Should the Troops Come Home Now?

Last weekend’s announcement that Iraqi lawmakers have finally formed a unity government is welcome news, both for Iraq and for George W. Bush and Tony Blair. The American and British governments, increasingly unpopular at home, desperately needed some tangible evidence of progress to assuage their domestic critics and to begin to speak openly of an exit strategy. But Iraq’s greatest challenges lie ahead. If Bush and Blair declare victory before the real battles have begun, they will undermine the very process to which both have committed so much at such great cost.

Bush waited weeks for a positive development that would allow him to suggest he can reduce troop levels in Iraq from 133,000 to 100,000 by the end of 2006. Blair, still stung by his Labour Party’s defeat in local elections in early May, also welcomed the good news from Iraq. During a triumphal surprise visit to Baghdad on May 22, he said he expected Iraqi forces to take responsibility for “territorial security” in much of the country by the end of the year. “It is the violence that keeps us here,” he said. “It is the peace that allows us to go.”

The optimism is premature. The formation of a unity government is only the first of many hurdles Iraq’s new government must clear if it is to build a durable peace. Its first task will be to remove those provisions of Iraq’s constitution that pit Iraq’s Sunni, Shia, and Kurds against one another. Under current Iraqi law, the parliamentary committee charged with making these constitutional changes has four months to complete its task. The four-month clock began ticking on May 3, following the first meeting of Iraq’s new parliament.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

required

Log in

http://prosyn.org/DeKfVVt;
  1. China corruption Isaac Lawrence/Getty Images

    The Next Battle in China’s War on Corruption

    • Chinese President Xi Jinping knows well the threat that corruption poses to the authority of the Communist Party of China and the state it controls. 
    • But moving beyond Xi's anti-corruption purge to build robust and lasting anti-graft institutions will not be easy, owing to enduring opportunities for bureaucratic capture.
  2. Italy unemployed demonstration SalvatoreEsposito/Barcroftimages / Barcroft Media via Getty Images

    Putting Europe’s Long-Term Unemployed Back to Work

    Across the European Union, millions of people who are willing and able to work have been unemployed for a year or longer, at great cost to social cohesion and political stability. If the EU is serious about stopping the rise of populism, it will need to do more to ensure that labor markets are working for everyone.

  3. Latin America market Federico Parra/Getty Images

    A Belt and Road for the Americas?

    In a time of global uncertainty, a vision of “made in the Americas” prosperity provides a unifying agenda for the continent. If implemented, the US could reassert its historical leadership among a group of countries that share its fundamental values, as well as an interest in inclusive economic growth and rising living standards.

  4. Startup office Mladlen Antonov/Getty Images

    How Best to Promote Research and Development

    Clearly, there is something appealing about a start-up-based innovation strategy: it feels democratic, accessible, and so California. But it is definitely not the only way to boost research and development, or even the main way, and it is certainly not the way most major innovations in the US came about during the twentieth century.

  5. Trump Trade speech Bill Pugliano/Getty Images .

    Preparing for the Trump Trade Wars

    In the first 11 months of his presidency, Donald Trump has failed to back up his words – or tweets – with action on a variety of fronts. But the rest of the world's governments, and particularly those in Asia and Europe, would be mistaken to assume that he won't follow through on his promised "America First" trade agenda.