Bush Has 3 Options For Leaving Iraq: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

by Franz Schurmann

(PNS) -- With the American media absorbed by the presidential campaign, coverage of the Iraq guerilla war has waned, though Iraqi and American casualties pile up every day. Nevertheless, diplomatic movement is going on even though we spectators can only see the ruffling of the curtains on the stage.

Prince Charles caused some of this ruffling. His in-and-out trip, February 9-10, to the Middle East covered three countries -- Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. After visiting Tehran and earthquake-devastated Bam, he visited Iraq's second city Basra, which is under British occupation, where a Reuters photo showed him talking with an Islamic "man of the cloth" whose face was not photographed. Though the media were unable to find out with whom he talked in Saudi Arabia, they did note that he has close ties to the Saudi royal family and has been a frequent visitor. And the Saudis may be key in helping the United States maintain stability in Iraq if it follows through on handing over sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30.

On Thursday February 19, Paul Bremer, America's pro-consul in Iraq, announced that while he would be flexible about the form and date of elections, he was inflexible about the date of handing over sovereignty -- midnight June 30. Prince Charles would know that date well. At midnight June 30, 1997 Prince Charles and Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten handed over Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China. All remaining British armed forces had already earlier sailed away in a British warship.

At that time the big mover on the scene was China whose troops entered Hong Kong as the British left. With Kofi Annan giving UN blessing to the date of the Iraq handover, China might become a key player in post- June 30 Iraq. And that would not be unacceptable to the United States because although China is a rival, it is also increasingly a partner on the world stage.

On February 8 the Arabic-language, London-based As-Sharq al-Awsat (ASAA) said that in the middle of last November President Bush had in his hands a report based on a consensus beween Paul Bremer and the Iraqi Interim Governmental Council. The report contained three basic options for the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis.

The three options have been described as "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" by Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute. The "Good" option called for "handing the reins of government over to the Iraqis and fashioning an expeditious military exit." The "Bad" option was "the one advocated by Arizona Sen. John McCain -- pouring more U.S. soldiers into Iraq."

The ASAA says that President Bush has now decided on "Option #3" for his Iraq policy. The piece's secondary theme was that for the first time Bush acknowledged that "our intelligence may have miscalculated about the Iraq War."

The piece continues: "But it is the 'third option' that particularly gives hope for a handover of sovereignty on June 30 inasmuch as it is the basis of the agreement. But it also takes some elements of the second option that call for early general elections instead of the US-backed caucuses."

But Pena calls this the "Ugly" option, which he describes as a "faux exit." "On the one hand, the United States is giving the Iraqis sovereign control by agreeing to the creation of a provisional government. That's the good news. The bad news is that the United States apparently has no intention of leaving Iraq." Pena says the current Pentagon plan is to reduce U.S. troops to 105,000. He quotes Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as saying the troop reduction "does not mean we would physically leave the country any sooner."

Pena's view, in effect, sees a melding of Option #1 and Option #2, which he says would amount to chaos. He writes: "The current administration plan is a train wreck in the making -- pinned down in Iraq and forced to adopt Israeli-style tactics that do more to create anti-American resentment, fuel the insurgency, and create a pool of would-be suicide bombers for al Qaeda."

The critical factor is Al-Qa'eda. If Al-Qa'eda is nothing more than a knee-jerk chaos-spreader, Pena would be proven right. But if perhaps Prince Charles acted as a conduit between those Saudis who have access to Al-Qa'eda on one side and the Americans, then Bremer and his boss would be proven right. And come midnight June 30 harmless fireworks, as in Hong Kong 1997, and not lethal rockets will course through the night-time Iraqi skies.