The United States is still far from having conducted a serious accounting of its catastrophic adventure in Iraq. No doubt the wounds, political as well as physical, are still too raw. Nevertheless, some sort of a balance-sheet must one day be drawn up. How much has the war really cost the American tax-payer? What is the exact toll of dead and wounded – not only American and allied but Iraqi as well? What estimate can be made of material damage? Who should be held responsible for the destruction of a major Arab country? Why have the neoconservatives who pushed for war not been identified and punished -- even though they faked the evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his alleged link with Al-Qaida? What role did Israel played in the debacle? Who is to blame for the lethal release of Iraq's sectarian demons? For the rise of Iran as a regional power? For the geopolitical remodelling of the Gulf region? For the potential threat to the industrial world's energy supplies? Full answers to these questions may have to wait for another generation, if they are ever posed at all. One development, however, which will not have escaped the notice of U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden on his recent three-day visit to Iraq is the decline of American power to shape events. August should see the end of America's ‘combat mission' in Iraq. By the end of the month its troop numbers should be down to 50,000 – from a peak of 165,000 at the height of the ‘surge' – with a complete withdrawal scheduled for the end of next year. President Barack Obama is determined to rid America of a war he always opposed. But as the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, its influence must inevitably wane. What will America's role be then? What will be the point of America's massively-fortified Baghdad embassy, built at a cost of $750m on a 104-acre site along the Tigris? Described as the largest, least welcoming and most lavish American embassy in the world, it is to house no fewer than 1,200 diplomats, soldiers and U.S. government staff from 14 federal agencies. Must it be seen as a colossal waste of resources? Or is it merely the last criminal blunder in a long list which began when a cabal of neocons, at the heart of President George W Bush's administration, seized the opportunity created by the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to press for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, an Arab leader Israel saw as a potential threat? As America hunkers down in its mega-bunker, Iraqi politicians continue to squabble, attempting to shuffle to their advantage the myriad parties in the 325-member parliament, which emerged from a system of proportional representation at the March elections. Nuri al-Maliki, the sitting prime minister, is determined to hold on to power, even though his supporters won fewer votes than those of Iyad Allawi, a former prime minister. Maliki heads an essentially Shia coalition called the State of Law, while Allawi heads a more secular coalition called Iraqiya. Neither has a clear-cut majority. Maliki has struck a tentative deal with a third group which would in theory give him a majority. This is the Iraqi National Accord, an alliance of the Sadrists (fundamentalist Shiites led by the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr) and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. The trouble is that both the Sadrists and the ISCI do not want Maliki as prime minister. They have their own candidates for the post. It may be that Maliki's deal with the Iraqi National Accord is a mere manoeuvre intended to pressure Allawi to enter an alliance with him – an alliance in which he would have the upper hand and the top job. On arrival in Baghdad last Saturday, Biden was rash enough to declare that he was ‘extremely optimistic' about Iraq's democracy. But when he left it was evident that he had failed to prod these fractious groups into forming a government. For the moment at least, the four-month long political deadlock, which has followed the 7 March election, continues unbroken. The Shiites claim that power is legitimately theirs since they form a majority in the country. But the Sunnis will make trouble if they are totally excluded. One way or another, they ruled Iraq from the 1920s -- when Britain created the state out of three Ottoman provinces – to the Anglo-American invasion of 2003. Allawi's Iraqiya has some Sunni backing and is therefore potentially a better candidate than Maliki's State of Law to promote social and sectarian peace in this deeply divided, violent and unstable country. While America's influence declines, regional rivals push forward to take its place. It may have largely escaped American notice that Iranian exports to Iraq are expected to total $7billion this year – seven times greater than in 2007 – and are heading for the $10bn mark. Nearly 100 Iranian firms took part in the Basra International Fair late last month. Some local leaders envisage a political and economic partnership between the two Shia-majority states, which together control immense oil and gas reserves. They could dominate the international energy market. At a reception at the massive U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Biden told Iraqi leaders: ‘You should not, and I'm sure you will not, let any state – from the United States to any state in the region – dictate what will become of you.' It may be too late for such injunctions. Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Qatar and others are already making deals and forming alliances outside the American orbit. Although Iraq may not have a new government, the old one continues to function reasonably well – especially in the key areas of security and oil. The Iraqi military now patrol the cities, largely without the help of U.S. troops. This has not put an end to deadly suicide attacks or to political/ sectarian murders, but violence seems to be on the decline. The big oil groups – both Western and Chinese – have entered the Iraqi market. On 29 June the Iraqi cabinet approved a Shell-led deal to develop 25-30 trillion cubic feet of associated gas reserves from four major oil projects in Basra province. Money will flow in. Iraq will slowly rebuild itself from the devastation of war. A political formula for governing the country will eventually be found. But future historians will almost certainly count the destruction of Iraq as one of the great crimes of the early 21st century. end
