Joint U.S.-Iraq-Kurdish Patrols In Disputed Areas Remains A Political Football

In mid-August 2009, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq General Ray Odierno proposed joint U.S.-Iraqi-Kurdish patrols in Ninewa. The Americans made the proposal after a series of mass casualty bombings rocked the province. The offer was later extended to all of the disputed territories in northern Iraq. The idea originated from a joint military command set up outside of Kirkuk to coordinate security operations between American, Iraqi, and Kurdish peshmerga forces. The purpose of the patrols is to increase cooperation and communication between Iraqi and Kurdish forces, which have often been at odds with each other, and close the security gaps that the insurgents have been able to exploit between them to carry out attacks.

General Odierno met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Kurdish President Massoud Barzani about the plan. The Kurdish authorities immediately welcomed the idea, as did the Kurdish Ninewa Fraternal List. The main opponents of the plan have been Sunni Arab and Turkmen parties and politicians. Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, expressed concerns about the idea when he met with Vice President Joe Biden in mid-September 2009 during his trip to Iraq. A few days before on September 12 a group of Turkmen demonstrated against the U.S. plan in Kirkuk. Earlier on September 1 Arab and Turkmen marched together in opposition to the idea as well. The Arab bloc in the Tamim provincial council also threatened a boycott if the patrols were implemented, and the al-Hadbaa controlled provincial council in Ninewa was also critical of the concept in August. The most inflammatory statement however, came from the al-Hadbaa governor of Ninewa Atheel al-Najafi who said that joint patrols in his province would influence the 2010 parliamentary elections in favor of the Kurds, and that therefore voting in Kurdish areas of Ninewa should be cancelled.

With the joint patrol concept creating that many divisive opinions, they’re unlikely to be implemented for now. There may be specific towns where local officials might be able to work something out, but otherwise the issue is becoming a political football between Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen. With parliamentary elections coming up in January 2010 as well, politicians are likely to take up the issue one way or the other to promote their own agendas further complicating the matter.

SOURCES

AK News, “Kurds welcome Americans Kirkuk proposal,” 8/20/09
- “Kurdish areas in Nineveh spark sharp disputes,” 9/17/09

Aswat al-Iraq, “Arab bloc in Kirkuk threatens to boycott council,” 9/3/09
- “Hashemi voices reservations about joint forces presence in Kirkuk, Ninewa,” 9/16/09

International Crisis Group, “Iraq and the Kurds: Trouble Along the Trigger Line,” 7/8/09

Nordland, Rod and Dagher, Sam, “U.S. Will Release More Members of an Iraqi Militia,” New York Times, 8/18/09

Radio Sawa, “A demonstration in Kirkuk against the proposed deployment of a joint disputed areas,” 9/12/09

Visser, Reidar, “Maliki’s Northern Headache, and How General Odierno Is Compounding It,” Iraq And Gulf Analysis, 9/9/09

U.S. Forces Restricted To Rural Areas and Reconstruction

After the June 30, 2009 deadline to withdraw from Iraq’s cities, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki set stringent restrictions upon the movement of U.S. troops. This caught U.S. commanders by surprise as they expected to largely continue on with their patrols, training missions, supply convoys, etc. as they had before. Instead, Maliki ended all joint patrols, refused to pass on requests by Iraqi commanders for aid from Americans, and basically restricted most U.S. troops to their bases. Re-supply trips were only allowed at night, U.S. advisers already with Iraqi forces, and checks on reconstruction projects were largely the only operations allowed by the government. In Baghdad, there are only a few hundred U.S. soldiers out in the city as a result. The fact that the government failed to properly inform the public and Iraqi forces about these rules also led to a number of confrontations as well. For example, Iraqis would call the authorities every time they saw U.S. forces without an Iraqi escort, and Iraqi police and soldiers would not allow American troops through checkpoints.

