Headlines 09/08-09/16

New York Times
September 16, 2008
“Odierno Succeeds Patraeus in Iraq”
Thom Shanker, Stephen Farrell

The position of Commander of multinational forces in Iraq changes hands during a formal ceremony in Baghdad. Former No. 2 commander, Gen. Ray Ordierno expresses caution about maintaining security gains resulting from the surge in the wake of troop withdrawals.

Los Angeles Times
September 16, 2008
“Iraq's Nouri Maliki breaking free of U.S.”
Ned Parker

Ned Parker explains how a series of pivotal military victories by the Iraq army have altered Iraqi opinion of Prime Minister Maliki. Now a “decisive commander in chief”, Maliki is asserting his power and demanding a U.S. troop withdrawal by 2011 leaving Iraq open to Iranian influence as U.S. control wanes.

The New York Times
Wednesday September 15, 2008
“Inside the new Green Zone”
Andy Arkell

From inside Iraq, Andy Arkell observes that in Baghdad there is a transition in checkpoint supervision from International military to Iraqi security personnel. Arkell notes that the interesting trend of Iraqi soldiers tightening checkpoint security denotes a strengthening of Iraqi control and confidence.

Weekend Edition Saturday
National Public Radio
September 13, 2008
“Evaluating The Surge In Iraq”

"I would characterize the surge as necessary but insufficient to bring about the violence reduction that we've seen." Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations talks with host Scott Simon about elements that made the military surge in Iraq effective, and about other key factors that reduced violence.

Morning Edition
National Public Radio
September 12, 2008
“Iraq Puts Sunni Paramilitary Groups To Work”

After strong pressure from the U.S. military, the Iraqi government has agreed to employ the so-called Awakening Councils. These are largely Sunni paramilitary groups who turned against al-Qaida and allied themselves with U.S. forces. But the Awakening membership mistrusts the Iraqi government. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro reports from Baghdad.

The New York Times
September 8, 2008
“Should We Stay or Should We Go?”
Stephen Farrell

Stephen Farrell hits the streets of Baghdad to ask the Iraqi people what they think about an American troop withdrawal. Farrell elaborates on three frequently expressed opinions he encounters during his conversations.

Photo Caption #1: Gen. David H. Petraeus, seated, reacted Tuesday to a standing ovation in Baghdad. Max Becherer for The New York Times

Photo Caption #2: An Iraqi boy watches as American soldiers secure the scene in the aftermath of a car bomb that detonated near an American Army checkpoint. Moises Saman for The New York Times

U.S. House Members Ask: Are Security Gains in Iraq Sustainable with Less Troops?

"The end of the war was never considered," declared Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the second ranking Democrat on the U.S. House Armed Services Committee. Thus began yesterday's hearing on U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen. A lot of discussion focused on plans to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq to pre-surge levels (less than 140,000) by February 2009.

According to Secretary Gates, "This continuing drawdown is possible because of the success achieved in reducing violence and building Iraqi security capacity."

However, Republican Rep. John M. McHugh of New York questioned the sustainability of security improvements and building up Iraqi security capacity while drawing down U.S. forces. He cited a July 2008 GAO report that finds significant deficiencies in the training of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), including a shortage of U.S. personnel. According to the GAO, the U.S. military has failed to develop a comprehensive strategy to solve the shortage of manpower for training the ISF. Admiral Mullen said plans for comprehensive training are being addressed and that the root problem is a need for more personnel to train private security contractors (PSCs).

Secretary Gates also expressed caution about the rate of future troop withdrawals. Covering the hearing, today's Washington Post reports:

Despite their focus on Afghanistan, both Gates and Mullen said that the situation in Iraq remains uncertain and could require more forces in the future. "I worry that the great progress" by U.S. and Iraqi forces could override caution and lead to an excessively rapid drawdown, said Gates, noting that U.S. commanders in Iraq remain concerned about "many challenges and potential for reversals." In sum, he said, "we should expect to be involved in Iraq for years to come, although in changing and increasingly limited ways."

Another challenge to ensuring sustainable security in Iraq is the flagging development of Iraqi institutions and civil society, something Secretary Gates acknowledged in his testimony. However, when a Representative pointedly asked if Iraq is "coup-proof", Gates failed to mention the role that a strong civilian government and civil society can play in preventing a military takeover or return to widespread sectarian violence. Instead, he highlighted the Government of Iraq's reappointment of new military leaders as helping to ensure that all factions of Iraqi society feel represented and protected.

Indeed, writing "How to Leave a Stable Iraq" for Foreign Affairs, coauthors Stephen Biddle at the Council on Foreign Relations and Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack at the Brookings Institution highlight improvements in the ISF's composition and leadership.

Sectarian, corrupt, incompetent, and turncoat officers have been removed. Aggressive recruitment and new amnesty and de-Baathification ordinances have led to increases in both the number of Sunnis, especially in the officer corps, and the number of people with prior military experience in the forces. Now, about 80 percent of the Iraqi army's officers and 50 percent of its rank and file are veterans of Saddam Hussein's military, and one of the most capable units in the Iraqi army, the First Brigade of the First Infantry Division, is 60 percent Sunni

Of course, making Iraq both "coup proof" and peaceful will require additional democratic safeguards and a more holistic approach to building security. For example, consider the stabilizing role of humanitarian relief and protection for 4.8 million displaced Iraqis (nearly 17% of Iraq's entire population). Large numbers of Iraqi middle-class professionals -- desperately needed for Iraq's recovery and development -- have fled to Syria, Jordan, and other nearby countries. In addition, women, young children, and the elderly -- all of whom are the least likely to perpetrate violence -- are disproportionately represented among the dispossessed. By working to ensure the survival of all of these displaced Iraqis and by creating conditions in Iraq that allow many to eventually return -- voluntarily, in safety, and with dignity -- the U.S. and international community can support a 'virtuouse cycle' that leads to lasting peace and prosperity in Iraq.

