For the US in Iraq, time is running out on 'two clocks'

Nearly four months after President Bush announced his “surge” plan for Iraq, the final American reinforcements supposed to retake control of Baghdad and set the country on a new course are nearly in place. But even as the troops deploy in some of Baghdad’s most notorious neighbourhoods, with orders to root out Sunni Muslim insurgents and Shia Muslim militias and allow long-awaited reconstruction to take place, the battle for the future of Iraq may already be lost.

Mr Bush’s strategy, carried out by Lieutenant General David Petraeus, has had some impact. The number of deaths from sectarian killings, blamed on Shia death squads against Sunni civilians, has reduced and some order has been restored to areas where anarchy ruled. But events in Iraq, the US and abroad means that General Petraeus and his men have little time to turn around the situation.

The commander has admitted that his mission is running against “two clocks”. The clock in Baghdad is the time it will take to restore order and win the insurgency war. This is likely to take months or years, with a huge commitment of US money and manpower. The other clock is ticking in America, where public support for the war is collapsing and calls for a withdrawal have spread from the Democrats to Mr Bush’s own Republican Party.

Most observers seem to agree that Mr Bush has until the end of this summer to produce results, but nothing short of divine intervention could deliver a victory in that short period. In spite of the additional 21,500 troops in Baghdad, the security situation is precarious. Suicide car bombings, blamed on al-Qaeda and targeted mainly against Shia civilians, have not abated. There is evidence that insurgents have simply moved their operations north of the city to the province of Diyala, where US military commanders are asking for more troops to deal with the upsurge in violence. The number of deaths among American forces, more vulnerable in their new role, has now exceeded 3,400. Last month, their British allies in the south recorded their highest death toll since the invasion four years ago.

Outside Iraq, events are also conspiring against the White House. The departure of Tony Blair at the end of next month will rob Mr Bush of his most loyal ally and main partner in Iraq. Gordon Brown, his successor, insists that British forces will remain in southern Iraq. It is likely, however, that their numbers will be reduced to a token force as Mr Brown distances himself from his predecessor’s most disastrous legacy.

Arguably the biggest battle for the future of Iraq is being fought in America. Two thirds of the public are now in favour of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces and sticking to it regardless of the situation on the ground. Iraq is becoming the central issue in the presidential election. Although the vote is 18 months away, candidates across the spectrum are supporting calls for a US withdrawal by 2008.

The Democrat-controlled Congress is challenging Mr Bush’s policy daily. To receive continued funding for the war, the White House may have to accept “benchmarks” for Iraq’s beleaguered Government to meet for America to remain engaged.

These include the passing of legislation in the Iraq parliament to allow redistribution of the country’s oil wealth among its regions. Other reforms include lifting a ban on former Baathists from serving in senior government positions, changing the Constitution to satisfy the Sunni minority and holding provincial elections.

While the Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, struggles to implement these demands, there are real fears that his Government may collapse or that the reforms will simply be shelved by parliamentarians. Iraqi MPs are insisting on taking a two-month summer break, which would rule out any hope of tackling the country’s most pressing problems.

Perhaps Iraqi leaders are resigned to something that has already dawned on America’s allies in the Arab world: that the Iraqi adventure is unwinnable and plans must be made for the next bloody stage in the country’s tragic path.

Toby Dodge, an expert on Iraq at London University who has just returned from a month in Baghdad, said that if Mr Bush’s surge fails and American troops begin to withdraw the country’s desperate situation will become disastrous. “A reduction in American troop numbers would lead to an increase in sectarian violence and push the country closer to civil war. There are no good options if the surge fails. Unfortunately, the worst-case scenario is the most likely one,” he said.

By that he means that Baghdad will become an open battleground between Shia and Sunni fighters with civilians the hardest hit. The weak central government would probably fracture, the police force defect en masse to the militias and the fledgeling army face collapse.

Iraqi political groups are already anticipating the move. “If the Americans left we would probably take over Baghdad in a month,” predicted one senior member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of the two main Shia groups. “Saddam managed to put down the Shia uprising in 1991 in a month. If we use the same tactics we will get the same results.”

A conflict of this magnitude in Iraq would drag in its neighbours. Iran, already a powerful force behind the scenes, would be expected to extend its influence among its Shia brethren, particularly in the south where most of the country’s oil reserves are located. Saudi Arabia has already hinted that it would intervene on behalf of the Sunni minority, perhaps supporting Sunni tribes where they are dominant in western Iraq.

Al-Qaeda, whose suicide bombers have done so much to make Iraq ungovernable, would probably follow its publicly stated objective of turning Iraq into its main global base, with a view to expanding terror across the Middle East. Even northern Iraq, the relatively peaceful Kurdish area, would not be spared. Turkey’s resurgent military leaders are threatening to send troops into the area to attack Kurdish separatists. Without American cover, little would stop the Turks from acting on their threats.

Anyone who believes that the situation in Iraq is bad today should consider how much worse it is likely to become when the Americans decide to leave.

Clock watcher

General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the multinational Force in Iraq on February 10. Before taking over the post, he had co-written the US Army’s counter-insurgency manual, after completing his dissertation on the lessons of Vietnam.

During the invasion of Iraq in 2003 he commanded the 101st Airborne Division and was responsible for northern Iraq. He then headed Nato’s training mission in Iraq. Earlier he had served in various roles, notably overseeing the UN mission to Haiti.

He graduated top of his class from the US Army Command and General Staff College, and gained a PhD from Princeton