The death toll of US soldiers in Iraq is mounting everyday and no victory of whatever kind is in sight. As a result, more and more Americans are questioning the wisdom of  continuing the US military involvement in Iraq. By now, many of them also realise that the war started on the basis of a bunch of lies – the so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) were never there and Iraq was not involved in any kind of terrorist activity against the US. Though, paradoxically, now that is happening after the US invasion of Iraq. These truths are being brought home by the media before an increasing number of Americans.

General Petraeus, the current US army chief in Iraq, recently presented evidence  before the US Congress to show some improvement after the infusion of more American troops into Iraq in February 2007. He tried to show that the number of deaths due to sectarian violence in Iraq has come down, terrorist incidents are occurring less in Baghdad. In addition, ordinary Iraqis are getting fed up with the trouble created by foreign al-Qaeda terrorists and are cooperating more with Americans and local administration.

At the same time, the General and the US ambassador in Iraq both concede that the level of violence, though less than before, is still alarmingly high. They also made it clear that victory is by no means certain. It is only in the realm of  possibilities – which, of course, is not saying much.

The sceptics are even questioning the significance of the statistics presented. They argue that sectarian violence has come down because millions of Iraqis have either left the country or moved to safer areas where their own people are in the majority. Further, though the violence has come down in Baghdad, it has increased in other areas. This is because of the infusion of more US troops in Baghdad. It follows that as soon as US troops withdraw, sectarian violence on a much bigger scale would erupt. some leaders of warring groups of Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, there is no real progress towards political reconciliation and an unified national government at the centre. Every group wants to have an assured share of the oil revenue and a role in administration which others are not willing to give.

Basically, there are three possible models for the future. A strong centralised Iraq, a loose federation of areas ruled by the three groups or a breakup of the country into a number of independent states. But, then, as one commentator put it: “US has already killed the only person who could make the first model work, namely Sadam Hussein.”  It is difficult to predict whether the country would eventually settle for the second or the third alternative after a protracted civil war which would definitely be more violent and wide spread after the US troops leave.

The final outcome would also depend on two factors – how far Iran would go in supporting the Shia majority in Iraq and the form in which US military would be present in Iraq even after a major troop withdrawal takes place following a possible victory of the Democratic candidate in the US Presidential election next year.
By this time, several influential commentators in US have gone on record to suggest that the Iraq war is basically a war for oil and not against terrorism. The latest to join the rank is Alan Greenspan, the former Governor of Federal Reserve, in his most recent book. From that perspective, Iran is now the number one enemy of US, not al-Qaeda. Many observers in US feel that once most US troops leave Iraq, Iran will fill the vacuum and would control the Iraqi government.

If so, then Iran would have a dominant influence in deciding the price of oil and who would get the lucrative oil contracts in these oil-rich areas. US-aligned Saudi regime is not very stable either and its character may change as a result of pressures from both fundamentalist forces and democratic nationalists. An Islamic fundamentalist movement is also gaining ground in Egypt which has so far been more favourably inclined towards US and Israel than many other Arab states. So, US may lose much of its control over Arab oil in the coming years.

Some analysts are advising the US government to prepare for this eventuality by  imposing a high tax on oil right now. This would reduce the US demand for oil and its dependence on imported oil, while at the same time lowering the level of carbon pollution and global warming. It would also increase the profitability of alternative energy sources and encourage the innovation of new energy-saving technologies and products.   But all these would hurt the standard of living of Americans dependent on cheap oil. It is unlikely that US politicians would go for this unpopular decision and risk political hara-kiri, unless they are forced by circumstances as in the early 70’s when OPEC hiked the price of oil fourfold at one go.

In the mean time, as a strategic move, the US administration may undermine the present democratically elected government in Iraq if it gets more aligned with Iran. It may even covertly support the insurgents against the central government by providing them arms and finance which may lead to an eventual breakup of the country if it serves the US oil interest.

(The author is currently a Visiting Professor of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, USA)