Who will pay Iraq for US tactical errors?

During her recent visit to London, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted that the US has achieved its strategic goal in Iraq by overthrowing Saddam Hussain's regime despite committing thousands of tactical errors.

There is no need to enter into a controversy with Rice over the difference between strategic and tactical errors since many military experts have already done it.

Among those experts was General Anthony Zinni, former commander of the US Central Command, who said the US has made a lot of strategic mistakes, not tactical ones as Rice claimed. General Zinni, who was speaking to NBC TV station, called on US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to step down.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US national security adviser during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, was also among those who spoke of strategic mistakes committed by his government in Iraq. So, he presented to US President George W. Bush a one-year plan for withdrawing American troops from Iraq.

Brzezinski said if the withdrawal plan is completed in one year, the case of US involvement in Iraq would be closed in a way that would save face. Otherwise the time for speaking about victory will be over.

Whether Rice's remarks are true or not, at least she was brave enough to speak up and acknowledge mistakes. And, admitting a mistake is a sign of good morals.

Her remarks, however, were not those expected from a top US official, simply because American politicians are known for their arrogance. Yet, depending on who commits the mistake, there is a big difference between them.

Mistakes committed by ordinary people cannot be compared with mistakes committed by policy makers and leaders. This is simply because mistakes committed by governments or leaders will directly affect their own peoples and others in the world. And, this is the case with the US.

On verge of civil war

The mistakes made by the US have resulted in the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqis and destroying their country's infrastructure. They have also contributed to tearing apart the Iraqi social structure and placing Iraq on the verge of a civil war.

Worse, these mistakes have raised fears of uncertainty and increased sectarian violence, destabilising the entire region.

Does not Rice realise that each move must be examined accurately, to determine whether or not to take action?

And, if the US still considers toppling Saddam's regime a success, it needs to understand the fact that the former Baath regime was on the verge of collapse even before the war broke out. Therefore, this cannot be considered a success in any form.

On the same day of Rice's remarks, Washington denied any intervention in the Iraqi political process, in reaction to media reports stating that Bush had demanded naming a new candidate for the post of prime minister.

How did the US commit thousands of tactical errors without interfering in Iraq's political affairs? What a mystery! Two departments may have contradicting stands on a certain issue such as the case with the US State Department and the department of defence during Bush's first term. Yet, having contradicting stands within the same department, and on the same day, is unheard of.

The contradicting statements issued by Rice and Adam Ereli, spokesman of the US State Department, clearly indicate how confused the US administration is.

Worse is that such statements came at a time when Bush's popularity declined to 32 per cent the lowest ever level. The statements also came amidst the growing pressure on the US and UK administrations, to set a timetable for withdrawing their troops from Iraq.

The failure of Iraqi parties to reach an agreement for forming a government, nearly four months after the parliamentary elections, raises fears of a looming civil war.

It also increases US worries that its broader Middle East project will fail. This has prompted the US to step up its efforts to impact the political equation in Iraq.

Yet, US attempts have so far failed, making one believe that the formation of the Iraqi government is going through the painful pangs of labour.

Surprise visits to Iraq by top US and British officials such as Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw have never stopped. This can only be viewed as political manoeuvres aimed at pressurising Iraqi leaders to form a government as soon as possible.

Rice and Straw's visit came at a time of the growing calls within the United Iraqi Alliance on Ebrahim Al Jaafari, the nominated prime minister, to step down.

The question is: Will this visit pave the way for a successful Caesarean operation, giving birth to the long-awaited government?

Rice's remarks raise another question: Will the visit add more to the US record of tactical errors?

It is clear that the tactical errors that Rice spoke about had not caused any harm to the US interests or Rice's political future.

She can speak about errors that do not cause any harm to the interests of the US or its citizens, since the US administration will not be sued to pay compensations to the Iraqis, while the rights of US victims are preserved.

So, who will pay to Iraq the price of thousands of tactical errors?

Dr Mohammad Akif Jamal is an Iraqi writer based in Dubai.