In its just published Third Quarter Forecast for 2007, private intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting (STRATFOR) predicts that the governments of the United States and Iran "...are now closer than ever to reaching an agreement..." on Iraq. If such a deal is indeed finalized, STRATFOR expects Iraq to "...become somewhat ordered near the quarter's end...." If no agreement can be reached, however, the analysts in downtown Austin foresee full-blown violence that will likely last for several more years.
As things stand now, I believe the likelihood of any U.S.-Iranian pact on Iraq will be sabotaged not by the negotiating parties from Washington and Tehran, but rather by the Iraqis themselves. Thus far it has been the Iraqis that have been the main obstacle to peace, regardless of what the United States and Iran may want to see happen. It is true that foreign fighters have played a role in the continuing violence, making grand efforts to stoke sectarian conflict by attacking Sunni and Shi'a Iraqi civilians indiscriminately. And it is equally true that Iraq has become a central front in the Global War on Terrorism since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. But the main source of the fighting does not stem from the multitude of terrorist organizations operating within Iraq's borders. The chief fomenters of violence are Iraqis, and they are killing each other by the tens of thousands.
Why is this happening? Why would Iraqis insist on sectarian warfare that prevents national reconciliation and the possibility of a stable and secure nation? I suspect that it is because the Iraqis themselves have no real desire to get along with each other and to move the country forward. There is a deep-seated hatred between the three main ethnic groups, a hatred that was violently suppressed under Saddam's ruthless dictatorship, and none of the fighting parties have thus far been willing to take any meaningful action to end the cycle of violence that is preventing political progress and the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces.
There has been some progress in al-Anbar Province, where some Sunni leaders have joined together with coalition forces to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq. And there have been some initial signs of success in Baghdad, where General Petraeus says he sees "astonishing signs of normalcy." But significant numbers of Sunnis still attack American and Iraqi troops and Shi'a militias still roam the streets like vigilante death squads, conducting mass executions and terrorizing the populace. The Syrian border remains porous, with foreign fighters flocking to Iraq to take on American troops. And the Kurds, who have thus far managed to avoid much of the conflict plaguing Iraq, are becoming progressively more vocal in their demands for increased regional autonomy and resolution of the status of oil-rich Kirkuk.
The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is barely functioning, and the police and army forces have been thoroughly infiltrated by sectarian militias more loyal to tribe and sheikh than to the authorities in Baghdad. The population is not secure, and the people refuse to put their faith and trust in a government that cannot protect them. The outlook is grim, but the war is not yet lost.
The final troops involved in President Bush's security plan for greater Baghdad and al-Anbar Province are now in place and the "surge," announced in January, is just now getting fully underway. The purpose of the "surge," to remind readers, is to provide the Iraqi leaders in Baghdad a level of security that will facilitate political progress among the major fighting factions. This means that al-Maliki's government must get control of the militias, and it must resolve the issues of de-Baathification, revenue sharing, regional autonomy, and minority representation in the government.
But above all, it means that Iraqis have to step up to the plate, now more than ever, and demonstrate that they are willing to live together first as Iraqis, and second as Shi'a, Sunni, or Kurd. Time is running out, and the American public's will to keep up the fight is quickly fading. The will of the Congress is already gone. The consequences of failure have been pushed aside in favor of getting out of this mess as quickly as possible.
And while the United States and Iran may reach an agreement on the future of Iraq, it will be meaningless unless Iraqis can take control of their future, moving beyond sectarian division and toward a peaceful and prosperous Iraq that can serve as an example for the rest of the region.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 6
J.B., I don't assume that America has the solution to all of the world's problems. As noted in the article, the private intelligence firm STRATFOR predicts a deal on Iraq is near, while I maintain that the only solution to the conflict in Iraq must come from the Iraqis themselves. The purpose of the surge is to provide an environment conducive to a solution, but the onus ultimately rests with the Iraqis and not us.
However, based on what you said, I agree with many of your conclusions, Greg, although I find your characterization of of the resistance simplistic. Much of this conflict, notably visible in some of the genuine "surge" campaigns, consists of coalitions of local militia and irregulars, fighting what, for them, are often local battles. The situation in Baqouba (northeast of Baghdad) is especially poignant. You have a preponderance of Sunni residents ruled by Shiite provincial government, and shopkeepers and tradesmen pulling rifles out from under the counter to fight the Shia (Iraqi Army) and American military who THEY see as enforcing unjust hegemony over their community. Frankly, I do not believe that is anything Americans signed up for.
"The chief fomenters of violence are Iraqis" - that's great, Greg. You have, however, unintentionally raised the obvious fact that there is no important connection between the violence between militant Iraqis and bin Laden and his henchmen. Maybe this is totally obvious to most of us, but apparently not to the Leader of the Free World, or, to be honest, military commanders in Iraq. Their reference to al-Qaeda has spiked, to the point that you have to think that their commission must depend on a straight-line, or a cell-phone call, from the battlefield opponent to OBL. It is ludicrous, and future writers will make big bucks from pointing this out.
"The Syrian border remains porous, with foreign fighters flocking to Iraq..." - sheezo, Greg, how about the Saudi border? Remember, that is the source of the Sunni (excuse me, the "al-Qaeda," fighters that are challenging the established order. Plenty of documentation is available for not only fighters, but bundles of money for Sunni insurgencies, crossing the frontier from SA.
"Kurds... are becoming progressively more vocal..." What matters is Turkey. There are already reports of cross-border sorties by Turkish military. US diplomacy is so incredibly invisible (ok, non-existent) that it is despairing.
I provided a link to STRATFOR's web site, but not to the actual article. They are a subscription service, and I didn't want to infringe on the copyright and violate my subscription terms.
I don't think you can just dismiss AQ outright. There is a presence in Iraq, and AQ fighters are conducting attacks against Shi'a and Sunnis to stoke the sectarian violence. But they are not responsible for the preponderance of the violence. I think the president and Petraeus / Odierno focus on AQ for two reasons: 1) a tangible link to the group that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, even though the level of cooperation between AQI and AQ proper is unclear; and 2) taking out AQI would lead to a reduction in violence, at least for the more sensational attacks. Overall, though, I have my doubts about how much of a reduction there would be.
As for the borders, most accounts that I have read indicate that the Syrian border is the biggest problem, although it is certainly true that the borders with Iran and Saudi Arabia are problematic as well. The Syrians just want to be included in any deal that comes down, in order to bolster their position and gain leverage for their dealings with Lebanon. The Saudis are concerned more about spreading Iranian influence and the rise of Shi'a power in the region than they are about Iraqi Sunnis. Iraq's Sunnis merely provide an avenue for the Saudis to try to check the Iranian power play in Iraq.
The US is caught in a bind with the Kurds. Turkey is a NATO ally, and we can't side with the Kurds if they continue to harbor and abet the PKK. Yet, we can't abandon the Kurds, either, because they have been the most helpful group inside of Iraq itself. Any Turkish incursions into Iraq are closely coordinated with the US, even if the rest of the world can't see it.
Thanks for the comments Dave.