By Patrick Seale, the author of 'The Struggle for Syria' (THE GUARDIAN, 24/10/06):
The choice for the US and Britain in Iraq is no longer between staying or leaving. It is a choice between an honourable exit and a scuttle - an undignified withdrawal, probably under fire, as occurred in Vietnam a generation ago. Few policy makers in Washington and London are yet prepared to accept this gloomy conclusion. Some still believe that some form of "victory" can be salvaged. But the facts on the ground are unforgiving. So far the war has killed 3,000 US soldiers and cost the US tax-payer at least $400bn. Iraqi casualties are so horrifying as to suggest genocide.
Bush has attempted to discredit the recent Johns Hopkins study that estimated the number of Iraqi deaths caused by the war and occupation at 655,000, as it is a devastating indictment of his policies, but no serious scientist has challenged the figures or the methodology on which they are based.
Other costs to Iraq are beyond computation - the hundreds of thousands who have fled abroad, including much of Iraq's middle class; the internally displaced numbering close to one million; the colossal damage to infrastructure; the loss of oil revenues; and the splintering of Iraqi society by the violent resurgence of sectarian conflict.
What is to be done? In the US and the UK, a serious rethinking of policy is under way. Officials are looking for ideas. Here are some tentative suggestions:
The US and the UK should announce a firm date for a full military withdrawal from Iraq, including the closure of all bases. Such an announcement would go a long way to meeting the principal demand of the various strands of the insurgency and focus Iraqi minds on national reconciliation.
Iraq's neighbours - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Kuwait, as well as Turkey and Iran - must all be involved in the search for an Iraqi settlement. No one has a greater interest in the emergence of a peaceful, stable and prosperous Iraq. Their involvement could begin by taking the form of a high-level conference in a neutral, non-western location. The aims of this conference would be to make a solemn call for a cessation of hostilities in Iraq and to thrash out a compromise regarding the sort of power-sharing regime for a unitary Iraq that these neighbours would like to see emerge. They could then form a contact group pledged to do their utmost to implement the agreed compromise.
This group would then summon the leaders of all the parties, factions, militias and insurgent groups in Iraq to another conference with the aim of securing their public commitment to the agreed compromise. Implementation will, of course, be difficult. It can probably not be achieved without some form of armed force, which has to be Iraqi and free, as far as possible, from political, ethnic or religious affiliations. From the creation of the Iraqi state in 1921, the Iraqi army was the most important single institution holding the country together. It was purged several times - in 1936, 1958, 1963, 1968, and during the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, but it remained the backbone of the state throughout. One suggestion would be to form a neutral army council of six respected generals and give them the task of rebuilding a truly Iraqi army from all the trained men at present available, whatever their past.
The US should commit itself to contributing $10bn a year for five years to an Iraqi reconstruction fund, to be disbursed under UN control, and should encourage others (the Gulf states, China, Japan, the European Union, Russia, etc) to contribute too. The vast embassy that the United States is now completing in Baghdad - far too big for America's future diplomatic needs in Iraq - could be donated to the Iraqi people as a university campus.