A new policy to turn Iraq around

The US had asked friendly countries to provide troops for Iraq. Defence Secretary Rumsfeld specifically made a request for troops from America’s NATO partners. In fact, according to him, as many as 90 countries had been approached. But the response so far has been disappointing. It is important to understand why America’s friends, in general so keen to oblige, have responded in this manner. Is it because they feared that their troops might have to sustain heavy casualties? Yes, that is part of the reason. But, there is a more substantive reason: America’s friends are not convinced that the current policy is going to succeed. They are deeply distressed that America might find herself in a deepening quagmire with or without additional troops from other countries.

Let us raise a fundamental question: Does Iraq need more troops, whether American, Mexican, Moroccan, Indian or Pakistani, or a change in policy? There is armed resistance to US, part of it coming from the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime. But it will be irresponsible to argue as some have down that the US should withdraw her troops from Iraq immediately. That will be a recipe for disaster and nobody seriously expects the US to even consider this. President Bush has made it clear that the US would stay the course. But it will be good to replace a part of the American troops by troops from other countries. But countries such as France, Germany and India have made it clear that they can send troops only under the UN mandate.

Hence the question arises: Is it in America’s interest to get more troops under the UN mandate to replace the US troops in position. The answer is clear. It is America’s declared policy to assist the Iraqis to restore normalcy in their country, the most crucial element in that normalcy being a democratically elected government in Iraq, representing the people and exercising authority over the entire territory, with due allowance for regional autonomy. Can America singlehandedly provide the necessary support for the ‘occupation train’ to take it to the intended destination?

It is pertinent to raise the question about the role of the UN in this context. It is fashionable to dismiss the world body as a “talking shop” or even a “toothless tiger”. We should all be clear in our mind that if the UN has become ineffective the fault lies not with the UN or its charter but with the member-states.

Imagine a thought-experiment: Washington announces that it is prepared to hand over to the UN the political responsibility of assisting Iraqis to elect a government within a democratic framework; Washington urges the UN secretary-general to sound out some of the member-states with experience in peace-keeping to provide 50,000 troops within a month’s time to replace 100,000 of the American troops in Iraq. An appropriate resolution, drafted in consultation with Arab states, is moved in the Security Council. What will follow such an announcement? India, France, Germany and others will respond promptly to the secretary-general’s appeal and a force of 50,000 will be assembled within weeks; the armed resistance in Iraq will crumble; the unkind critics of America charging it with coveting Iraqi oil will be exposed; the Iraqis will realise that America does not want to occupy their country for long. This will leave all concerned free to pay undivided attention to the task of restoring normalcy in war-cum-sanctions devastated Iraq.

Fort Campbell in Kentucky is home to 10,000 families with a parent serving in Iraq. USA Today has recently carried a human interest story of young wives dreading the prospect of the casualty officer and the chaplain suddenly arriving to give them the news. Don’t the US and the world have words of solace and reassurance for them?