Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2007, pages 29-30

European Press Review

Petraeus Report Said to Make U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Iraq Less Likely

By Lucy Jones

THE ENCOURAGING picture of Iraq painted at a Sept. 10 congressional hearing by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in the country, left many European newspapers wondering whether he was talking about the same war they have been covering.

Petraeus had told a joint panel of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees that the military objectives of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq “are largely being met.”

According to Britain’s Independent the following day, however, the latest increase in U.S. troops “was never truly about stabilizing Iraq.” Instead, “Its primary purpose was to stave off demands from Democrats and some Republicans for a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal. This is cynical and disgraceful,” the newspaper opined. “But what else can we expect from a military adventure that was formed in a spirit of hubris and carried out in an atmosphere of crashing incompetence and reckless arrogance? The U.S.-led occupation of Iraq is unraveling in the same morally compromised manner in which it began.”

“Any fool can create a wilderness and call it peace,” noted London Times veteran columnist Simon Jenkins the same day, adding, “Petraeus’s gains do not hasten peace, they only postpone it.”

“Will [President George W. Bush] have to order a major withdrawal of troops from Iraq before the end of his presidency in just over a year’s time?” asked the BBC’s world affairs editor John Simpson on Sept. 10. “The reports of General Petraeus and Ambassador [to Iraq Ryan] Crocker have made that seem less likely. The White House may well now be able to hold out against the Democrats in Congress and those Republicans who agree that the troops should be pulled out,” he said.

On the continent, Switzerland’s Tages-Anzeiger wrote on Sept. 11 that only a “miracle” could salvage the situation in Iraq now. “In essence, George W. Bush’s vision of a democratic and secure Iraq has probably failed,” the newspaper said. “Under the best of circumstances, the president can hope for an ‘honorable peace’ like Richard Nixon in Vietnam.” Continued the newspaper: “The Capitol hearings give the president…a window of about six months; after that, at least five brigades will have to be withdrawn without replacement. Unless a political miracle happens in Baghdad in the meantime, the regime in Tehran will emerge as the victor of Bush’s war because of its increased influence in Iraq—and this without having spent half a trillion dollars, like Washington’s warlord has.”

Austria’s conservative daily Die Presse of the same day called on readers to remain open to the possibility of improvement in Iraq. “It’s true: When the creator of the Iraq fiasco, the American president, talks about ‘signs of progress’ after a quick visit to Iraq, the highest level of skepticism is called for,” the newspaper editorialized. “This disastrous war that he started with lies will become his darkest chapter in history books in the future,” it continued. “But when independent reporters conclude after extensive research in the country that the security situation in several parts has improved, that the cooperation between Americans, Sunni leaders and Iraqi security forces gets better and better—because the insurgents have gone too far with their anarchic terror against civilians—one should listen very carefully.”

In its Sept. 11 edition Germany’s business newspaper Handelsblatt agreed that any calming of the situation represents progress. “But compared to the original goals to turn Iraq into a democratic role model for the Middle East,” it added, “the bar has been lowered dramatically. Washington now talks about a gentle division, about a Sunnistan, Shi’istan and Kurdistan, as if this would already signify a happy ending for Iraq. If there’s the slightest chance to prevent Iraq from collapsing, it has to be pursued—no matter who will profit in terms of party politics in the U.S.,” it concluded.

Also in Germany, that day’s Berliner Zeitung argued that it is virtually impossible for Bush to withdraw troops at this point. “There’s no more talk about President Bush’s intention to bring democracy to Iraq and have it serve as an example for the Arab and Islamic world” it pointed out. “The only thing that matters now is what American soldiers can do to prevent a murderous civil war in the battered country, and whether they will continue to fight clan leaders and terrorists or withdraw and leave Iraqis to deal with their own fate. President Bush cannot approve a swift withdrawal, because this would not only symbolize a complete failure of his policy, but also make him responsible for a dangerous change of power relations in the Middle East.”

Description of U.K.’s Basra Withdrawal as “Successful” Challenged

The Sept. 3 withdrawal of British troops from the Iraqi city of Basra to the U.K.’s remaining base near the airport was described by the Ministry of Defense as one of a number of “successful handovers.”

“This defies credibility,” wrote The Guardian the following day, adding, “If commanders now accept that the occupation is one of the sources of the conflict, not its solution, the troops should be removed altogether.”

