President Bush's visit to Iraq

Images count for a lot in politics, especially during wartime

Images count for a lot in politics, especially during wartime. Thus it was not surprising that US president George Bush should pay a flying visit to Iraq on the very day British troops withdrew from their last garrison in Basra to an airport 20 kilometres away.

According to British prime minister Gordon Brown this was a switch from a combat to an oversight role, after more than four years in the city and three neighbouring provinces. More plausibly, local militias claimed a victory, while informed observers see a neighbouring Iranian hand directing change in this strategic oil export city.

Mr Bush well knows how Iran is extending its regional influence and insists its leaders must not be allowed to capitalise on a US military withdrawal from Iraq. So interpreting the British redeployment affects decisions in Washington following next week's reports to Congress on how the military surge has gone and whether sufficient political and economic progress has been made by the Iraqi government.

Mr Bush is convinced the military surge is working. He visited Anbar province to highlight how Sunni tribal leaders are co-operating with US and Iraqi forces against al-Qaeda militants who have committed numerous atrocities at the expense of local citizens. This has turned the corner, he believes, making premature withdrawal all the more objectionable.

READ MORE

Timing the flow of positive images is also crucial for political management, which explains why so much effort is being put into orchestrating them at present in Iraq. Mr Bush's political reputation and the Republican Party's performance in next year's elections depend on how the war goes over the next few months. If "current successes" continue, Mr Bush hints it may be possible to begin withdrawing some troops and yet maintain the same level of security. But he insists that when this happens it will be "from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure". He makes a strong case for the as yet relatively meagre record of improved US military leadership and strategy in Iraq - which is all the more impressive given the incompetence that has preceded it for so long. There is much less evidence of economic or political progress.

Critics of the war must balance their demands for it to be brought to an end by withdrawal of the coalition troops, since most violence has arisen from the occupation itself, with a commitment to help Iraqi leaders and people repair the damage it has inflicted. Should Iraq disintegrate in civil war the whole Middle East region - and therefore the rest of the world - would be affected. British leaders thought their experience in Northern Ireland would help them run Basra but that proved naive. It is good to hear that political representatives from the North are now involved in direct talks with Iraqi leaders to draw out possible lessons from the two conflicts. Iraq needs and deserves such solidarity over the next year, irrespective of how military and political events are interpreted and spun by US and British leaderships.