The very limited progress made by the American troop surge in Iraq means President Bush is fast running out of options. Under pressure in Congress and from public opinion to withdraw, he instead sent in reinforcements, following advice from his army commanders that lack of troops on the ground was the reason that parts of central Iraq, including areas of Baghdad, were slipping out of anybody's control. But signs of deterioration are still everywhere. Moving pleas were heard this week from Unicef for something to be done to relieve the suffering of Iraq's millions of children, who have borne the burden of innocent victimhood for decades in that tragic country. The Christians of Iraq are having a dreadful time, being the targets of sustained and ruthless pressure from jihadist militants to convert to Islam or to leave - or be killed. Refugees from Iraq are becoming a serious problem to neighbouring countries like Jordan and Syria.

  All these crises arise from the underlying situation. The world has to stop imagining a change for the better some time soon, and go into ambulance mode, rescuing whom it can where it can. The United Nations in general, and surrounding countries in particular, have a major humanitarian task ahead, and the United States can no longer ignore the importance of the roles they might play. Life under the dictator Saddam Hussein was an existence to be endured, but anarchy is proving even worse than tyranny. The forces driving Iraq ever further into catastrophe seem unstoppable. The argument that outside forces are necessary to stop it getting worse sounds increasing hollow. Indeed, the insurgents have found a way to make the American presence a further engine of mayhem rather than part of its cure.

Something similar is being attempted in the south, where Britain has a far smaller troop concentration. The question is increasingly being asked what, apart from postponing an inevitable showdown between rival factions in and around Basra, British troops are being asked to risk their lives for. Might not Britain's limited military resources be better switched to Afghanistan, where there are clearer military and political objectives? It is one of the most important questions Britain's incoming Prime Minister has to face.

Just as no one quite knew what would happen after Saddam Hussein was toppled - and most official guesses proved disastrously wrong - no one now knows what would follow if America and its partners reversed their invasion and pulled out. History shows that things often become worse before they improve - Britain's withdrawal from Palestine triggered a war between Israelis and Palestinians; Britain's withdrawal from India accelerated the massacre of a million Muslims and Hindus. In neither case, however, has history judged Britain's withdrawal a long-term mistake, morally or militarily. Separating two sides who want to fight is an admirable human impulse, but not always the wisest course unless the sources of the friction can also be addressed. There is nothing whatever the British can do to persuade two tribes of Shia Muslims in the south to live in peace together if they will not. Certainly the Americans cannot resolve the age-old split between Shia Muslims and Sunnis further north. This is true of conflicts throughout history the world over. After a bloodbath, dreadful though it may be, civil society does slowly heal and recover.

What has obscured these lessons of history from the minds of decision-makers is the misleading rhetoric of the "war on terror", which sees only black and white, us and them, friend and foe, in an apocalyptic battle for the soul of civilisation. If there was one breakthrough needed in Iraq, it is for the official minds in Washington and Whitehall to start thinking outside that narrow box.

Back to homepage