IRAQ - The Challenges Of Terrorism - Part 24 - US Exit Options.

A strategy for a US exit from Iraq has become a mainstream topic in Washington's political circles. To exit Iraq with the continuing challenges of terrorism, however, the question is how to do it which is more important than when this is to be done. US military experts say any American troop withdrawal from Iraq could take up to 18 months and would need careful planning.

Regional powers, including China through Iran, are arming local insurgents. There have been accusations that Iran and Syria have been arming and training both Shi'ite militias and Neo-Salafi insurgents with the purpose of defeating the US in Iraq (see Part 23 in sbme1-IraqChinaJuly9-07).

Al-Qaeda, by far the most violent strain in Sunni Islam and leading a Neo-Salafi movement, wants to replace the US in the occupation of Iraq. Among its efforts in that direction, its Iraq branch has been working hard at inciting a Sunni-Shi'ite war by hitting Shi'ite civilians as well as Shi'ite religious symbols such as shrines. US forces, claiming to seek prevention of such a war, on Aug. 5 said they had killed the top al-Qaeda leader in Salahuddin province, Haitham al-Badri, whom they blamed for a Feb. 22, 2006, attack on the Shi'ite al-Askari shrine in Samarra' which was a turning point in the country's sectarian conflict. They also said a week-long Iraqi police crackdown on al-Qaeda in Samarra' had netted 80 Neo-Salafi suspects.

Among other al-Qaeda figures captured in the past days were the group's leaders for the Salahuddin cities of Samarra' and Tikrit, home town of ousted Sunni/Ba'thist dictator Saddam Hussein who was executed by hanging in late 2006. The US military in the previous week said it had killed the Qaeda leader in Mosul further north.

US and Iraqi officials frequently say they killed or captured leading al-Qaeda figures. The precise role any individual may have played in the Neo-Salafi group is often difficult to assess. Announcements indicate a push against al-Qaeda in the large stretch of towns and cities which runs along the fertile Tigris River valley north of Baghdad. US forces identified the slain al-Qaeda provincial chief Badri as the mastermind behind two attacks on the Shi'ite al-Askari shrine in Samarra', one on Feb. 22, 2006, and the other on June 13, 2007. An Iraqi military officer said troops had captured al-Qaeda's leader for the city of Tikrit, named Talal al-Ba'zi. US forces said al-Qaeda's leader for Samarra', whom they did not name, was also caught.

US raids and air strikes on Baghdad's Sadr City on Aug. 8 killed 32 and captured 12 of Shi'ite Jaysh al-Mahdi (JaM) militiamen loyal to anti-US Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The US military said the suspects were believed to be members of JaM's "terrorist network...facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), from Iran to Iraq". They were alleged to be involved in moving militants from Iraq to Iran for training. The raid came two days after US and Iranian officials had "frank and serious" talks in Baghdad on security issues at the first meeting of a subcommittee the two countries agreed to set up in July in an attempt to help stabilise Iraq. The US said about 74% of anti-US attacks in Baghdad in July were done by Shi'ite militants.

The office of Lt-Gen Raymond Odierno, the US's second-in-command in Iraq, on Aug. 8 said EFPs were used in 99 attacks in July, an all-time high accounting for a third of nearly 70 US deaths. US officers say Tehran has cultivated client groups among JaM blocs.

The US military says intelligence indicated that one of the targets in the Aug. 8 raid was a proxy between the Iraqi EFP network and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force, a group whose existence Iran denies but which US intelligence officials say is charged with maintaining contact with militant organisations outside Iran. The air strikes were called in after a vehicle and a JaM group were spotted trying to launch an assault on US ground forces. The raid took place on the same day as Shi'ite PM Nouri al-Maliki began a three-day visit to Tehran and as a two-day conference on Iraq in Damascus opened with Saudi Arabia not attending despite participation as observers by the US, UK, France, China and Russia. The UNSC on Aug. 10 boosted and extended the UN's role in Iraq, with its mandate renewed for another year.

In what seems to be the beginning of a change in the political map of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is highlighting its involvement in a US-led alliance against an Iran-led axis of anti-US forces (see news6Palestine&RegionalImplicationsAug6-07). Russia has got a base facility for its navy in Tartous as Syria plays up its role in the Iran-led axis.

Towards A US Exit Strategy: With little fanfare, however, the stage is being set for a post-"surge" Iraq strategy which reduces US ambitions for the Iraq project, even while keeping some American forces there for years to come. No decisions have yet been made, and Bush administration officials insist the current strategy which has pumped an additional 30,000 troops into Iraq still must be given time to work. But the contours of a new approach floating around Washington suggest a drawing down of the 162,000 US forces there beginning as early as end-2007. The thousands to remain would be refocused on training Iraqi security forces and on a long fight against al-Qaeda.

