[Assam] NY Times Editorial

[Chan Mahanta]

This is a watershed  editorial from the country's most prestigious 
paper. Along with Bush's abandonment of  the "stay the course" slogan 
during the last couple of days, the rabidly right-wing columnist Noah 
Goldberg's admission on print  yesterday that he was wrong about the 
war and numerous other right-wingers heading for the tall-grass 
looking for cover; the pigeons have come home to roost.

As we can see there is nothing to be happy about the sordid mess we are in.

Just like there is nothing for Indians to be happy about the mess it 
is in, be it Kashmir, be it Assam; except that its intelligentsia 
continues to remain smug in its ignorance and its appalling  apathy.

The lesson, that even overwhelming force cannot extinguish hatred of 
the intruder fits Indian military operations like a glove . Time 
alone will tell if they have the wisdom to pay heed.

cm






http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/opinion/24tues1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all 
Editorial
  Trying to Contain the Iraq Disaster


Published: October 24, 2006


No matter what President Bush says, the question is not whether 
America can win in Iraq. The only question is whether the United 
States can extricate itself without leaving behind an unending civil 
war that will spread more chaos and suffering throughout the Middle 
East, while spawning terrorism across the globe.

The prospect of what happens after an American pullout haunts the 
debate on Iraq. The administration, for all its hints about new 
strategies and timetables, is obviously hoping to slog along for two 
more years and dump the problem on Mr. Bush's successor. This fall's 
election debates have educated very few voters because neither side 
is prepared to be honest about the terrible consequences of military 
withdrawal and the very long odds against success if American troops 
remain.

This page opposed a needlessly hurried and unilateral invasion, even 
before it became apparent that the Bush administration was unprepared 
to do the job properly. But after it happened, we believed that 
America should stay and try to clean up the mess it had made - as 
long as there was any conceivable road to success.

That road is vanishing. Today we want to describe a strategy for 
containing the disaster as much as humanly possible. It is hardly a 
recipe for triumph. Americans can only look back in wonder on the 
days when the Bush administration believed that success would turn 
Iraq into a stable, wealthy democracy - a model to strike fear into 
the region's autocrats while inspiring a new generation of democrats. 
Even last fall, the White House was dividing its strategy into a 
series of victorious outcomes, with the short-term goal of an Iraq 
"making steady progress in fighting terrorists." The medium term had 
Iraq taking the lead in "providing its own security" and "on its way 
to achieving its economic potential," with the ultimate outcome being 
a "peaceful, united, stable and secure" nation.

  If an American military occupation could ever have achieved those 
goals, that opportunity is gone. It is very clear that even with the 
best American effort, Iraq will remain at war with itself for years 
to come, its government weak and deeply divided, and its economy 
battered and still dependent on outside aid. The most the United 
States can do now is to try to build up Iraq's security forces so 
they can contain the fighting - so it neither devours Iraqi society 
nor spills over to Iraq's neighbors - and give Iraq's leaders a start 
toward the political framework they would need if they chose to try 
to keep their country whole.

The tragedy is that even this marginal sort of outcome seems nearly 
unachievable now. But if America is to make one last push, there are 
steps that might lessen the chance of all-out chaos after the troops 
withdraw:

Start at Home

For all the talk of timetables for Iraq, there has been little 
discussion of the timetable that must be handed to George W. Bush. 
The president cannot leave office with American troops still dying in 
an Iraq that staggers along just short of civil war, on behalf of no 
concrete objective other than "get the job done," which is now Mr. 
Bush's rhetorical substitute for "stay the course." The 
administration's current vague talk about behind-the-scenes 
agreements with Iraqi politicians is next to meaningless. Americans, 
Iraqis and the rest of the world need clear, public signs of progress.

Mr. Bush can make the first one by firing Secretary of Defense Donald 
Rumsfeld. There is no chance of switching strategy as long as he is 
in control of the Pentagon. The administration's plans have gone 
woefully wrong, and while the president is unlikely to admit that, he 
can send a message by removing Mr. Rumsfeld. It would also be a 
signal to the military commanders in the field that the 
administration now wants to hear the truth about what they need, what 
can be salvaged out of this mess, and what cannot.

The president should also make it clear, once and for all, that the 
United States will not keep permanent bases in Iraq. The people in 
Iraq and across the Middle East need a strong sign that the troops 
are not there to further any American imperial agenda.

Demand Reconciliation Talks

Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has indefinitely 
postponed reconciliation talks among the nation's top politicians. He 
must receive an immediate deadline to start the process. Tomorrow 
would not be too soon; the end of the year would be too late.

