News

"Who is the enemy? Who, exactly, is the United States fighting in Iraq? And what's the objective?," American investigative journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote in the Saturday Globe essay The withering away of several enemies in Iraq

"Nearly five years into the war, the answers to basic questions such as these ought to be obvious. In the Alice in Wonderland-like wilderness of mirrors that is Iraq, though, they are anything but."

Mr. Dreyfuss argues that the U.S. is "winning" the battle to reduce the ongoing violence that has torn the country apart since the American invasion of March 2003 ousted the former dictator Saddam Hussein.

But it's not doing such a good job of managing the political growth of a new democratic Iraq. In fact, it's standing in the way and should step aside from that process, Mr. Dreyfuss argues.

"It's still a violent place," he laments.

"There is no real government. The economy is in shambles. Basic services — electricity, water, trash collection — are erratic or non-existent.

"And, most areas of the country are ruled by militias, gangs, criminal elements or local warlords.

"Still, with no enemy left to fight, and with violence way, way down, it's time to declare victory and leave."

Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative thesis.

We are pleased that Mr. Dreyfuss was online Nov. 26 to take your questions on his Globe essay and Iraq. Your questions and Mr. Dreyfuss's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

On his own website, RobertDreyfuss.com , Mr. Dreyfuss describes himself this way:

"Based in Alexandria, Va., I have been writing for Rolling Stone for at least a decade, and currently I cover national security for Rolling Stone's National Affairs section.

"I'm a contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, and a senior correspondent for The American Prospect.

"My articles have also appeared in The Washington Monthly, The New Republic, Newsday, Worth, California Lawyer, The Texas Observer, E, In These Times, The Detroit Metro Times, Public Citizen, Extra, and, in Japan, in Esquire, Foresight and Nikkei Business.

"Online, I write frequently for TomPaine.com , and I produced a popular blog for Tom Paine called The Dreyfuss Report.

"Perhaps I am best known for what I consider to be ground-breaking stories about the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy."

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome, Robert, and thanks for joining us today on globeandmail.com to take questions from our readers about your Saturday essay on Iraq in The Globe and Mail. You made a persuasive argument that the enemies the U.S. has been fighting there for the past five years have begun to wither away. But I think the question most Canadians have is more basic: Was it a mistake for the Bush administration to invade the country in 2003? This is hardly scientific. But 86 per cent of people who voted in a poll we put on our Home Page this weekend in connection with your essay said the invasion was a mistake right from the start.

Mr. Dreyfuss: Well, it depends on your definition of "mistake." I don't think you invade a country by mistake. It was a calculated, deliberate plan by the White House to falsify reasons for going to war and to invade and occupy a country that had never attacked the United States, had no weapons of mass destruction, had no ties whatsoever to al-Qaeda and 9/11, and did not represent any sort of threat. I don't call that a mistake. I call it an illegal war of aggression. If there was any mistake, it was the rose-colored assumption that it would be easy. To the administration's great surprise, Iraqis fought back. Were it not for the Iraqi resistance that developed toward the end of 2003, the invasion of Iraq would be hailed as a great triumph. With nearly 4,000 Americans dead and at least several hundred thousand Iraqis killed, Iraq is a shattered nation. Whatever happens now, Iraqi will need two generations, at least, to recover. In 2003, Americans -- traumatized by the 9/11 attacks -- broadly supported the war. Now, more clear-headed, and with the tragic results of the war (and its trillion-dollar cost) staring them in the face, Americans have had enough. Too late.

Lucien Alexandre Marion: Mister Dreyfuss, thank you for your essay. My question about your thesis is: Could the Iraqis -- if the Americans and the coalition leave their country -- form a stable government and rebuild their economic, social and political infrastructures?

Mr. Dreyfuss: No one knows what might happen if and when the United States leaves Iraq. Certainly there is reason to think it could be bloody. But a substantial majority of both Sunni and Shia Iraqis are nationalists who want to hold Iraq together, and most of them are not religious, sectarian fanatics. It's certainly possible that a new Iraqi political accord can be reached by the Iraqis themselves, especially if Iraq's neighbors can be persuaded to be helpful. What results, though, won't look like American-style democracy.

Angus S. Maskers, Victoria, British Columbia: I don't have much confidence that a moderate democracy can prevail in Iraq. Isn't the country teetering on the verge of a brutal civil war?

Mr. Dreyfuss: Iraq has been plagued by a low-grade civil war since about 2004. I say "low-grade" because it hasn't involved actual armies or even organized brigades, just terrorism and ethnic cleansing. But I don't think that the opposite of civil war is "moderate democracy." There are few, if any, moderate democracies in the region. America's goal of democracy in Iraq may have failed. Perhaps the best that can be hoped for, now, is a political accord among Iraqis, perhaps ruled by a strongman, a military officer, or a coalition of strongmen and warlords.

Ardeshir Dolat, London, England: I believe that Iraq is still far from secure from the threat of the Islamist terrorists backed by the Islamic regime of Iran. If the U.S. withdraws, would it not be much harder to deal with these terrorists?