Just how much momentum the new Iraq-strategy snowball has behind it will start to become clearer in the coming weeks. The new strategy is still in its formative stages in White House discussions, on Pentagon drawing boards, and on congressional desks. It is a source of division in the White House, although President Bush continues to warn against the dangers of any US withdrawal. But it is reflective of political realities in both the US and Iraq.

Time is running short for achieving political consensus in the US on Iraq policy before the 2008 campaign for the American presidential elections kicks off in earnest. On the other hand, more time is needed to achieve political consensus in Iraq. That leaves an ironic situation where the political clocks of the two countries are not just running at different speeds, as has been said for months, but in different directions.

Nikolas Gvosdev, a foreign-policy expert and editor of The National Interest, a foreign-affairs magazine, says: "What we're seeing is preparation for the post-'surge' period, particularly as it coincides with a critical political cycle culminating in the 2008 elections. The hallmark will be fewer troops, but it will also signal the moving away from the idea of any grandiose transformation of Iraq. Instead, it becomes, 'We're there to fight al-Qaeda'". Signs of the growing consensus for a new approach, includes a major reduction in the US footprint in Iraq are visible on several fronts:

Key Republican senators have recently turned against the White House and are calling for a change in Iraq strategy. Sen. Pete Domeneci of New Mexico has joined Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign-policy specialist, who recently used a Senate speech to call for a strategy reducing the US presence in Iraq. George Voinovich of Ohio followed Sen. Lugar, with Sen. John Warner of Virginia pressuring the White House to change course.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates is pressing for a post-"surge" Iraq strategy resting on a foundation of broad political consensus around the idea of impeding Iraq from becoming a haven of Islamic extremism. Such a strategy would keep thousands of US troops in Iraq for a long-term battle with al-Qaeda.

White House officials acknowledge that the administration is already looking beyond the current approach. Bush hinted at the priority he is likely to give the fight against al-Qaeda in a July 4 speech where he said the US had no choice but to "win" the Iraq fight "for our own sake, for the security of our citizens".

Democrats are pressing for troop withdrawals to begin as early as the autumn. Congress has received an interim report on the US force buildup, ahead of a full assessment by commanders in Iraq in mid-September. Significantly, it was Sen. Warner who insisted on the review, after passage of funding for the Iraq war in May, saying that waiting for September was "too long".

Attempts at quick troop pull-out will fail, however, as did Democratic efforts to force a timeline for withdrawals earlier this year. But the Democrats now are armed with fresh evidence that Americans want a new Iraq direction - and expect a Democratic Congress to do something about it.

A survey by the Rasmussen Reports polling group recently found that 53% of Americans fault the Democrats for not doing "enough to change President Bush's policies on Iraq". At the same time, 56% said they would like to see most combat troops out of Iraq by early 2008.

All are waiting for a testimony in mid-September from the top US commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, and US Ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker. The two are to give an assessment of the force buildup. But analysts expect it will be more like a final report card. Gvosdev says: "When Petraeus comes in September, he'll say the tactics of the 'surge' are the right ones and they would work, but there's no consensus behind the time and number of people needed to make it work. And that will be particularly true in the absence of any real progress from the Iraqi government".

What worries some congressional leaders like Lugar and even some administration officials is that sticking too long to a doomed strategy could create the political conditions for a full and precipitous withdrawal from Iraq - something they believe would be disastrous for US interests in the Middle East. Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon official now at the Centre for American Progress in Washington, says: "Basically what you have are the grown-ups in the administration like Gates saying, 'We have to come up with something for the long term, something that achieves broad-based support, because if we don't, the people who say we have to get out now will prevail, and we don't want that'".

Forging a consensus around a long-term strategy for the global fight against Islamist terrorism would give Gates - not the closest administration insider - a sense of having contributed a significant accomplishment. But some Washington insiders suggest Gates could leave the administration if he concluded the wrong road were being followed for too long.

Sen. Lugar said in a TV interview in July that, as president, Bush would probably be able to stick to the "surge" strategy through the end of his term if he chose to. But he added that he thought Bush would grasp the political realities and begin charting a new course. Indeed, on the prosaic political level, the pressures of the 2008 election extend beyond the White House race to congressional contests.

The terms are up in 2008 for some Republicans pressuring Bush, including Domeneci and Warner. Gvosdev says; "They are beginning to look beyond the president to the horizon after Bush, and they may see that the political cost of sticking with his policy is too high". But Korb says beyond the political considerations, the juxtaposition of the "three worst months of the war for American casualties" with the failure of the Iraqi government to move the country towards reconciliation has already spelled the current strategy's failure in the eyes of too many Americans. The impending interim strategy review and funding votes, Korb adds, "are simply the beginning of the end".