EXIT WITHOUT PANIC

The recent escalation of armed violence in Iraq made the month of April the deadliest month of the Iraq war. As the June 30 deadline for the transfer of sovereignty approaches, the violence may escalate even further. The anticipated losers in the post-Saddam era would scramble to improve their respective bargaining positions to enhance their share of power. One way of doing so is to compete in targeting coalition forces, now perceived by a majority of Iraqis as “occupiers” (71% of Iraqis) not “liberators” (19%)—according to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll conducted last month.

Occupation, no matter how noble its claimed objectives, inevitably generates resistance. Though initially grateful to the American-led coalition for ridding them of a universally hated and feared dictator, Iraqis have grown weary and now impatient with occupation, especially with widespread failures to ensure internal security or to provide employment and basic services.

Invariably, in spite the best of intentions, coalition occupation forces commit acts that would be construed by human rights standards as atrocious violations, thus further alienating more civilian Iraqis and eroding support at home. Much of what was revealed last week about torture and sexual abuse of Iraqi detainees and prisoners of war has already shocked Americans and Europeans and infuriated Arab public opinion. It is reminiscent of Vietnam’s My Lai guerrilla warfare has this built-in seesaw impact in the theater of operations and at the home front. No occupation army, no matter how many “enemy combatants” get killed, can win such a war. The failure to win compounds the frustration of regular army soldiers, which makes them more trigger-happy vis-à-vis the civilian population.

As the declared or de facto date approaches, the rush for exiting could turn into panic, not only for the occupation forces, but also for civilians who may have collaborated with them and hence fear for their lives from potential retributions. Again the scene of the last days out of Saigon is still etched in the memories of Americans and millions round the world who saw the television images with people hanging to the last few helicopters leaving the Vietnamese capital. An orderly exit from Iraq must be planned carefully but swiftly. According to the USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, the overwhelming majority of Kurds (over 90%) are still supportive of the coalition presence and still think of the forces as liberators. Their area of northern Iraq, adjacent to friendly Turkey, may be an ideal zone of transition around June 30. The same may be said for neighboring and friendly Kuwait to the south. The reconstitution of some old Iraqi army units under the command of former generals which is being tried in Falluja (The New York Times, May 1) should be expanded until a sizable army of at least 100,000 soldiers can take over from the departing coalition forces.

Along with the newly American-trained police, they can maintain law and order during the transition to an elected government at the end of the year or at the beginning of 2005. The aforementioned public opinion poll indicated that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis condemn the attacks by the insurgents on the Iraqi police, but that percentage drops down to 32% when such attacks target the coalition.

Even the anticipated losers in post-Saddam Iraq could still be neutralized to control the damage that they are causing as much to fellow Iraqis as to the coalition forces. The reference is to the Sunnis and the small pro-Iranian faction led by the young cleric Moqtada al Sadr. The decision to deploy Iraqi soldiers under the command of Iraqi generals in Falluja was innocently received with triumphant cheers from the beleaguered residents of the city. Moqtada al Sadr should be left to senior Shiite clerics and the able UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to contain. Any further military confrontation with him is bound to enhance his popularity and should be avoided.

America is at its international best when it stays at a healthy distance from local actors in conflict situations. When such actors willfully ask for its mediation, peacekeeping, or state building, the U.S. may oblige. It is commendable that Lakhdar Brhaimi has accepted the position as UN envoy in Iraq to oversee the transition. He is the best hope for the U.S. to exit with minimum panic and bloodshed. The highly skilled diplomat and dignified statesman Brahimi has an advantage of being trusted by most Iraqis and Arab leaders. Having been a deputy secretary general of the Arab League, an Algerian minister of foreign affairs, and a frequent trouble-shooter for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in recent years, makes him the most suited for the complicated task at hand.

What many do not know is that young Brahimi was a freedom fighter in the Algerian war of independence against France (1954-62). His success in Afghanistan last year reinforces his suitability for the new challenge. The U.S. and its coalition partners must give Brahimi all the support he needs to accomplish a mission almost impossible.