekeeping force (insofar as there is any peace to be kept) could be international, drawn particularly from Iraq's neighbours, none of whom (including Iran) have an interest in seeing Iraq descend into chaos. Above all, the U.S. must no longer be, and be seen to be, the occupier of a sovereign Iraq.

3) What Kissinger (like Joe Lieberman and others who righteously claims to be above the fray) calls "partisan bickering" may also be seen as the argumentative presentation of alternative views on the Iraq War. Negotiation and compromise are in many cases preferable to entrenched partisanship, but what if one of the two sides is unwilling to negotiate, let alone to compromise. This has been the case not with the Democrats, whom Kissinger clearly dislikes, but with Bush and the proponents of the war. Bush has never shown even the slightest interest, whatever the occasional (or rather, rare) display of outreach in his rhetoric, in working to find common cause with his critics (or with anyone outside his bubble) on Iraq or, for that matter, on anything else. For him, negotiation means agreeing to what he wants and compromise means going ahead with what he wants. Is that what Kissinger means by rising above "internal partisan quarrels"?

Regardless, even if he is genuine in his advocacy of non-partisanship, he should direct his attention, and advice, at Bush and the Republicans. For they, it seems to me, have rejected "common action" all along. And let us remember that the Democrats -- many of them -- were once far more supportive of the war, and of Bush, than they are now. If they are now highly critical of the war, it is in large part because of how they have been pushed aside by Bush, and because of how negotiation and compromise have consistently been rejected, not just because of how the war has been so grossly mismanaged, not to mention the flagrant lies and deceptions along the way.

Still, it would make sense for Bush to do now what he should have been doing for some time, that is, engaging in diplomacy with Iraq's neighbours, as well as through the U.N., as well as talking and negotiating with "adversaries". That would be the sensible thing to do.

Which means it likely won't be done.