US Needs to Exit Iraq
Clashes between U.S. troops and insurgents throughout Iraq, political maneuvering in the United States over its presence there and the repercussions of that presence around the world leave no doubt that the Bush administration's hopes for a turnaround have been frustrated.
The recent American troop "surge" has only increased the grim statistics of military casualties, civilian deaths and overall devastation. The U.S Congress reluctantly approved funding for the continued troop presence without requiring a date for withdrawal. But despite claims of victory, media reports suggest that the Bush team understands its current Iraq policies have run their course.
The administration is reportedly considering a 50 per cent reduction of troops in Iraq next year, as well as changing their mandate from combat missions to support and training. There's renewed interest in the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, brushed aside only a few months ago. The administration has begun consulting Iraq's neighbours, Iran and Syria.
So even those who like to persist in their mistakes and illusions are being forced to rethink or, at least repackage, their policies. But is this a real change for the better? Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
No.
The key to understanding the situation - as it appears today and as it appeared one, two or three years ago, indeed as it appeared from Day One of the invasion - is simple. Iraq is occupied by U.S. forces.
That fact hasn't been changed by Iraq's creation of a parliament, the election of a new government or the establishment of relative quiet in some parts of the country. Millions of Iraqis perceive the occupation as a national humiliation. That fuels sectarian conflicts, civil strife and continuing instability.
