Why the US cannot and will not quit Iraq

February 29, 2008

Why the US cannot and will not quit Iraq


It does not really matter what the US presidential hopeful are promising today to end their country's military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some have already vowed to "bring home the boys" in months after entering the White House if elected as president. In reality, none of them — whether Republican or Democrat — would be able to deliver on the promise and the crisis will drag on for years, with even the 2013 occupant of the White House prosecuting the wars.
Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, has put it accurately:
"On Inauguration Day, 2013, Americans will find our ruling interventionists – Republican or Democrat – have US forces fighting in Iraq; have more forces fighting in Afghanistan; have committed forces in places like the Balkans and Darfur; and have motivated millions more Muslims to join the jihad by their policies' impact."
The reasons for the US being rendered unable to disengage itself from the wars are also clear.
Notwithstanding his/her pre-election promises, no successful US presidential candidate would be able to override the imperatives set by the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington. Those imperatives will continue to be based on the realisation that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has created several monsters that Washington is no longer able to control. Worse still is that some of the monsters would pose serious threats to Israel and undo one of the basic goals of the US war against Iraq — remove Iraq as a potential threat to the Jewish state. If anything, the gravity of the threat today is larger than what Saddam Hussein had posed.
It is clear that militant groups like Al Qaeda, an avowed foe of Israel, have grown roots in Iraq and there is not much the US or the Iraqi authorities could do to uproot and evict it from the country. The intensity of Al Qaeda actions in Iraq might ebb or strengthen depending on particular situations, but it would continue to be an integral part of Iraq. That is one of the results of the interventionist policy that successive US administrations have followed in the Middle East for the past several decades.
Similarly, the pro-Iranian elements in Iraq, not to mention the angry and frustrated Sunnis of the country, are equally hostile to Israel. Effectively, it means that if the US withdraws its military from Iraq, Al Qaeda would be able to strengthen its presence there — and so would the Iranian proxy forces — and Israel's "security" interests would come under a stronger threat than that was the case when Iraq was under the reign of the Saddam Hussein regime and than is the case today. It would not be an exaggeration to envisage Iranian missiles and launchers stationed on Iraq's western border, bringing Israel that much closer to their range.
And that is why the US finds itself over a barrel in Iraq. And that is why no US president could even think of withdrawing the US military from Iraq as long as the threats to Israel remain. And those threats are as real as anything else and will remain so as long as no equitable solution is found to the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict.
It is also equally real that no US president would ever dream of "exposing" Israel's security to any potential threat, perceived or otherwise. And then it becomes crystal clear that the promises that today's presidential candidates make would turn out to be hollow once the presidential race is over and one of them enters the White House as its occupant for the next five years beginning in January 2009.
Of course, the new presidential tunes would be: The US needs to stay in Iraq to fight international terrorism, to democratise the country, to protect US energy interests and to do whatever else that could be cited as justifications, but all of them tailored to suit the occasion.