Analysis: Iraq debate transformed

By Roger Hardy
Middle East analyst, BBC News

Suddenly, the talk is no longer of victory and democracy in Iraq, but of failure and withdrawal.

The ambitions of the US led-war have now been scaled back

The success of the Democrats in the US mid-term elections, and the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Defence Secretary, reflect a new level of dissatisfaction with policy on Iraq.

The debate about what the right strategy should be has intensified in the two countries with the most troops there - the United States and Britain.

Unease over the situation in Iraq has been building for some time. But in the run-up to US elections it exploded into public view.

James Baker, the former US Secretary of State, began to drop hints as to what his high-powered Iraq Study Group might recommend once the elections were out of the way.

He implied that stability was a more realistic goal than democracy. He apparently favours co-opting Iraq's neighbours - including Iran and Syria.

His bipartisan group is expected to issue its report in early December.

News realism

President Bush himself seemed to get the message. He was open to new ideas, he insisted. He was not stubbornly clinging to the mantra of "stay the course".

The debate has been heated, at times over-heated.

There is no easy exit strategy... Precipitate withdrawal would risk plunging Iraq into even worse violence... Partition, which now has some powerful advocates in Washington and elsewhere, might lead to even worse ethnic and sectarian cleansing

Several mainstream figures such as the veteran Middle East trouble-shooter Dennis Ross have come out in favour of a phased withdrawal.

This has drawn growls of disapproval from the neo-conservatives - the radical Republicans who had lobbied hard for the Iraq war and now find themselves on the defensive.

One neo-con, Marc Reul Gerecht, has attacked what he sees as the defeatism of the Democrats - and of centrists like Mr Baker.

Another, Eliot Cohen, has said it may be necessary to forget about Iraqi democracy and accept the creation of a "junta of military modernisers".

Everywhere, it seems, expectations are being revised and old slogans discarded.

Erosion of support

The debate is under way in London as well as Washington.

In mid-October Britain's most senior army commander, Sir Richard Dannatt, created a stir by saying British troops were making the situation worse and should be withdrawn soon.

Rumsfeld's departure is a sign of an expected change of direction

In both countries, there has been a significant erosion of support for the war.

But although the debate has shifted markedly, there is no easy exit strategy.

Precipitate withdrawal would risk plunging Iraq into even worse violence and fragmentation.

Partition, which now has some powerful advocates in Washington and elsewhere, might lead to even worse ethnic and sectarian cleansing.

Ultimatum?

Two elements are of crucial importance.

One is to find a more successful way of getting Iraqi leaders to take the political and security reins.

The general view is that they have performed poorly on both counts.

But would an ultimatum - get your act together or we will pull out - actually work?

The other element is to get Iraq's neighbours to be more helpful - or at least less unhelpful.

They could, if they chose, help to stem the flow of arms and money and militants to the Iraqi insurgency.

James Baker and his panel of experts are likely to have things to say about both of these issues.

The American people have voted for change.

But as Mr Baker has warned, there is no magic bullet.