Whatever decisions Iraqi leaders reached over the past few years were 
achieved by pushing aside all the critical questions that were 
hardest to address. The Bush administration must demand not only that 
new talks start, but that they continue until some agreement is 
reached on protecting minority rights, dividing up Iraq's oil 
revenues, the role of religion in the state, providing an amnesty for 
insurgents willing to put down their weapons, and demobilizing and 
disarming the militias.

More outside aid could increase their incentive to talk. Even then, 
the threat of an American withdrawal may be the only way to extract 
real concessions. In parallel with the reconciliation talks, the 
United States should begin its own negotiations with the Iraqi 
leadership about a timetable for withdrawing American troops - making 
clear that America's willingness to stay longer will depend on the 
Iraqis' willingness to make real compromises. Iraqi politicians have 
to know that they have even more to lose if their country plunges 
into complete civil war.

We are skeptical of calls to divide the country into three ethnically 
controlled regions, using the model that finally ended the Bosnian 
war. Most Iraqis, except for the Kurds, show little enthusiasm for 
the idea. Clear ethnic boundaries could not be drawn without driving 
many people from their homes - though an intolerable level of ethnic 
cleansing is already pushing things in that direction. Any effort at 
reconciliation will almost certainly require a transfer of power and 
resources to provincial and local governments. But it must be up to 
the Iraqis to decide the ultimate shape of their country.

Stabilize Baghdad

Most Iraqis have forgotten what security is - or if they remember, it 
is an idealized vision of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. Since 
neither the government nor the American occupation is able to provide 
basic services or safety, it is little wonder that Iraqis have turned 
to the militias for protection. In such a world, retribution will 
always take precedence over the uncertainties of political compromise.

American commanders have launched a series of supposedly 
make-or-break campaigns to take back the streets of Baghdad. The 
problem is not one of military strategy; their idea of "clearing" out 
insurgents, "holding" neighborhoods and quickly rebuilding 
infrastructure is probably the only thing that could work. The 
problem is that commanders in Baghdad have been given only a fraction 
of the troops - American and Iraqi - they need.

There have never been enough troops, the result of Mr. Rumsfeld's 
negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet 
military theories, rather than listen to his generals. And since the 
Army and Marines are already strained to the breaking point, the only 
hope of restoring even limited sanity to Baghdad would require the 
transfer of thousands of American troops to the capital from 
elsewhere in the country. That likely means moving personnel out of 
the Sunni-dominated west, and more mayhem in a place like Anbar.

  But Iraqis need a clear demonstration that security and rebuilding 
is possible. So long as Baghdad is in chaos they will have no reason 
to believe in anything but sectarian militias and vigilante justice. 
Once Washington is making a credible effort to stabilize Baghdad, 
Iraqi politicians will have more of an incentive to show up for 
reconciliation talks. No one wants to be a rejectionist if it looks 
like the tide might be turning.

  Convene the Neighbors

America's closest allies in the region are furious about America's 
gross mismanagement of the war. But even Iran and Syria, which are 
eager to see America bloodied, have a great deal to lose if all-out 
civil war erupts in Iraq, driving refugees toward their borders. That 
self-interest could be the start of a discussion about how Iraq's 
neighbors might help pressure their clients inside Iraq to step back 
from the brink. Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich neighbors - whose own 
stability could be threatened by an Iraqi collapse - need to be 
pressed into providing major financing to underwrite jobs programs 
and reconstruction.

Enlightened self-interest is a rarity in the Middle East. The Bush 
administration will most likely have to go further to elicit real 
help, showing a serious willingness to expand its dialogue with 
Damascus and Tehran beyond the issue of Iraq and to be a genuine 
broker for Middle East peace. That should be the easiest part of the 
strategy - only this White House regards the willingness to talk to 
another country as a major concession.

Acknowledge Reality

While the strategy described above seems the best bet to us, the odds 
are still very much against it working. At this point, all plans to 
avoid disaster involve the equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. In 
America, almost no one - even the administration's harshest critics - 
wants to tell people the bitter truth about how few options remain on 
the table, and about the mayhem that will almost certainly follow an 
American withdrawal unless more is done.

Truth will only take us so far, but it is the right way to begin. 
Americans will probably spend the next generation debating whether 
the Iraq invasion would have worked under a competent administration. 
Right now, the best place to express bitterness about what may become 
the worst foreign policy debacle in American history is at the polls. 
But anger at a president is not a plan for what happens next.

When it comes to Iraq the choices in the immediate future are scant 
and ugly. But there are still a few options to pursue, and the 
alternatives are so horrible that it is worth trying once again - as 
long as everyone understands that there is little time left and the 
odds are very long.