With sectarian violence soaring and a peaceful settlement stalling, there seems to be no near end to bloodshed in Iraq, writes Salah Hemeid The two-day Iraq meeting sponsored by the Saudi-based Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), initially scheduled for today and tomorrow, was limited to a one-session event taking place in Mecca tomorrow evening. The meeting which sought to bring Sunni and Shia clergy together in order to tackle the means to put an end to religious conflicts in Iraq was marred by differences over the wording of the final communiqué to be issued at the end of the meeting. Add to this the indefinite postponement at the weekend of a long-awaited national reconciliation conference, and the omens are not good. On Monday, US President George W Bush assured Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki that there were no plans to pull American troops from Iraq. Al-Maliki was told to ignore rumours that Washington had set a deadline for his government to end civil strife. "Don't worry you still have our full support," Bush was quoted by his spokesman Tony Snow as telling Al-Maliki in a 15-minute phone call. Snow added that Al-Maliki had expressed concern over rumours the US was seeking to impose a two-month deadline for his government to restore stability in Iraq. White House reassurances aside, Al-Maliki has plenty to worry about. His call to Bush came hours after the widespread circulation of a letter, attributed to Saddam Hussein, telling Iraqis that, "victory was at hand" and urging insurgents to set aside differences and concentrate on driving US troops out of Iraq. Meanwhile, Sunni insurgents have called for an Islamic state in six provinces. Iraqi National Security Advisor Mouwafak Al-Rubaei may have dismissed both as rhetoric but the message to Saddam loyalists and Islamic insurgents is clear: fight until the Americans withdraw. That is something that would leave Al-Maliki's US-backed government stranded. On the same day, 167 Iraqis were added to the rising body count as a rampage of sectarian fighting engulfed Baghdad and nearby towns. And on Wednesday the US military in Iraq announced that ten American soldiers were killed the previous day -- one of the highest casualty rates sustained by US troops since January 2005. The police and army are as unsuccessful in stopping the bloodshed as the government has been in forging a political consensus capable of reining in sectarian rivalries. Yet Mohamed Al-Askari, a spokesman for the Defence Ministry, insisted security forces were prepared to fight the insurgents until "they break their backbone". In a telephone interview from Baghdad he told Al-Ahram Weekly that, "the security forces are overburdened but it is only a matter of time before they defeat the insurgents." With an average of 100 deaths a day, August and September have proved the cruelest months since the American occupation began, and the British medical journal The Lancet 's politically damaging report that more than 650,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 has provided internationally credible evidence of the deepening chaos inside the country as well as of the failure of the political process that placed Al-Maliki's government in power. As sectarian bloodshed and militia-led anarchy take hold the situation can only worsen. Last week, in a possible sign of things to come, the Kurdish-Shia parliamentary majority passed a law allowing the partition of Iraq into autonomous federal regions in the face of fierce Sunni opposition. The move is another step towards national disintegration. Outside Iraq, especially in the US and Britain, the picture is as bleak for those who still care to look. Washington and London are already reviewing their strategies and in the US at least, where mid- term Congressional elections are approaching, political opposition towards the continued deployment of American troops is growing. In the face of such political pressure the Republicans are desperately searching for a new Iraq strategy while in the UK comments by the British Chief of Staff General Dannatt that troops should leave Iraq "sometime soon" were met with widespread public support. If American politicians, with their eyes on the election, are looking for an option that will not place American troops in the middle of a civil war in Iraq then an exit strategy may well be provided by James Baker's Iraq Study Group. Options under discussion include dividing Iraq into three federal entities, withdrawing American troops in phases, and bringing in Iraq's neighbours, Iran and Syria, to help stop the fighting. As the political debate shifts all the signs are that American public opinion is being prepared for a "post-Iraq" period. But for Iraq, in the throes of sectarian conflict, any effort to end the political stalemate through compromise is at best an attempt to buy time. After the promises to make Iraq a glowing democratic example for the Middle East, the country is freefalling into a civil war that could engulf the entire region. Given that neither the Americans nor Al-Maliki's government looks capable of ending the chaos, it is time for the international community to step in and put an end to Washington and London's political and strategic experiments before Iraq implodes. The international community, including Arab countries, must look for new options, and they could well include placing Iraq under the trusteeship of the United Nations. The Bush administration's nation-building in Iraq has not only failed miserably but had an opposite effect and a more nuanced approach under international guidance will be necessary if Iraq is not to fall apart. As the occupation enters its fourth anniversary, and with Iraqis and Americans exhausted by the continuing violence, it increasingly looks as if only the UN can provide the necessary framework to re- launch the political process and, perhaps more significantly, in Washington at least, an exit plan for the Americans.
