STAY OR LEAVE IRAQ!

Iraq seems to have been the main talking point in Washington in September. First, the Capitol heard out two reports from high-ranking US representatives in Iraq - the commander of the US troops, General David Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. They presented the congressmen and senators with their own assessment of the military-political situation in Iraq and of the effectiveness of the plan to reinforce the contingent of US troops in this country. This report was long expected. Although they both said that Iraq is packed with problems, they also highly rated the actions of the US administration and tried to persuade their listeners that they should not adopt a law that would set a deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from that country. Crocker and Petraeus also made the conclusion that the decision President Bush made in January to increase the contingent in Iraq by 21,500 people has borne fruit, and most of the tasks that were set to the US military have been solved. In any case, Petraeus who started his report with assurances that his views were independent from the White House's opinion suggested starting the gradual withdrawal of troops from Iraq in December this year. "I think that by the next summer, we will be able to reduce the number of our troops to the level that preceded the expansion of operations," the general said. Judging by his words, some of US soldiers will be sent home not because the situation in the Middle East has reached a deadlock, but because the situation in Iraq, on the contrary, is normalizing. As an example, he mentioned the province of Al-Anbar where, according to the general, the number of security problems has considerably fallen. Petraeus also promised that the number of US soldiers in Iraq will be cut even further, but it is still not clear how soon this will happen. According to the general, although the fight against Al-Qaeda has been successful and local leaders are now in less sympathy with terrorists, the level of violence is still very high in the country, which leads to great casualties among the local population. However, the situation is satisfactory on the whole, and the most important thing, Petraeus stressed, is that the Iraqis themselves, especially the Iraqi government, are making hard efforts. In turn, Ambassador Crocker warned that it is too early to leave Iraq right now because the consequences of this step might be "terrible".

Several days later, after the public "digested" the essence of the report, US President George Bush decided that it is high time to address the American nation. During his 17-minute speech, the president approved General Petraeus's plan to cut US troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15 by July 2008. Thus, 5,700 US soldiers will leave the country by Christmas and another 21,500 by the middle of 2008. It is notable that Bush described the "brilliant" success of US soldiers and the gradual strengthening of the Iraqi army as one of the reasons that made this possible. That's to say the scheme of decision-making is as follows: having studied reports from the military, George Bush decided that the situation in Iraq makes it possible to withdraw some of the troops. The president said that the main criterion for defining the number of soldiers in this Middle Eastern country will be the success of their mission. "The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home," the president explained, citing the province of Al-Anbar as a good example again. The final part of the US leader's speech was dedicated to the need to continue the fight against Al-Qaeda and quoted a letter from Jeff and Tracy Brandon who lost their son in Iraq. "We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win even if it cost the life of our own son," the president quoted the parents as saying. Bush also said that a new phase of the US military presence in Iraq would begin by 2008 when the US troops will be playing an auxiliary role in the Iraqi army.

Reaction to the president's speech, as was expected, was quite emotional. Many thought that using the decision to cut troop levels, he hopes to increase his own popularity rating, as well as that of his party companions, which is very important in the run-up to the presidential elections of 2008. It turns out that Bush's aim was a banal "advertisement campaign" meant to calm down public opinion. A number of experts point out that the president achieved his goal and gained a small victory again. "To be honest, I expected that in the next three or four days, the Democrats would be able to end the war in Iraq once and for all, but George Bush has just elegantly gained time before our eyes, at least the next six months," analyst Bill Sammon said.

The most critical comments on the president's speech came from the Democrats who saw "a full disgrace" in Bush's speech. For example, Senator Jack Reed said that "once again, the president failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it". "We think it's wrong that the president tells us there's not enough money for our veterans and children's health care because he is spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq," the senator said with outrage. One of the most promising presidential candidates from the Democratic Party, senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, urged the president again "to change his policy, to bring the troops back home quickly and to end the war as soon as possible". Another Democrat John Edwards agrees with her. He said that George Bush has run out of the three most important things - "timeline, funding and excuses."

Indeed, according to opinion polls, only 30 per cent of Americans support George Bush's policy on Iraq. However, according to the results of the latest public opinion polls, President Bush's rating has risen - back in July, only 22 per cent of Americans supported Bush's policy on Iraq. Nevertheless, experts point out that his rating increased because of the Republicans and independents, not because of the Democrats. At the same time, only 39 per cent of Americans respondents believe that General Petraeus's report was absolutely honest and in fact, was aimed at mapping out a more suitable strategy in Iraq. The remaining 61 per cent of respondents are sure that the real situation in Iraq was considerably embellished in order to allow the Bush administration to continue its policy until autumn 2008.

