The Real Mission: Strategies for Stabilizing Iraq POLITICALLY

General Clark: “When the president flew out to the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and posed under the banner that read, Mission Accomplished, he made it clear that he did not understand the scope of the mission.”

All of the speakers here acknowledged that the situation in Iraq is not only terribly complex and complicated, but that the next six months will be absolutely crucial in deciding whether this country is able to stabilize itself and get on-track to being able to protect itself, govern itself, and provide basic services to its populace—or whether it will degenerate into a catastrophic civil war that could spread to the entire region.

One of my readers asked in a comment, basically, What does it matter whether or not there’s a civil war in Iraq? Those people have been fighting against one another for centuries. Let’s get out of there and let them fight it out.

But no country stands alone. They all have borders, neighbors, allies and enemies. What happens within the borders of one country can ignite a world war, as when a political ruler was assassinated in Sarajevo, sparking WWI.

The reason this is important is that in Iraq, the Shiite Muslims are the overwhelming majority. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim, so even though they were in the minority, they ruled the country with an iron fist. Now the Shiites have taken control of the Constitutional process and of the government, through the recent elections.

Iran is a predominantly Shiite nation, and in their recent elections, a religious zealot took over the helm, one with avowed hatred of our ally Israel and one who has ignored all international demands that Iran quit developing nuclear capabilities.

The dangers of not stabilizing Iraq politically were eloquently set forth by General Clark just this past December in the New York Times: “While Amercan troops have been fighting and dying against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave.

“Iraq’s neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer-state that will strengthen Tehran’s power in the Persian Gulf just as it seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel.”

Not that I’m a big fan of Saddam’s or anything, but under his rule, the country was not dominated by clerics who, in their most extreme form, can create a horrific situation such as what we saw in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Now that he’s gone, the clerics have begun wielding their influence. So far, it has been measured, but before we can pull out, we must ensure that there are checks and balances on their power.

The Constitution that was recently voted on in Iraq heavily favors the Shiites. This is partly the Sunni’s own fault, because they did not participate fully in that election, but when they began to show an interest in the political process, they were promised that some changes would be made in that very Constitution that would be more fair toward them.

But when the Shiites made such a strong showing at the polls, they began to renig on that promise, setting off dangerous rumblings in the Sunni community. As Senator Biden put it, “The Iraqi Constitution cannot be salvaged by military might alone. Unless changes are made by spring, it will be the document that divides.”

“If there’s no political concensus,” he continues, “our troops will be forced to fight a civil war on behalf of the Kurds and Shiites against the Sunnis.”

Even more important to the stability of Iraq is the necessity to get a government underway that can actually function.

All the speakers at the roundtable expressed immense frustration at the Administration’s habit of trotting out numbers of Iraqi troops that have been trained to take over their own security.

But as an expert on the Middle East, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote in a piece called “The Measure of Success,” published December 21, 2005, “The Iraqi Army will have the will to fight only if its soldiers have a government they believe in and are motivated to defend.”

Senator Biden spelled it out clearly when he explained how government ministries in Iraq, “make FEMA look like a model of efficiency.”

Here is the most important political point, so important I’m going to bold-face it.
“Even the most capable troops will not make a difference if they cannot be supplied, sustained, and directed.” (Senator Biden.)

In other words—you can have the most beautifully trained troops in the world in Iraq, but if their government cannot PAY THEM, cannot ARM THEM, cannot HOUSE AND FEED THEM…then what have you got?

Beautifully trained troops for the Shiite and Sunni militias to fight their beautiful civil war.

Other political issues that need to be settled (quickly) according to our speakers are:

* Oil revenues must go to a central government and not to the Shiite majority, (just because that’s where it is pumped out of the ground)
* The Shiites must not form an autonomous group in the south.
* The Kurds must not be permitted to form an independent country.
* All ethnic and religious groups must be fairly represented in the government ministries.

There are several suggestions for ways we can help these goals along. First of all, everyone agrees that Ambassador Khalilzad is doing a skillful and diplomatic job, but the Bush Administration left a void after Paul Bremer departed for MONTHS. The Iraqis were forced to hammer out their Constitution without our guidance and assistance, which is one reason it has so many problems.

However, Ambassador Khalilzad (better late than never) can’t do it alone.

Both General Clark and Senator Biden proposed—as long as five months ago—that the American civilian diplomatic corps, as well as advisors and technical experts, be required to serve in Iraq for as long as two years, just as the military is asked to do. They can provide invaluable assistance in working out the knots that keep snarling up the Iraqi bureaucracy.

Just the other day, I heard a press release from Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice that said just that—from now on, the foreign service will be ordered to spend some time in Iraq.

It’s a good idea. I wonder where she got it.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain has also floated an idea that individual countries could be partnered with various ministries to aid in making them more efficient. His idea was ignored by the US but it might be worth studying further.

Next I’m going to talk about things that Democratic leaders have suggested the world community can do to help us stabilize Iraq.