Coalition must deliver on its promise to Iraq
Amid the politically sensitive timing of mounting violence by insurgents in Iraq, US President George W. Bush and his military coalition partner British Prime Minister Tony Blair have been making unexpected comments on their nations' engagement. The American leader last Wednesday acknowledged a possible parallel between the conflict and the Tet offensive during the US war in Vietnam, while the British premier backed his army chief, who has called for Britain's troops to pull out soon.
Given the tough rhetoric of both since joining forces to oust Iraqi president Saddam Hussein without UN Security Council approval in March 2003, such remarks are startling. They have been made, though, with US mid-term congressional elections 15 days away, with Mr Bush's Republican Party trailing in opinion polls, and as Mr Blair prepares to step down as leader of his Labour Party.
In the face of a worsening death toll (it is estimated up to 100 Iraqis are being killed each day, while this month is proving to be one of the most deadly yet for US soldiers) the admission of difficulties is refreshingly honest after more than three years of denials. With the new openness, perhaps a wider dialogue can begin to find a solution to end the insurgency, fight terrorism, bridge ethnic and religious divisions and unite political rivals.
However these objectives come about, though, they can only happen with the backdrop of security that, at present, the US, Britain and their military allies can best provide, even though they are struggling in their task. As long as Iraq's military, police and border guards are insufficient in number and experience to cope, foreign governments have to maintain the pledge they made to put Iraq firmly on the path to peace and prosperity.
This will be challenging, as Mr Bush indicated last week. Iraq, he said, could be compared to the Tet offensive, which was widely considered to have been key to souring US public opinion on the Vietnam war. Militarily, the US-led forces won the 1968-69 series of offensives, but the communist North Vietnamese army nonetheless scored a psychological and propaganda victory.
That the American leader has said what those in his administration have as yet not dared to say is groundbreaking. The US was eventually forced to admit defeat in Vietnam, a result that severely dented American pride and caused soul-searching and self-examination. Such a process may well have now been prompted over Iraq by the president's comments, making for a more clear-sighted and open focus on Iraq.
British General Richard Dannatt's call this month to pull out his country's troops soon was seen by some observers as being a slap in the face to government authority. Mr Blair's backing of the position on October 14 was as unexpected as his top general's remarks.
Clarification by both was as enlightening; while Britain is moving some troops from violence-prone southern provinces, it will stay in Iraq 'until the job is done'.
As Mr Bush held meetings with his senior military officers and administration officials at the weekend, he was also quick to amplify that position, but added that tactics were constantly being adjusted.
Foreign troops cannot permanently stay in Iraq as they infringe the nation's sovereignty. But Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is not yet mature enough to be put in charge of dictating and running security matters and until it is, the US-led forces have to provide support. The solution will be political, but military help will be essential while that process is under way.
Only when the threats to the government have been eliminated and Iraq is capable of standing on its own feet should coalition leaders be talking of an 'exit strategy' for their troops.
How long this takes cannot be guessed; Iraq faces many problems and brokering peace is an uncertain business. Years may pass before negotiations succeed. Throughout, though, the US, Britain and others in the coalition must do their utmost to deliver their promises to Iraq.
