WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 (UPI) -- More than 2,270 Americans have lost their lives in the ongoing war in Iraq. The recent elections there and the establishment of democracy have not solved the main problems. As the bloody insurgency continues, the search for a viable exit strategy has intensified.
At the Washington D.C. launch of the Independent Institute, a non-partisan think-tank, analysts recently said U.S. withdrawal hinges on a successful counter-insurgency strategy, yet there was little agreement on the form this should take.
Many observers believe a specific timetable for withdrawal would greatly diffuse the insurgency. Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress argued that timetabled extraction should remove the bulk of U.S. troops by 2008.
"This would give the Iraqis the incentive to get their act together", Korb said. Many Iraqis want an end to U.S. 'occupation', and these, as yet unfulfilled demands, are fueling guerilla warfare. "There are large numbers of Iraqis, particularly in Sunni areas who think its ok to kill Americans", he said.
Timetabled retreat may bring additional domestic benefits for the U.S. Withdrawal would ease pressure on the currently over-stretched army, and would enable the National Guard to return home.
In addition, Korb argued troop extraction could benefit the U.S. in the international arena. Withdrawal would enable the military to deploy personnel in other theatres of the War on Terror; indeed he estimated an additional 20,000 troops are required in Afghanistan.
This is endorsed by Lt. Gen. William Odom, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. According to Odom, the U.S. "has lost all strategic and diplomatic flexibility" by becoming entrenched in Iraq, and thus "we cannot get our troops out of there fast enough".
Moreover, timetabled retreat may galvanize neighboring countries to foster stability. According to the rules of Islam, all Muslims have a duty to repel non-Muslim invaders of an Islamic territory. This faith in defensive jihad has transformed post-invasion Iraq into a magnet for foreign jihadists.
U.S withdrawal could reduce this flow, and provide nearby nations with a real interest in Iraq's future. "None of the countries in the region want an Iraq which becomes the homeland of radical jihadists", Korb said.
Troop extraction has many advantages, but U.S. withdrawal needs to be conducted in a way which will allow the administration to save face, according to Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow and Director of the Centre on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute. He said a decentralized Iraqi government would fulfill these criteria.
In his policy paper 'The Way out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government', Eland suggested a confederation or partition as the most effective way to approach "Iraq's multitude of ethnic, religious, and tribal factions".
Shiite Muslims make up 65 percent of the Iraqi population, with the Sunnis and non-Arab Sunni Kurds each accounting for 15 percent. A history of single-group dominance -- under Saddam Hussein, the Sunnis held power -- has encouraged a climate of suspicion in which each group jostles for its place.
According to Eland, self-determination could provide the solution. "If all local areas in Iraq were allowed to govern themselves the way they wanted, there would be much less potential for conflict".
To support this proposal, Eland referred to Iraqi history. Eland wrote that the absence of a collective national identity makes it difficult to realize the Bush administration's vision of a united free Iraq. "These provinces have never been united politically, had no feeling of collective nationality, and contained three different ethnic/religious groups subdivided by tribal loyalties. This situation has made the Iraqi state dysfunctional from the start", he wrote.
Current world examples also suggest a confederation or partition may be effective, Eland said. Addressing the Independent Institute conference, he pointed to the recent agreement in Sudan. The black Christian south has been granted autonomy from the Muslim Arab government.
In his study, Eland wrote, "If such an agreement for decentralization can be reached amid the internecine hostility of this devastating war ... some hope exists that one can be reached in Iraq".
However, while some observers advocate timetabled withdrawal, others argue the insurgency can be most effectively diffused through investment and reconstruction. Peter Brookes, Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs at the Heritage Foundation cited limited reconstruction as a barrier to stability.
According to Brookes, "the greatest danger is that we are losing the support of the common Iraqi". Investment flows have steadily declined. At a 2003 Madrid conference, the international community pledged $13 billion. To date, only $3 billion has been sent. "It is time to twist some arms and get people to pay up", he said,
In addition, Brookes said existing funds need to be directed to improving the economic situation. Large portions of investment earmarked for power and water supplies have been siphoned off to satisfy mounting security costs.
Moreover, Brookes also emphasized the value of high visibility projects such as schools and hospitals. These will give "locals a stake in the future of communities", he said, and reduce support for an insurgency which threatens such improvements to quality of life.