Moreover, trust in the president's statement about the gradual improvement of the situation in Iraq was significantly undermined - shortly before his speech, Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, one of the leaders of Sunni tribes opposed to Al-Qaeda, was killed in an explosion in the town of Ramadi in the same "exemplary" province of Al-Anbar. The sheikh cooperated with the USA and the Iraqi government and had a meeting with Bush during his recent visit to the country. For this reason, the Americans tried to present Abu Risha and his companions as proof of the normalizing situation in Iraq. Now the situation in the province might get much worse. Representatives of the Sunni clan have promised to avenge Abu Risha's murder. Ahmad Abu Risha, a brother of the killed leader, who was elected new leader of the clan, said in an interview with Reuters that "all the tribes agreed to fight Al-Qaeda until the last child in Al-Anbar".

But actually, it is business as usual in Iraq. It is not quite clear what positive tendencies Petraeus and Crocker spoke about, as reports of terrorist attacks in this country keep coming in almost every day. Within a few days after Bush's address, explosions occurred in the province of Diyala north of Baghdad, in the capital itself, in the north of the country near Kirkuk and in other places. The Islamic State of Iraq radical group affiliated with Al-Qaeda said that it will not end violence even during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan.

The Iraqi government also keeps falling to pieces. Two days after Bush's speech, the political movement that supports the cleric Muqtada As-Sadr, who played an important role in bringing Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki to power, announced its decision to quit the ruling coalition of Iraq's Shi'i parties. It is likely that As-Sadr does not want to cooperate with a government closely related to the USA. At the same time, it is possible that As-Sadr is trying to retake control of the Mahdi Army which has reportedly split up in the recent period. With the departure of As-Sadr's supporters, the coalition led by Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki will lose 30 votes in parliament but will still keep about half of all seats there. In August, the largest Sunni political alliance quit the government as well. In any case, regional observers believe that Al-Maliki can still remain in power with the support of other parties, including Kurdish ones. But how effective is such a government and what is it capable of without Washington's support?

Ordinary Iraqis, unlike Petraeus and Crocker, are quite pessimistic. According to a poll conducted by the companies D3 Systems and KA Research Ltd at the request of the BBC, ABC and NHK, most residents of Iraq think that the increasing US military presence has not reduced the level of violence in the country. Most respondents also said that the deployment of additional forces near Baghdad has actually worsened the situation. The previous poll of the sort was conducted in February, and since then the number of respondents who want the coalition forces to pull out of Iraq has grown. More than half of the respondents believe that as long as security has not been established, the coalition forces should remain in Iraq. However, the most alarming factor is that almost 60 per cent of the respondents described rebel attacks on the coalition forces as justified. 93 per cent of Sunnis and 50 per cent of Shi'is think so.

We have to say that in the USA itself, unhappiness with what is going on in Iraq turns into anti-war demonstrations more and more often. A major protest was staged in Washington on 15 September. Participants in the march from the White House to Congress demanded that the US troops be withdrawn from Iraq and President Bush be impeached. As a result, the police used tear gas and arrested about 200 demonstrators. In response, the participants in the protest dropped their posters and chanted "Shame on you". The arrests began after the demonstrators lied down on a lawn in front of the Capitol, placing signs on their bodies, and thus, trying to present themselves as soldiers killed in Iraq. After that, some of the participants in the protest tried to get over the fence around the Capitol. According to organizers, the demonstration was attended by 100,000 people.

According to the poll conducted by NBC and Wall Street Journal, only 24 per cent of Americans are in favour of US troops staying in Iraq until it becomes a stable democratic country, while 26 per cent demand that the whole American contingent immediately leave Iraq. Most of the respondents - 37 per cent - think that the USA should gradually withdraw its troops next year. All in all, more than 3,700 American soldiers have died in Iraq since 2003.

We have to say that apart from the demonstration, public opinion has also been influenced by the news of the imminent publication of the memoirs of the former US Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan who openly said that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil. According to Greenspan, Saddam Huseyn's regime posed a threat to the security of oil supplies from the Middle East. Top American officials have never said this openly, as Washington and London have always insisted that the aim was to disarm Huseyn of his alleged weapons of mass destruction.

According to George Bush, a new report on the military-political situation in Iraq will be submitted to Congress in March 2008. It will be made by the commander of the US troops in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker. However, the experience of recent years allows us to say that significant changes for the better are unlikely to happen in Iraq by that time. The only thing we can expect is that civilian casualties will increase in the country and the sad list of American soldiers killed in the Middle East will become even longer.