Five years on in Iraq ... enough to get tired of it
(From The Japan Times March 23 issue)

イラク開戦5年後の混迷

Five years ago the United States led an international coalition of forces into Iraq to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein. If the goal of that effort was merely the replacement of the government in Baghdad, Operation Iraqi Freedom succeeded.

But after five years, that is the only truly positive outcome of the invasion — and some ask if even that was worth the trouble, given the "collateral damage" to the United States, Iraq itself and the Middle East. True to form, U.S. President George W. Bush harbors no doubts. The rest of the world, however, remains deeply divided about the invasion of Iraq.

Over the years, the U.S. government has offered various rationales for the invasion of Iraq: the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the Baghdad government's links to al-Qaida, the desire to bring democracy to the Middle East, the horrific human rights policies of the Iraqi regime.

No WMD were found; links to al-Qaida were tenuous at best; and while Iraqis have voted in elections, it would be an overstatement to say that democracy has taken root there — or anywhere else in the region. The human rights abuses of the previous regime have ended, however.

On the other side of the ledger, Iraq is still bitterly divided and has descended into a violent conflict that leaves dozens dead and wounded each day. About 4,000 Americans have lost their lives; other coalition governments have endured casualties of their own; and the number of Iraqis killed and wounded is unknown. The financial cost has soared into the billions, some say trillions, of dollars.

U.S. credibility and prestige worldwide have been badly damaged as the rationales for going to war have proven groundless, U.S. forces engaged in misconduct, and the United States faced accusations of snatching people off city streets, and subjecting them to brutal interrogation and even torture.

Yet, in remarks earlier in March, Mr. Bush insisted that going to war was the right thing to do. "Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision and this is a fight America can and must win." In his eyes, the international coalition is on the cusp of victory. He continues to believe that the surge — the addition of 30,000 troops last year — "opened the door to a major strategic victory in the war on terror." Those troops have helped "turn the situation in Iraq around."

Today, the challenge "is to consolidate the gains we have made and seal the extremists' defeat." He continues to reject any thought of withdrawing U.S. forces: "We have learned through hard experience what happens when we pull our forces back too fast: The terrorists and extremists step in, fill the vacuum, establish safe havens and use them to spread chaos and carnage."

Unfortunately for the president, the key challenge — getting Iraqis to move toward political reconciliation and a genuinely national government — remains unmet. The surge was designed to create breathing space so that power holders in Iraq could agree on a common purpose and create a unified national government.

Instead, the various ethnic and religious communities remain deeply divided and unable to pass even legislation that Mr. Bush himself set as a benchmark of progress.

The Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni bloc in Iraq, boycotted a national reconciliation conference that began in mid-March, arguing that the central government has not addressed its long list of grievances. It is little wonder that Gen. David Petraeus, the architect of the surge, acknowledges that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation."

The cost of occupation — in lives and treasure — continues to mount. The most important question today is whether the presence of international forces is the only thing delaying the descent into total chaos or whether it allows the Iraqis to avoid taking responsibility for their future. Sadly, the answer cannot be known until it is perhaps too late.

The world is tired of this conflict. Two-thirds of the U.S. public no longer supports the war; a global poll would show even higher opposition. The Democratic candidates have promised to get the United States out of Iraq. Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has said he would keep troops there as long as required. That would be a disastrous legacy for the United States — yet one that looks all too possible five years into the war.

イラク戦争開戦から5年。アメリカの「イラク解放作戦」が成し遂げたのはイラクの政権交代だけだ。一般市民多数の命や財産まで奪ったこの戦争は、行う価値があったのだろうか。米ブッシュ大統領は相変わらず「あった」の一点張りだが、それ以外の世界の人々の間では意見が割れている。

米政府は数年にわたって侵攻の正当化を並べてきた。大量破壊兵器（WMD）の存在、イラク政府のアルカイダとの関係、地域の民主主義樹立の望み、イラク政府の人権侵害など。だが、WMDは見つからず、アルカイダとの関係は全く薄弱。民主主義も地域に根付いたとはいえない。前政権の人権侵害には終止符が打たれたが、イラクは分裂し、連日数十人の死傷者が出ている。米兵だけでも4,000人死亡。経済損失は計り知れない。

正当化に根拠がなかったと判明するにつれ、アメリカの威信は地に落ちた。それでもブッシュ大統領は、戦争の決断は「正しかった」と主張する。さらに、昨年の3万人の増派戦略が功を奏したといい、米軍のイラク撤退を拒絶している。

「過去の経験から、性急に撤退すればその空白に乗じてテロリストや過激主義者が拠点を築き、混乱と殺りくを広げていくのは目に見えている」と、ブッシュ大統領は論じる。

だが、真の国民的政府樹立という大目標は実現されておらず、国民和解会議も遅滞している。占領側の人的・経済的コストは高まる一方だ。多国籍軍駐留はイラクの混沌への転落を食い止めているのか、それともイラク人が自ら未来の責任を取るのを妨げているのか？答えが出るのは手遅れになってからだろう。

世界はこの状態にあきあきしている。アメリカ人の3分の2はもうイラク戦争を支持していない。民主党候補は米軍の早期撤退を公約した。一方、共和党のマケイン候補は、必要なだけ駐留を続けるという。アメリカにとって悲惨な遺産だが、開戦5年後の今、これもあり得るシナリオのように見える。