In the same day’s edition, Guardian columnist Martin Bell contended that there must be an inquiry into why Britain entered the war in the first place. “We need to understand why the warpath was chosen when diplomatic options were not exhausted; why there was a plan for war but not for peace; why the armed forces were sent to kick in the door of a sovereign state on the basis of a whim about regime change and a falsehood about weapons of mass destruction,” Bell wrote.

“Historians will find it hard to resist labeling Sept. 3, 2007, as the day Britain and the U.S. finally parted company on Iraq,” said the Sept. 4 London Times.

“Critics will argue that this face-saving role for Washington is the only real purpose left for British Forces in Iraq,” the newspaper editorialized. “This is not true. They will continue to patrol beyond their base, and in doing so will be well placed to gather intelligence on three vital issues: the relative strengths of the militia groups vying for control for the city; their level of penetration of Iraqi police and army units, and the extent of Iranian influence of local government and clerics.

“It was always the coalition’s goal to hand Iraq’s government and then responsibility for its security back to the Iraqis. For better or worse, this is what is happening,” the newspaper added.

“Optimists hoped a thriving new democracy would form part of this bequest. Such hopes have waned, and Saddam Hussain’s removal is now regarded as a consolation, not a justification, for the chaos that followed. History may yet conclude it was more than that,” The Times said.

Ahmadinejad Appearance at Columbia Seen as Test of Free Speech

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “didn’t exactly get a friendly welcome in New York,” where he was described by the president of Columbia University on Sept. 25 as a “cruel and petty tyrant,” noted Germany’s Spiegel Online the same day.

The lawyer and current president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger, is “regarded as an expert on the United States constitutional right to freedom of speech,” the publication explained. “This raises the question: Just how far can it go?” it asked.

“Bollinger himself proved how far: He invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at the university. In doing so, he was asking for trouble, including demonstrations and demands for his resignation,” said the newspaper.

“Many New Yorkers appeared to feel that ignoring the firebrand was the wrong approach. Hundreds of demonstrators gathered…in front of the Columbia campus,” the newspaper reported. “The main gate on Broadway became a kind of ‘Speakers’ Corner’ for opponents and supporters of Ahmadinejad—and of Bollinger.”

Even though he said “little that he has not said many times before, and it is not his first time at the United Nations,” Ahmadinejad “dominated the opening of this year’s U.N. General Assembly,” said the BBC’s John Leyne the following day.

“The storm around Mr. Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York began with the refusal to let him visit Ground Zero. But it was the invitation to address students at Columbia University that produced the most sustained controversy,” Leyne continued.

Bollinger “stole the show,” he added, when he accused the leader of being a cruel and petty tyrant. On reflection, however, some people questioned whether Ahmadinejad had been treated fairly by the university, which had invited him onto its grounds, Leyne commented.

In the view of that day’s The Guardian, “on his theatrical and—and ultimately illuminating—visit to America, Mr. Ahmadinejad has provided evidence of nothing so much as sheer mendacity.

“Mr. Ahmadinejad is no more truthful on his nuclear plans than on homosexuality, women’s rights or the Holocaust, which he has called a myth,” the newspaper continued. “Mr. Ahmadinejad has shown why the world should be more concerned about his intentions for Iran. He has condemned himself in his own words,” the newspaper concluded.

Britain’s Financial Times of Sept. 24 reported that the main concern of most Iranians was the domestic economy, rather than Iran’s international profile. But the newspaper’s Tehran correspondent quoted one man as saying that “it is definitely a source of pride that [Ahmadinejad] is in New York and is smiling to the world.”

Muslim Medical Students “Get Picky,” According to London Times

Some Muslim medical students are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because they claim it offends their religious beliefs,” the London Times reported Oct. 10. 

According to the newspaper, some doctors in training say learning to treat the diseases conflicts with their faith, which states that Muslims should not drink alcohol and rejects sexual promiscuity.

A small number of Muslim medical students have even refused to treat patients of the opposite sex. One male student was prepared to fail his final exams rather than carry out a basic examination of a female patient.

The students’ religious objections have been confirmed by the British Medical Association (BMA) and General Medical Council (GMC), which both stressed that they did not approve of such actions, the newspaper added.

Lucy Jones is a free-lance journalist based in London.

< Prev		Next >