Deserting a sinking ship

February 23, 2007

Deserting a sinking ship

THE US-led coalition in Iraq is definitely crumbling. Britain has announced it would reduce its troop mumbers by 1,600 in the coming months although it qualified itself by saying it would maintain its military presence in the strife-torn country
Denmark has said that it would withdraw its ground troops serving under British command in Basra. Lithuania, which has 53 soldiers in Iraq serving alongside the Danish battalion, has said it considering a pull-out.
A Romanian decision is expected in the next few days on the presence of its 600 soldiers in Iraq, mostly serving under British command.
Poland has already announced that it will bring home its 900 troops by the end of the year. Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Japan and New Zealand have already withdrawn their troops.
South Korea intends to withdraw half of its 1,300 soldiers by April, and its parliament is demanding a complete pull-out by the end of the year.
On the other side, Australia has said it will keep 1,400 soldiers in and around Iraq, and Bulgaria will keep its 155 troops beyond the expiry of their current mandate next month.
However, the US administration, typical of its self-denials, insists that the coalition is as strong as ever.
Of course, we could not expect the US administration to admit that it is facing major crises in Iraq, not the least the obvious failure of the "security crackdown" that was launched recently as part of President George W Bush's "new" plan involving a "troop surge."
It will be a useless exercise to try to make the point that the Bush administration is facing more disasters in Iraq, particularly at a time when the US military is preparing itself to launch yet another misadventure in the Gulf by striking at Iran. However, that does not negate the reality that the region would have also to face the negative consequences of the US continuing its belligerent approach to the issues of the Middle East.
Washington is ignoring advices from its own military commanders that it would not be wise to continue to believe in military might as the answer to its problems in Iraq and not to invite another catastrophe by sparking an armed conflict with Iran.
Administration officials argue that Iran is "threatening" to close the Strait of Hormuz and block the export of oil from the Gulf, but they are sidestepping the reality that Tehran's "threats" have come in response to unmistakeble signs that the US would launch military action as an answer in the nuclear stand-off with Iran.
One thing is clear: The consequences of a US-Iranian military conflict are unpredictable.
No one in the region wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons or to cause nuclear fallouts. The region's governments have made clear their concerns over the crisis but the US should remember that it does not have a carte blanche to take whatever action it deems fit in the stand-off.
Washington would be better off to focus on its efforts to address the crisis in Iraq through peaceful means. It should accept that it does not have a military answer to the problem there. Once it makes that wise acceptance, then it follows that misadventures in Iran would be much more disasterous than the imbroglio the US faces in Iraq.
The coalition partners have woken up to the reality in Iraq — and what could happen if the US launches military action against Iran — and hence their decision not to expose their soldiers to further danger. The UK has no option but to stick with its trans-Atlantic ally, but most others do not need much persuasion to quit the coalition. That is what is happening now regardless of how Washington tends to explain it.