Here’s what failed to lead the nation’s major newspapers this weekend: The death of three Marines in Iraq last week made October the deadliest month for U.S. forces in a year. Eighty-one of our troops have died since Oct. 1. That’s an average of more than 3.5 each day this month.
The occupation of Iraq is taking an increasingly larger toll on Coalition Forces with time and the Iraqi-led security effort needs to start delivering better results against sectarian and insurgent violence in its war-torn country. According to The New York Times and The Washington Post, the Bush administration is pushing for just that.
The casualty statistics were overshadowed in the print media by a development from the bureaucratic front: the creation of a timetable for decreased U.S. presence in Iraq. Everyone agrees that decisive action in this arena is past due. The U.S. government needs a deadline to start turning the responsibility for this war over to the people of Iraq; statistics show that it will not happen otherwise.
Under the plan, reported by The New York Times this Sunday, the U.S. would present a series of dated milestones for security progress to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. While the timetable, yet to be confirmed by White House spokespeople, would not overtly call for withdrawal of U.S. troops, several Bush administration officials have said that strategic changes would be made if Iraqi forces failed to comply with the outlined goals.
Under pressure from the legislative branch, the creation of the new timetable marks a shift in the administration’s policy toward the war. In a move Democrats have long-advocated, it seems that the administration is beginning to set the stage for phased withdrawals of U.S. troops, putting increased pressure on Iraq’s government to resolve internal issues and to focus on dealing with the problems of sectarian violence and insurgency.
If the administration is indeed devising the reported timetable, this news represents significant progress in the Pentagon’s efforts to return autonomy to the Iraqi people. By putting Iraq’s security forces on a timetable with specific, date-oriented benchmarks for progress, their incentive to deliver progressive results will increase.
If the Iraqi government is eventually going to be able to sustain a secure nation, it will need to build increased independence from Coalition Forces and to develop strategies for dealing with internal and external problems itself. Currently, organization, strategy and management of Iraq’s security forces are largely controlled by U.S. officials or civilian consultants. Holding al-Maliki and his government to a defined timetable that is tied to decreased recourse from U.S. security will hopefully help to jump-start more aggressive plans to solve rifts within the government and to address sectarian conflict across the country.
The security problems facing Iraq stem from the very cultural and political structure of the nation. The responsibility for the resolution of these issues has to fall on Iraq’s government and on al-Maliki. It is not the place of the U.S. or the Coalition to restructure or redesign Iraq culturally or demographically to be more secure. Any type of reform regarding these aspects of Iraq must be the responsibility of its developing democracy.
The administration’s efforts to design a timetable for al-Maliki and Iraq will help foster Iraq’s autonomy by making it clear that the country’s dependence on the Coalition for security needs to decrease. As the people of Iraq begin to take the lead in their nation’s security and begin to design solutions to the multi-faceted problems within their nation, the U.S. will be better able to responsibly turn over control of Iraq’s security efforts to its rightful owner: Iraqis.