Thanks to everyone who took part in the impromptu Iraq discussion. I was pleased to see that the contributors span the ideological spectrum from "Bush is a war criminal" to "secure the oil and let the hopeless Iraqis slug it out" (I paraphrase obviously). Since much of the blogosphere seems to be chopped up into the ideological equivalent of gated communities, it’s good to see such a range of opinions.

As for myself, I think the discussion helped clarify my thinking a bit - although I don’t think I’ve yet found "the solution". Rather than comment on each and every posting, I thought it might be useful to react to groups of ideas that cropped up.

First - Belgium. I’m fond of the place myself, since I used to live there. And a couple of correspondents seem to regard it as a possible model for Iraq - as does Volker Perthes, whose article I linked to. I’m not convinced however. The temptations of federalism or even partition are obvious - and that may be where we end up eventually. But any attempt to force the situation might involve further mass movements of people and killings - which looked more like the partition of India and Pakistan than the creation of Belgium (which I seem to remember is the only revolution ever to have started in an opera house.) Also partition might invite outside intervention and therefore a wider war. Would Turkey tolerate an independent Kurdistan? How would the Saudis feel about an Iranian-linked Shiastan in the south?

Continue reading "Iraq - some reactions"

I have written a lot about Iraq in the FT. But readers of my column might have noticed that - while not slow to dish out criticism - I have usually dodged the big question: so what would you do?

There is a simple reason for this evasiveness. I don’t know really know what I would do. Like most people, I am better at defining the question than providing the answer. So once again, I would like to turn to the readers of this blog for ideas and suggestions.

Continue reading "Iraq - suggestions please"

‘‘My fellow Americans, our troops in Iraq have performed heroically and have done everything that has been asked of them. Under my presidency I will seek to bring our brave men and women home. But there will be no precipitate withdrawal from Iraq. We will secure our vital national interests.

“Our nation faces awesome challenges in Iraq and in the struggle against global jihadism. But I take inspiration from the ‘greatest generation’, which won the second world war, and from the statesmen who led us to victory in the cold war – men like George C. Marshall and Harry Truman.

The remainder of this week’s column can be read here (FT.com subscribers only). Comments can be made below.

I thought President Bush did a good job in his television address on Iraq last night (view video, transcript). He must have done. For a couple of minutes, I was almost convinced.

As expected, Bush made the case that the “surge” has worked. His speech was full of encouraging little anecdotes. He set out the moral and strategic case for persevering in Iraq with conviction. And he tried to build some sort of bipartisan consensus, by holding out the hope that the troop withdrawals he announced are just the beginning.

But – in the end – it doesn’t convince for two main reasons.

Continue reading "Bush’s Iraq address: Impressive and unconvincing"

I am sitting in a hotel room in Washington. The television is on in the background, because I’m hoping to catch more Congressional testimony from General David Petraeus. But even the mainstream news channels seem to be losing interest. They keep cutting away to other stuff - commemoration services for 9/11, Osama’s new video. All the news channels carried Petraeus live yesterday, when he testified before the House Foreign Affairs committees. Today, he and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which should be even more interesting - since his inquisitors include Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But Petraeus fatigue has set in already.

It’s been a while since I watched hours of Congresssional testimony at a stretch. Yesterday was interesting, partly because it reminded me of the massive self-importance of Congress - neither Petraeus or Crocker got to say anything for almost an hour, while the committee members droned away. Their attitude seemed to be - "I’m really glad you’ve come all the way from Iraq, because there are a few things I’d like to get off my chest."

Petraeus says that the surge is working, which infuriates the anti-war crowd. But the people at Moveon.org scored an own goal, even before the general appeared before Congress, by publishing a full-page ad in the New York Times calling him "General Betray Us". This was so over-the-top that it was a gift to the Republicans.

Mind you, sotto voce, even some senior Republicans are not totally convinced by the general.

Continue reading "Petraeus and the Iraq withdrawal consensus"

The symbolism of getting General David Petraeus to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the anniversary of 9/11 appealed to the White House. It should not have. It is crass. General Petraeus’s struggle to salvage the Iraq war merely underlines the fact that invading Iraq was a crazy way to respond to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

Six years after 9/11, the US needs to re-think. It is now clear that Iraq was the biggest blunder of the Bush years. It is also becoming evident that counter-terrorism should no longer be the centrepiece of American foreign policy. As the official 9/11 commission demonstrated, Saddam Hussein played no role in the terrorist attacks. He also had no nuclear weapons and no significant relationship with al-Qaeda.

But the Iraq invasion was not simply the wrong response to 9/11. It has actually made the terrorism problem worse in five significant ways.

The remainder of this week’s column can be read here (FT.com subscribers only). Comments can be made below.

I realise this sounds egomaniacal, but I can’t help reading President Bush’s recent speech to American veterans as a belated reply to a column that I wrote last November. The FT’s dreaded subscription barrier may prevent you reading the whole thing, so let me summarise the basic argument:

I wrote that the parallels between the Iraq and Vietnam wars were becoming increasingly eerie. In both cases, the US went on a war for reasons that were subsequently discredited. In both cases, the administration expressed high hopes about the export of democracy - but disillusionment set in rapidly. As casualties mounted (they were much higher in Vietnam), support for the war in the US drained away.

The big question is whether the two wars will end in the same way? Will it be helicopters off the roof at the American Embassy in Baghdad in a couple of years time? And if so, what will the consequences be for America and the region?

Continue reading "Iraq and Vietnam"

President Bush is now engaged in a two-fronts war over Iraq. There is the battle in Iraq itself, and then there is the political battle back in Washington. To win the struggle in Washington, he needs to convince American politicians and the public that there is hope in Iraq. And that - in a modest and halting way - is what the interim report issued today does. It claims that progress has been made and pleads for more time.

The trouble is, how much time is enough? In a dangerous moment of candour earlier this week, General David Petraeus - the US commander in Iraq - told the BBC that typical counter-insurgenices can take decades to succeed. He cited the British experience in Northern Ireland, which actually took more than 30 years - and ended with a political settlement.

The trouble is that Iraq is considerably more daunting than Northern Ireland. The Americans have lost 3,600 troops, which is far more men than Britain ever lost in Ulster. Nor does there seem to be any prospect of reaching a political deal with the hard core of the insurgency - al-Qaeda.

Continue reading "Running out of time in Iraq"