No exit

---

One would imagine that Bush's visit to Baghdad was a good opportunity for the US president to declare his country's exit strategy from Iraq. Bush could have announced a gradual withdrawal; the circumstances were right. In Iraq, the killing of Zarqawi and the formation of a new Iraqi government meant the US could establish a timetable for withdrawal without losing face. The media has shown great interest in Zarqawi's killing and in the formation of what seems to be a national unity government. Bush could have made the withdrawal look like a calculated political move, a culmination of strategy. But he didn't.

Internationally, the US has ample reason to pull out of Iraq. Iran is defying US-Israeli policy in the region, Afghanistan is flaring up again, and fundamentalists are running wild in Somalia and the Horn of Africa. Bush and his aides are desperate to project an image of strength, but they're ignoring matters of simple strategy. The US needs to free troops from Iraq. The US imbroglio in Iraq is draining military resources and limiting its ability to intervene effectively in other parts of the world. If anything, America's involvement in Iraq is encouraging its adversaries around the world. And yet, Bush doesn't seem interested in taking a clear position on the matter of exiting Iraq.

Domestically, Bush is being told to pull out of Iraq. Congressmen in particular have become vocal in their opposition to the war in Iraq and their criticism of US Middle East policy. Yet, the US president remains ambiguous. Why? Is the US president being obstinate, or does he have some other reason to stay? Is he just a man who cannot make up his mind or keep a promise, as US Christian fundamentalists now claim? Perhaps not. Perhaps the vagueness of current US policy on Iraq is intentional. The US doesn't mind reducing its troops in Iraq. US officials are not against that. What they are against is a promise of full withdrawal because it was never the intention to leave Iraq entirely.

Remember how Iraq and Egypt used to be in the 1930s? They were independent in name, but not in fact, due to the presence of foreign bases on their soil. Iraq had the Habbaniyah base, and Egypt had British troops in the Suez Canal. The existence of foreign troops is essential. It makes a country answerable to foreign powers. And it makes a patriotic government think twice before pressing independence. That's the future the US wants for Iraq. The US wants to reduce its troops in Iraq, but it doesn't want an independent Iraq to be the reason. And unless the costs of staying become unbearable, the US will remain in Iraq to make sure it isn't.