Iraq: Connecting the Dots

Rumsfeld himself worried almost three years ago that Americans were creating more insurgents, terrorists, dead-enders, etc. than they were killing (to date, how many different terms have the Pentagon and White House used?). I noticed an article earlier this week by Nancy A. Youssef at the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau:

The death of civilians at the hands of U.S. troops has fueled the insurgency in Iraq, according to a top-level U.S. military commander, who said U.S. officials began keeping records of these deaths last summer.

Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who as head of the Multinational Corps Iraq is the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, said the number of civilian dead and wounded is an important measurement of how effectively U.S. forces are interacting with the Iraqi people.

"We have people who were on the fence or supported us who in the last two years or three years have in fact decided to strike out against us. And you have to ask: Why is that? And I would argue in many instances we are our own worst enemy," Chiarelli told Knight Ridder.

Chiarelli said he reviews the figures daily. If fewer civilians are killed, "I think that will make our soldiers safer," Chiarelli said.

U.S. officials previously have said they don't keep track of civilian causalities, and Iraqi officials stopped releasing numbers of U.S.-caused casualties after Knight Ridder reported in September 2004 that the Iraqi Ministry of Health had attributed more than twice as many civilian deaths to the actions of U.S. forces than to "terrorist" attacks during the period from June 2004 to September 2004.

(snip)

...the intentional targeting of Iraqis by U.S. troops is only one aspect of the controversy surrounding civilian casualties. Iraqis have been far more vocal about deaths at poorly marked checkpoints or because Iraqi civilians don't understand the military's rules of engagement.

Incidents like the one alleged at Haditha have been rare compared to the fundamental tragedy in Iraq that so many civilian deaths have been the result of frequently changing rules at checkpoints and also vague and changing rules when civilians come within sudden sight of a convoy. Of course there have been many other accidental deaths that are the result of our enormous firepower.

Now we need to connect the above story to the other story on civilian deaths in Iraq. Here's the story from the Los Angeles Times by Louise Roug and Doug Smith:

At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies — a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration.

Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since.

The toll, which is mostly of civilians but probably also includes some security forces and insurgents, is daunting: Proportionately, it is equivalent to 570,000 Americans being killed nationwide in the last three years.

In the same period, at least 2,520 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq.

Americans are not popular in Iraq. That has been true for some time now. At this point, assuming we can talk intelligently about intentions beyond those of the Bush inner circle, it doesn't matter how good our intentions are or not. The more civilian deaths there are as a result of American military action, the more Iraqis from all parts of the country will be calling for us to leave. That includes the majority Shiites who are increasingly improving their position in their part of the country and gaining more control of the government after their election win some months back.

When the Shiites have a confident level of control, the calls for Americans to leave may reach a critical level. That time is likely to come sooner than later; it might only be months. At some point, I suspect the Ayatollah al Sistani will make a public but polite request if withdrawal of American troops has not already begun; until he speaks, the current Iraqi government may have no choice but to accept a continuing level of interference in their affairs from Americans but that too will lead to growing irritations (and possibly more tragedy).

If Sistani speaks out or events begin to accelerate, the better part of valor for Bush will be to declare 'victory' of sorts and then begin a careful withdrawal over a year or so, depending on events. However, the sooner Bush declares our intention to withdraw (instead of playing politics with the midterm elections), the better for everyone. Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. It will be up to the Iraqis themselves then to mend their country the best they can with American troops nearby in case they're needed. In the meantime, Bush needs to send American envoys to sit down and talk with every one of Iraq's neighbors to guarantee a peaceful transition. That requires Bush to set aside his ideological nonsense to allow tough but realistic negotiations with nations like Syria and Iran.

Will Bush set aside photo ops and politics to pursue a rational policy in Iraq? I doubt it but we will see. I personally expect the destruction of American's foreign policy to continue while so many problems remain unaddressed. I fully expect some ridiculous mid-summer or October surprise of some sort. Bush will ask Americans to trust him once again with only a few weeks to test that trust. Against the failures of the last five years, that's not much of a bargain.