Likewise, strengthening civilian institutions, improving public education, expanding access to health care, providing reliable electricity, and supporting the development of a vibrant Iraqi middle class are essential elements of healthy democracies.

To phase out the heavy U.S. military presence in Iraq responsibly, safely and with the careful consideration that was lacking at the war's inception, a re-balancing of U.S. policy on Iraq is needed. Congress ought to hold additional hearings to assess the U.S. administration's response to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq and the region, and what more can be done to stabilize Iraq through effective humanitarian relief and development assistance.

Photo Caption: Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen testifies before a House panel on developing security conditions and U.S. military requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan (Source: Washington Post, 9/10/08, photo by Mark Wilson, Getty Images).

The Future of the U.S. Military Presence in Iraq

This morning I attended The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) panel concerning The Future of the U.S. Military Presence in Iraq. It featured Kimberly Kagan of The Institute for the Study of War, Colin Kahl of The Center for a New American Security, Charles Knight of The Project on Defense Alternatives at the Commonwealth Institute, and Rend al-Rahim of the USIP. The panel was moderated by Daniel Serwer, also of USIP. Also in attendance was Marc Lynch, better known as the author of Abu Aardvark. Lynch reports:

To very briefly summarize, Kimberly Kagan laid out the familiar argument for the surge's success and the great progress being made, with more nuance and caveats than in some of her op-eds (but still drawing this from Colin Kahl: "I guess I see the glass half-empty, and Kim sees the glass as... overflowing"). Charles Knight gave a highly cogent presentation of the Commonwealth Institute's "Quickly, Carefully, Generously" report, arguing passionately that there will be no real political reconciliation until American military forces leave. Colin Kahl presented the Center for a New American Security's "Shaping the Iraqi Inheritance" report calling for "conditional engagement", arguing for the need to move away from 'Iraq centrism' (strategic interests actually exist beyond Iraq's borders, if you can believe it) and 'Iraq maximalism' (holding our policies hostage to outcomes manifestly beyond our capabilities to produce). Finally, Rend al-Rahim laid out a devastating depiction of Iraq's current situation, and - perhaps surprisingly - offered a wholehearted endorsement of Kahl's description of Iraq and policy recommendations.

Charles Knight spoke about the impact of the refugee crisis in Iraq: "The price we and others are paying for these blunders is not measured in blood and treasure alone – although these costs are already terribly high." He pointed to the Task Force report, which addresses one example of the extraordinary costs of the war:

There are now millions of refugees and millions of internally displaced persons, totally nearly 15% of the Iraq population. The displacement of a proportional number of Americans would mean: 45 million forced from their homes, the equivalent of emptying out the population of America’s ten largest cities. This happened under the American watch in Iraq. It is an immense failure for an occupying power; one we still respond to in the most "care less" of ways.

I noted that only two of the four panelists, Colin Kahl and Rend al-Rahim, used the phrase "sustainable security" in regard to the future of Iraq. In all my shaky earnestness, I got up to the microphone and pointed out this fact, and then proceeded to ask the first question in Q&A session:

"My question pertains to the ongoing process of securing peace in Iraq. In the opinion of the panelists, how is the future of peace in Iraq effected by the ticking time-bomb of 4.7 million displaced Iraqis, and what are the potential future effects of this deepening crisis, such as the unmet needs of those with no access to livelihoods?"

Rend al-Rahim replied that the dire conditions in which large numbers of refugees in Syria and Jordan live could breed radicalization, and therefore make refugees prone to taking extremist positions. Colin Kahl emphasized that clear and well-enforced property rights laws for returning internally displaced persons and refugees will be very important in securing a peaceful transition to regular life once refugees are resettled, but this will be a difficult task. Kahl also suggested that the IDPs be allowed to vote in the upcoming elections.

I applaud their recognition of the huge role that vulnerable refugees will play in the future and for understanding that the reactions of the displaced will have a huge impact on the future of Iraq and therefore should be considered when discussing America's role in the conflict.

Photo Caption: Panelists speak about the future of the U.S. military in Iraq at a forum hosted by the United States Institute of Peace

Improved Iraqi Army and the Latest ICG Report

I found an interesting article released by the Associated Press last week about the improving capacity of the Iraqi army, entitled "US pleased, worried by newfound Iraqi confidence." The reporter talked with high ranking military personnel in both the American and Iraqi armies. In an interview, American officers credited the new-found confidence of the Iraqi army to its transformative performance in the battle in Basra in March, followed by offensives in Mosul and Sadr City. The emerging strength of the Iraqi army is an encouraging sign that America may soon be able to responsibly draw down its troop presence. However, a stronger and more assertive Iraqi army also creates concerns on the part of Americans. Given the weakness of Iraq's civilian institutions, the reduction in U.S. control "feeds a worry that Iraqi security forces will either set themselves up for a catastrophic failure or might even decide - at some point when the Americans have largely departed - that the country would be better off under military rule."

Also, the International Crisis Group recently released a report entitled, "Failed Responsibility: Iraqi Refugees in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon". Despite the current security improvements that Iraq is seeing, in terms of the number displaced, the refugee crisis continues to be one of the most massive in the world. The international community and the Iraqi government in particular have failed to meet their responsibilities in providing for vulnerable Iraqis. The ICG report details the serious challenges yet to be adequately addressed and recommends genuine actions that the United States, Iraq, and other members of the international community should take to meet their responsibility to the Iraqi people.

Photo Caption: Members of the Iraqi military stand in line