Editorial: Kerry victory looks best hope for Iraq

The United States presidency is, by and large, decided on domestic issues. Americans tend to cast their votes on the basis of their own, and their country's, economic well-being. Only an event of calamitous proportion on the international stage alters this mindset. Vietnam was one such instance; Richard Nixon was elected to extract the US from that conflict. Likewise, the farcical failure of the Iran hostage mission was the final straw for an unpopular Jimmy Carter. Now it seems that events in Iraq have deteriorated to such a degree that George W. Bush may well share the same fate.

All polls point the same way for the President. A year ago, a CBS News poll found that two-thirds of Americans approved of the job he was doing. Two weeks ago, the approval rating had slumped to 44 per cent; now, it is 41 per cent. A Washington Post poll was somewhat more comforting for Mr Bush, finding that 47 per cent approved of his performance. The trend, however, was still ominous. No recent President has been re-elected with such low numbers this close to the November elections. Indeed, Mr Bush's own father lost out after recording a similar rating at the same time of the electoral cycle.

Iraq, of course, is not the President's only woe. Soaring oil prices and a stuttering economic recovery are not helping his re-election prospects. But there is no doubt that the Iraqi muddle is doing most of the damage. The most recent CBS News poll found 61 per cent of Americans disapproved of his handling of Iraq. In that context, President Bush's televised speech at the US Army War College in Pennsylvania, was particularly significant. Regrettably, the address, while rich in rhetoric about the nobler side of the American mission, was poor in projecting a way out of the present morass, both for the US and for the people of Iraq. No new ideas or strategies were presented; only superficial salves such as the bulldozing of the Abu Ghraib prison.

Worse still, the White House remains unwilling to respond to the counsel of the international community. Even Britain recognises that the planned interim Iraqi government must have final control over a United Nations-authorised multinational force. And that any other arrangement would make a mockery of that government's independence, and ridicule the transferral of sovereignty. Yet Washington is equally adamant its troops will continue to be under US command. "Ultimately ... US forces remain under US command and will do what is necessary to protect themselves," said Colin Powell, the Secretary of State.

The folly of this course has prompted opposition even from those appointed by the US to the Iraqi Governing Council. The council's new head, Ghazi al-Yawar, said that a UN Security Council endorsement of the planned June 30 handover must give Iraq full control over troops on its soil and its oil. Clearly, this will be essential if the interim government is to have any measure of authority and authenticity. That government will, initially at least, be seen as a pawn of the US occupiers, and must survive a terrorism campaign that will seek to destabilise it at every turn. Its only chance of success is to be perceived by the Iraqi people as the standard-bearer of genuine sovereignty.

The interim government is meant to run Iraq until elections for a national assembly, which are scheduled to be held by January. By then, the outcome of the US presidential race will be known. The best hope for Iraq is that the winner will be the Democrat John Kerry. He has repeatedly urged Mr Bush to reach out to the international community for help in Iraq. The White House, however, continues to embrace unity only if it can be achieved on its own terms. It appears that Mr Kerry would be well disposed to a UN mandate. That represents the best option for democracy and stability in Iraq. Hopefully, it will be given its chance before it is too late.

Herald Feature: Iraq