For over two decades Saddam Hussein’s tynannical regime had ruled Irag with iron-clad cold-bloodeness and brutality, vanguished perceived and imagined enemies as well as clamped down and instilled fear on political dissidents, thus consequently imposing relative stabilty in the country sufficient to project a tolerable measure of sovereign state responsibilty and legitimacy. Hence in the post-Saddam Iraq, for democracy to take root and flourish, the civil society now on the verge self-decimation urgently is in dire need of a strong-willed, but democratic-minded and iconic leadership (of the Mandela caliber) driven by the ideals of freedom and justice, and unencumbered by bestial atttributes of sadism and brutality that ultimately sealed Sadaam’s undoing. A leader who—while staying above sectarian divide— is bestowed with the unyielding knack to articulate the collective aspirations of all the Iraqis into a concrete action towards reconciliation, peace, social justice and national progress. Indisputably, however, in today’s Iraq no leader of such virtuous attributes and strength of character has emerged, nor are there prospects for such likelihood in the near term. Instead, what in the immediate collapse of the Saddam regime was positively anticipated within the Bush administration to be a rosy wellcome of US troops in Iraq as well as a smooth cruise to democracy increasingly turned into a national nightmare of death and destruction with no end in sight. Hence in the current circumstances there seem not much in the way of conceivable options, if failing to help bring about a political solution for a dispensation acceptable to all warring factions cannot be viewed as an inexplicable omission whose irrationality is beyond pale. Hence as of now not much has emanated from the administration in the form of creative and imaginative strategic thinking beyond the so-called ’’surge” which in essence is a military escalation whose propensity for increased military as well as civilian casualties bears significantly on the consequences of a failed Bush policy and the blatant self-denial of those who formulated it. Whenever the question about the US troops withdrawal arises, and while this is a statement of realism, Republican all too often point to the dire consequences inside Iraq and on a regional scale, even culminating in terrorist pursuit of targets inside the U.S. But translated into practical terms, they fail to point out that in the event of that scenario materializing , further instability and disintegration of Iraq as well as in all probability destabilization of the entire Middle East would necessarily, and inevitably ensue , if for no other reason than the Bush administrtion’s seeming unwillingess to facilitate a political mechanism so as to foreclose the prospect of what could be a catastrophic and devastating eventuality in the wake of American troop withdrawal . Hence it begs the question: What will it take for the Bush administration to finally acknowledge the indesputable that its policy in Irag has failed because an exclusive reliance on the military as a “silver bullet” for the imposition of internal security, failing to recognize that enduring peace and security can only be guaranteed by a political settlement offering a dispensation acceptable to all Iragis.
