John Rapley

In a provocative article in the current edition of the British magazine Prospect, Bartle Bull declares that the tide has turned in Iraq and the U.S. is now winning the war. He argues that Sunnis and Shi'ites have coalesced around the nascent regime, and are burying their differences. Meanwhile, the U.S. has made some important military advances, and al Qaeda appears to be on the defensive in the country.

To glance at the headlines coming out of Iraq, the argument might seem a bit brazen. It is far from controversial. No sooner did the article appear than the Council on Foreign Affairs, an influential American think tank, issued a contrary report on the war. Several other prominent scholars have noted that while Sunni tribes have recently allied themselves with the U.S. against the foreign fighters of al Qaeda in Iraq, this is a very shaky alliance. It is not evident that any Sunni-Shi'ite peace will last.

Better for Americans

Nonetheless, some news coming out of Iraq over the last week did appear to confirm that, at least for now, things are going a bit better for the Americans. Not only are both civilian and U.S. troop casualties down, but suicide attacks - the hallmark of al Qaeda in Iraq - have been halved since the year started. On Monday, the Washington Post reported that some top generals have been so buoyed by the military advances that they believe the Iraq insurgency may be squarely on the defensive.

Surely, it is a fragile victory. But assuming it stands, the discussion surrounding the Iraq war may shift somewhat. The world community will now begin to debate whether the war was a justifiable use of international law.

Answer

To a considerable degree, the answer will depend on the regime which succeeds the Baathist dictatorship. Hardly anyone regrets the removal of Saddam. But a tribalised, fragmented or even dismembered state would pose dangers for the region and its inhabitants that could last for decades. Even today, Americans - and indeed, the rest of us - are literally paying the price for instability in the rising cost of oil. With Turkey pondering its own incursion into Iraq to target Kurdish rebels, the risk premium added to world oil prices is rising by the day.

But the debate will also consider the question of how the war was prosecuted. On this topic, there is scarcely any debate. Few are those who would maintain that the U.S. invasion was well-planned and engineered. It seems almost certain that the invasion could have been prosecuted in such a way that greatly reduced the number of American and Iraqi casualties, whilst restraining damage to the economy. Retired U.S. officers seem to be falling over themselves to blame their superiors in the administration for not taking their advice in planning the war.

Interestingly, this debate will echo within the U.S. presidential election. Should it come to pass that over the course of the coming year, the Iraq war be seen as having been the right thing, wrongly done, it could influence perceptions of the various candidates. Someone like John McCain would come out looking good for taking just that position. War opponents might look to be on the wrong side of history. And those who, like Hilary Clinton, supported then opposed the war, might have to 're-redefine' their position in a way that opens the old charge of flip-flopping.

It remains to be seen whether the Iraq invasion will ever recover from its blunders to be cast in a good light. But for the White House at least, this last week has provided a rare but welcomed relief from the bad news.