For Kurds, a messy US withdrawal would be disastrous

By Khaled Salih

The Daily Star, Monday, October 16, 2006

Last August, British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that however difficult the situation in Iraq is, "stay the course, stand up for those people who want democracy, stand for those people who are fighting sectarianism, stand up for a different vision of the Middle East based on democracy, liberty and the rule of law." US President George W. Bush and his supporters have continuously repeated the same message in many ways and on different occasions.

Less than 10 days ago, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, aired a different idea: "In two or three months if this thing [the Iraqi prime minister's plan to improve security] hasn't come to fruition and this level of violence is not under control, I think it's a responsibility of our government to determine: Is there a change of course we should take?"

Some would say that dividing Iraq into three federal units is the only viable solution. Others argue that the Bush administration must accept and publicly acknowledge its failure in Iraq, leading to withdrawal as an inevitable outcome.

There is no doubt that an American withdrawal will happen; the question is when and how. From Kurdistan's perspective, it is difficult to see how any quick and messy American military and political withdrawal could bring about a better alternative to the current situation. A premature withdrawal would plunge Iraq's major political processes into more chaos and deeper conflicts.

Under such circumstances the Sunni Arab insurgency would escalate, with Sunnis hoping to recapture Iraq's political, military and security institutions. Iraq's Shiite political forces and population would do their utmost to avoid failing in their historic opportunity to come to power and rule themselves. Kurdistan's achievement in terms of self-rule, stability and prosperity could easily fade away.

Inevitably, more violent killings would follow as a consequence of haphazardly abandoning the emerging political arrangements based on Iraq's negotiated constitution under US and coalition protection. The idea of a federal, democratic and pluralistic Iraq can hardly survive without long-term US military, political and security commitments. On the contrary, a more likely outcome would be intervention by neighboring countries and terrorist groups to promote their own interests, exact revenge or punish those who sided with the Americans against Saddam Hussein's regime or dared to dream of a better and democratic future. In such circumstances, Kurdistan would pay a much higher price than we can anticipate: Not only is the Kurdish leadership seen to be actively supporting redrawing Iraq's political system, but the entire population is viewed as supporting foreign forces, ideas and values.

An American withdrawal before Iraq's political, military, security and economic institutions are able to survive on their own would invite extremist groups to penetrate Iraq's borders and cause more destruction than we have seen. Kurdistan is particularly vulnerable in such a scenario because of its geographic location and in view of the difficulties implied in controlling the region's mountains. If extremist groups managed to survive in Afghanistan, create a rule of terror and extend their influence across continents before they were confronted militarily, Kurdistan can potentially function in the same way for anti-Kurdish, anti-US, anti-Western and anti-democratic forces.

Panicked, unplanned and chaotic withdrawal is not the only answer to criticisms and demands for a different course of action in Iraq. It is not difficult to imagine the US rearranging its military and political presence but still remaining in Iraq. One option is to withdraw more from Baghdad and other cities in the hope that Sunnis and Shiites conclude that they cannot eliminate each other and therefore must find a modus vivendi.

Another option is to reduce the US military presence to a minimum level but keep the air bases the US has managed to build in Iraq in order to limit the capacity of extremist groups and to deter neighboring countries from embarking on a military adventure in Iraq. A further advantage of maintaining the air bases is the expected escalation with Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons and Iran's non-compliance with UN Security Council demands and resolutions.

Even if the US military and air bases cannot function to create democratic institutions in Iraq and support liberty and rule of law in the Middle East, they can prevent the collapse of the current regional order and possibly prevent regional wars over the issue of weapons of mass destruction.

Khaled Salih is Kurdistan Regional Government spokesman. He is also a senior lecturer in Middle East politics at the University of Southern Denmark. The views expressed here are his own. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=76160