Mr. Dreyfuss: First of all, most of the terrorists in Iraq have been anti-Iranian, anti-Shia al-Qaeda types, not terrorists backed by Iran. In recent months, Sunni Iraqis have virtually crushed al-Qaeda, with some American help, but mostly on their own. Besides, anger at the U.S. occupation of Iraq is fueling most of the recruits for terrorist organizations. So once the U.S. forces are gone, terrorism is likely to decline.

Patrick Cummins: Given the tensions that exist between it and the U.S., what are the chances that the Shia-dominated Maliki government will ask the United Nations not to renew for another year the mandate for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq? How important is the will of Ayatollah Sistani is this matter? Is it possible that he will step in and decide that it's time for the U.S. to leave?

Mr. Dreyfuss: There is tremendous controversy in Iraq, and in Iraq's parliament, over the UN mandate that allows U.S. forces to stay in Iraq. It will soon be debated in that body. Most of the deputies, and most of Iraq's population, want U.S. forces to set a timetable for leaving. It could be politically explosive for Mr. Maliki's government if it handles this issue clumsily. The issue of Mr. Sistani is a hard one: he has rarely taken controversial stances, and for the past two years he has been nearly invisible. He was able to stand up for a united Shia electoral bloc,but now the Shiites of Iraq are divided, even warring against each other, and it's lot harder for Mr. Sistani to pretend that he represents all Shiites in Iraq.

Mia Culpa: Will the U.S. maintain a military base in Iraq as it has done in other places (South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.)? And hasn't that been the key strategic objective -- to establish a permanent Middle East base outside of Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Dreyfuss: I believe that the U.S. elite consensus is that the United States ought to maintain a long-term strategic military presence in Iraq. The United States already has a massive presence in the Gulf, in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, at sea, and in nearby countries. Iraqis are fierce nationalists, however, unlike the more pliable kleptocracies of the Arab Gulf, so it might not be so easy.

Lynn Simmons, Connecticut: Mr. Dreyfuss, I am curious to know where are you getting your information about Iraq from? Could you tell your readers when and how many times have you been there? . . . I would also like to know by what standard you are judging political progress in Iraq. Thank you.

Mr. Dreyfuss: I have never been to Iraq. I am a Washington-based reporter who has covered the war from the standpoint of U.S. policy. I have a good track record. I wrote the first profile of Ahmad Chalabi, the charlatan, in 2002, and later that same year I wrote the first major story about the Pentagon's effort to create fake intelligence to justify the coming war. Certainly I've been wrong, too. As for your question on political progress, I don't equate improved security and lessened violence with political progress. Far from it. I believe that Mr. Maliki's government will have to fall, and be replaced by one less tainted by U.S. support. Only such a government will have the necessary credibility to garner public support and legitimacy.

Paul Fras, of Toronto: Surely this would be a tongue-in-cheek declaration of "victory." Isn't it better that Iraq is not longer run by a tyrant, but by "militias, gangs, criminal elements or local warlords" in most areas of the country? That means that none of the reasons for the initial invasion of Iraq have any meaning. The WMD, the tyranny of the Ba'athist dictatorship, "state support for terror." Now we have a government that wants a theocratic government, is a natural ally of Iran, and actually controls very little in the country. Everything of importance is still unsettled: how to allocate authority, how to allocate oil revenue, the reliability of the army. I mean, even President George W. Bush isn't using that stupid formulation: "When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

If this is victory, I'd hate to see what defeat looks like. But it is on to the next distraction, right? I mean, does Mr. Bush actually think this "Mideast conference" will accomplish anything? One of the major Palestinian parties is excluded, the Gaza Strip is under siege and Israeli politics is completely uncertain. Both sides can't really negotiate because neither side really has a mandate to negotiate anything. Of all the options available though, the United States withdrawing from Iraq is the only viable one. Call it victory if you think it will help sell it, but don't think people are that dumb.

Mr. Dreyfuss: Of course, I don't mean to call the current slight improvement a true victory. But to leave Iraq, the United States is going to seek face-saving descriptions, taking credit for having removed Saddam Hussein's authoritarian regime. But removing that regime was at a cost far too high for Iraqis: the virtual destruction of state and society. President Bush means something different by "victory," however. He sought the creation of a pro-American regime in Baghdad, favorably disposed to Israel, which would give the United States a permanent presence at the heart of the world's oil region. That's why leaving Iraq is the opposite of victory, from the president's point of view.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Robert, thank you again for engaging our readers today in this important discussion. I wonder whether you have any final thoughts based on our readers' questions and comments in this discussion and in your essay.

Mr. Dreyfuss: I appreciate the opportunity to have discussed this with your readers. Iraq is a very complicated problem, with no easy answers and no predictable outcome. I do believe, however, that it is long past time for the United States to pack up its tents and go home. In so doing, perhaps the rest of the world, including the United Nations and the Arab League, along with Iraq's neighbors, will work with Iraqis to rebuild that country.