|
The next steps for Iraq
4.10.2006
By Jackson Diehl |
|
|
|
WASHINGTON - The
campaign season debate about Iraq, which circled
last week around the question of whether the war has
increased global terrorism, might suggest that
Washington is nowhere near facing the critical
question of what to do about the actual situation on
the ground. Yet behind President Bush's "we're
safer" rhetoric and the answering shouts of
"fiasco," the most serious debate about U.S. Iraq
strategy in three years is quietly emerging. Shortly
after the election it should take center stage.
The central question for discussion is this: Should
the United States continue to depend on Iraq's
"unity" government and army to carry out the
political, military and economic measures needed to
stabilize the country -- most important, a political
settlement among its warring sectarian factions? Or
is it necessary to override the new political system
and mount some sort of intervention, led by the
United States and perhaps other governments, to
force the necessary deals?
President Bush has been hinting about this decision
point ever since Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's
visit to Washington in July. "Iraq can count on our
partnership as long as the new government continues
to make the hard decisions necessary to advance a
unified, democratic and peaceful Iraq," Bush said in
an Aug. 31 speech. Administration officials say the
passage was a warning deliberately aimed at al-Maliki.
A more explicit signal came in a Sept. 19 news
conference by former Secretary of State James Baker
and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who are leading a
congressionally mandated and Bush-blessed commission
to consider options for Iraq. The panel long ago
decided not to make recommendations until after the
November elections. So why hold a news conference in
September?
Perhaps so that Hamilton could make this statement:
"The government of Iraq needs to show its own
citizens soon, and the citizens of the United
States, that it is deserving of continuing support.
The next three months are critical. Before the end
of this year, this government needs to show progress
in securing Baghdad, pursuing national
reconciliation and delivering basic services."
At least some in al-Maliki's government are hearing
the warning. Two of its most pro-American officials,
Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi and Deputy Prime
Minister Barham Salih, appeared in Washington in
September. Mahdi, a Shiite, pleaded for more time,
saying that Washington could not expect the new
government to deliver results on a timetable
measured in months. Salih, a Kurd, took a different
tack, listing a string of measures he said would be
approved by parliament before the end of the year.
In fact, amid the continuing chaos in Baghdad the
parliament has finally begun to act: Last week Sunni
and Shiite deputies struck a preliminary deal on
legislation that would allow the creation of federal
regions and set up a committee to consider
amendments to the constitution. But al-Maliki is
still resisting forceful steps against Shiite
militias; and negotiations with Sunni insurgents
have gone nowhere.
If such sluggishness continues, the Baker-Hamilton
commission, and with it the consensus in Washington,
could be tipped toward the conclusion that the
United States can't look to the new political system
for solutions. That doesn't mean there would be a
precipitous American troop withdrawal; the
commission will almost certainly conclude that such
a step would be disastrous.
Instead, the time may finally be ripe for some of
the ideas that have been doggedly pushed for most of
this year by Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden, who has
been one of his party's most serious and responsible
voices on Iraq. In essence, Biden is proposing that
the United States enlist its NATO allies, U.N.
Security Council members and Iraq's neighbors for an
intervention that would be aimed at forcing
political and sectarian leaders to leap to the
political settlement they are now creeping toward.
The settlement Biden has in mind is the division of
Iraq into highly autonomous regions, dominated,
respectively, by Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. That
solution was the subject of last week's
parliamentary deal, which postponed any action until
2008. A new reconstruction aid program would be
launched; an international conference would commit
Iran, Syria and other neighbors to a nonaggression
pact. International peacekeepers would be recruited
to patrol cities such as Baghdad. Meanwhile, most
U.S. troops would be withdrawn by the end of next
year, except for a residual force that could
intervene against al-Qaeda.
It's easy to find holes in this strategy, as with
any other plan for Iraq. To begin with, Iraqis
simply may not be capable of jumping to a
settlement. Perhaps only the pain of an extended
civil war will get them there. But Biden's basic
idea -- of an external political intervention backed
by an international alliance -- is the one big
option the Bush administration hasn't tried. It
wouldn't be surprising if Baker -- master
orchestrator of the Plaza agreement and the Madrid
conference -- finds it compelling.
washingtonpost com
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 