If you break it, you own it

It's not looking good for the two Western coalitions operating in Muslim lands: not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan. The insurgency in parts of south-eastern Afghanistan is in full swing, with casualties on all sides and no immediate prospect for victory. One British soldier described it as "the toughest fighting I have ever seen". Baghdad, he said, was "a walk in the park" compared to what's happening in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the daily barrage of bad news from Iraq hasn't stopped. Only yesterday, eleven people were shot dead by Iraqi militants who stormed the offices of a new satellite television channel in Baghdad. Elsewhere in the Iraqi capital, a string of bomb blasts killed at least eight people. No surprise, then, that even people who are not normally known to be sympathisers of the "Stop the War" coalition have concluded that something isn't quite right. A number of British military argue, some more openly and others, that troops should be pulled out of Iraq in order to free up resources for Afghanistan. In turn, the head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, said that the troop withdrawal from Iraq should start "sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems". The two arguments, though seemingly similar, are quite different. Dannatt makes a statement about Iraq, and it is one that's worth considering. The continued presence of Western troops in Iraq, regardless of what one thought about the war, could be justified because we thought they were preventing the country from descending into civil war. If even hard-nosed generals now believe that the Western military presence isn't preventing but creating civil strife, perhaps we really should think again. The bottom line is that, having invaded the country, we can't just run away from our responsibilities. In Colin Powell's memorable words, "if you break it, you own it". At the same time, if our obligation is best served by withdrawing, then that's what the Coalition should do. This is different from the first argument. Saying we should withdraw from Iraq because the troops are needed in Afghanistan isn't about responsibilities. It's about resources. It means we abandon our responsibilities when they become inconvenient. It means our commitment to Iraq only stands as long as there is nothing else, nothing supposedly more important to do? In short, the first argument is about honouring one's commitments. The second is about abandoning them. The difference couldn't be greater. If we don't have the resources to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan, we must make them available. The British Brigadier in Helmand province says he needs more helicopters, not more troops. If that is so, we should give him what he wants. If our troops in Iraq do more harm than good, it's worth contemplating a withdrawal. But that decision should be made with the welfare of the Iraqi people in mind, not whether Afghanistan is causing us more trouble. Both are commitments we need to honour.