Nobember
17, 2006
Rumsfeld’s
Exit Marks the Beginning of Shift of Course in Iraq
A major shift
in the US policy on Iraq has become inevitable with
the mid-term elections serving as a referendum on
that policy. The electorate’s verdict is clearly
against the policy of the Bush administration “to
stay the course”. The exit of Donald Rumsfeld
as Secretary Defense is no eyewash. Presenting him
as the bad face of the war and making him the scapegoat
would hardly mollify the people.
The vote was a popular repudiation of an unpopular
war. It may be recalled that before it was launched
in March 2003, there were unprecedented demonstrations
against it throughout the world, notably in Europe.
Ignoring the outburst of the anti-war sentiments
of the people, the Bush administration invaded Iraq
on the ground that it had weapons of mass destruction
and was in league with Al Qaeda and that Sadam Hussein
was a mounting threat to the US security. Iraq,
with an estimated population of around 25 million
and already emaciated owing to the UN sanctions
imposed on it, was like a humming bird threatening
an elephant. No wonder, Sadam took refuge in a ground
hole near his home town. But, what the Bush administration
could not foresee was the immense resistance that
surfaced after the US occupation. The insurgency
could not be suppressed despite vast destruction
of the infrastructure and deaths of at least 150,000
Iraqis, according to Iraqi official figures,and
around 3,000 US soldiers.
The causes belli being open to question, and there
being little progress towards achieving the objectives
of the war despite the enormous expenditure, and
general acceptance of the fact that the use of force
had become ineffective, the war had become extremely
unpopular among the electorate. Hence the verdict
against it at the polls, despite the Bush administration’s
insistence on staying the course.
Mr. Bush has graciously acknowledged the defeat
and gave the very next day of the election a call
for bipartisan cooperation. To pave the way for
this, Rumsfeld was made to quit and replaced by
Robert Gates who is likely to be acceptable to the
Democrats.
John Bolton, US rep at the UN, is next in line.
His appointment, in any case, was made by the President
while the Congress was in recess. Bolton’s
confirmation now is out of question.
Pentagon’s two top Generals who have been
dealing with Iraq - Gen. John Abizaid and Gen. George
Casey, who is in-charge of the military operations
in Iraq - are both expected to be replaced soon.
US ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, is also
likely to be replaced by a more moderate person.
Questions are also being raised about the future
of the most significant wielder of power in the
administration - Dick Cheney. He is likely to be
affected only if the Congress elects to investigate
the allegations of corruption in the award of contracts
in Iraq. That was one of the issues before the electorate.
Now there is a virtual consensus on the need for
a shift in the policy on Iraq. The days of the partisan
warfare and gridlock in the Congress are a feature
of the past. Both parties are looking for an amicable
settlement of the turmoil in Iraq and a graceful
pullout of US troops. That is no easy task considering
the ground realities in the war theater.
Yet, the situation is not altogether bleak. For,
the Iraq Study Group, headed by the former US Secretary
of State, James Baker, is already working for evolving
a path that could provide a way out of the quagmire
acceptable to both the parties. Significantly, Robert
Gates, the replacement of Donald Rumsfeld, is a
member of this Study Group. He is thus well aware
of the intricacies of the situation and would be
in a better position to convince the Congress of
the validity of the Group’s recommendations.
Mr. Rumsfeld had expended a lot of his time and
energy on controlling the powerful Generals and
making them carry out the decisions of the civilian
bosses. He had often been abrasive in handling the
Generals who had developed an unexpressed distaste
for his modus operandi. Robert Gates may therefore
expect unstinted cooperation of the senior brass
and prompt professional advice whenever needed.
It is no secret that Rumsfeld had crossed swords
with the US top brass long before Iraq. He was given
the task of reasserting civilian authority over
the men in uniform. And, he was determined to run
the Pentagon instead of being run by it. One is
reminded of the role of the military in running
the state in Pakistan. Mr. Bhutto’s derogation
of Gen. Zia was in no mean measure responsible for
sending him to the gallows. One is also reminded
of the folly of Mr. Bhutto in increasing the defense
allocation three-fold soon after the surrender of
Dacca, instead of cutting down the existing allocation
considering the loss of half of the country and
consequent reduction in the need of defense of the
rump state.
There is another analogy. Mr. Rumsfeld’s bickering
with the brass had reached a stage where he was
likely to be replaced by the President in the interest
of harmony. September 11 attacks saved him. Gen.
Zia was to hold elections and quit; the invasion
of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union saved his Presidency.
The new Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, is said
to believe in developing consensus instead of being
hawkish and asserting his will. He last served in
Washington 13 years ago, as a national security
adviser and then Director of CIA. A senior Pentagon
official described him as “a pragmatist and
a realist” who would be “no lightning
rod.” Having served under Presidents Nixon,
Ford and Carter, and having handled the CIA operations
in Afghanistan, he is quite knowledgeable about
Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. He has publicly
questioned in 2004 Bush administration’s approach
to Iran. Refusal to talk to Iran, he felt was ultimately
self-defeating.
It is but natural for the Pakistani community in
the US to wonder about the repercussions of the
election outcome on the US-Pakistan relations. The
Republicans have always been sympathetic to Pakistan,
while the Democrats have favored India on Indo-Pakistan
issues. As far the Pakistani community in the US
is concerned, the change may augur well for them.
For, the new-cons of Bush administration had been
tightening the screw on them through the Patriot
Act, security procedures and stricter surveillance.
With the liberals dominating the Congress, Pakistanis
will have reason to breath freer.
As for Pakistan, the pressure on Gen. Musharraf’s
government is likely to ease somewhat, as the US
administration is likely to seek a dignified pullout
from Iraq, and a less hawkish attitude towards Afghanistan
too. The battles in both Iraq and Afghanistan are
likely to be for the heads and hearts of the people
through pacification, rehabilitation, education,
health and social development. To be able to achieve
these objectives, the current hawkish approach might
yield to friendlier gestures.
The aggressive and arrogant stances have generated
an intense anti-American sentiment among the people
of the region. Growth of extremist groups and Taliban
cannot be stemmed through the barrel of the gun.
Killing Osama and al-Zawahiri will hardly put an
end to the growth of terrorists. Zarqawi’s
elimination has not ended the insurgency in Iraq.
A diametric shift in US policy is indicated. And,
a Congress dominated by the Democrats is likely
to exert pressure on the administration to adopt
a pragmatic approach towards the opponents abroad.
Pakistan should be able to play a significant role
in this so far as Afghanistan is concerned. That
would be in the interest of Pakistani leadership
too. No suicide bombers would have cause to sneak
near them.
arifhussaini@hotmail.com