Two and a half months since the June pullback, and U.S. troops find themselves concentrating on Iraq’s rural areas and reconstruction projects. Maliki’s restrictions on joint patrols in major cities are still in places with the exception of Mosul. Out in the countryside however, the rules are not as strict and U.S. troops have been going out with their Iraqi counterparts. Americans are also allowed to check on reconstruction projects with Iraqi approval, which gives them another way to get out of their bases.

The reason that Baghdad has placed such tight limits on the U.S. is because of Maliki’s 2010 re-election campaign. One of the issues that he is running on is the claim that he got the U.S. to leave Iraq. The Prime Minister is also pushing for the referendum on Status of Forces Agreement to coincide with the January voting. If Iraqis vote it down, U.S. combat troops will have to leave Iraq by January 2011, instead of the planned for December 31, 2011 date. Maliki’s plans have been complicated by the recent increase in deaths, but so far he seems willing to accept these casualties because asking for U.S. aid would be seen as a major reversal for him. This gamble may not pay off as the August 19, 2009 Baghdad bombings have brought into doubt his whole approach to security.

SOURCES

Alsumaria, “Iraq Commander: No need for US troops,” 7/21/09

Gatehouse, Gabriel, “US troops back on patrol in Iraq,” BBC, 7/28/09

Knights, Michael and Ali, Ahmed, “Putting Iraq’s Security Agreement to the Vote: Risks and Opportunities,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy,” 8/24/09

Lawrence, Quil, “To Many Iraqis, U.S. Troops Have Not Faded Away,” Morning Edition, NPR, 7/13/09

Londono, Ernesto, “U.S. Troops in Iraq Find Little Leeway,” Washington Post, 7/20/09

Londono, Ernesto and DeYoung, Karen, “Iraq Restricts U.S. Forces,” Washington Post, 7/18/09

Nordland, Rod, “Iraqis Take the Lead, With U.S. Trailing Closely,” New York Times, 8/9/09

Shabad, Rebecca, “Iraq City Security: ‘Uneven,’” Newsweek, 6/30/09

Sly, Liz, “In Iraq, U.S. troops learn to cope with rejection,” Los Angeles Times, 9/7/09

Tharp, Mike, “Iraqis have told U.S. military no patrols permitted in Baghdad,” McClatchy Newspapers, 7/14/09

U.S. Holds Talks Between Al-Hadbaa And Kurds In Ninewa

Iraq The Model recently reported on a story from al-Sharq al-Awsat on U.S. sponsored talks between the ruling al-Hadbaa party in Ninewa and the Kurdish Ninewa Fraternal List. The meeting included two members of al-Hadbaa who hold 19 of the 37 provincial seats, two members of the Fraternal List who have twelve seats, a member of the Iraqi Islamic Party who have three seats, and several American officials. The U.S. was said to be working on these negotiations since at least August 2009. The Kurdish emissaries were quoted as saying that they welcomed the discussions.

Currently the Fraternal List is boycotting the provincial council since they got no positions after the 2009 elections, and 16 administrative units controlled by the Kurds in Ninewa are refusing to follow the directives of al-Hadbaa. The war of words between the two sides has only gotten worse in recent weeks. The dispute is also giving the insurgents room to operate as they are playing up Arab fears of the Kurds, and the lack of cooperation between al-Hadbaa and the Fraternal List is creating security holes, which militants have been able to exploit with attacks. The question now is how much of an effort will the Americans put into these talks, and whether al-Hadbaa and the Fraternal List are willing to compromise. So far, several Iraqi parties have tried to mediate, but to no avail. It seems for now the two sides are willing to talk, but little else.

SOURCES

Aswat al-Iraq, “Mosul parties’ intransigence encumbered IIP initiative – spokesman,” 8/16/09
- “Sadrist delegation in Mosul to defuse crisis,” 6/13/09

Al-Badrani, Jamal, “Qaeda stronger as blasts feed Iraqi Kurd-Arab feud,” Reuters, 8/16/09

Dagher, Sam, “Minorities Trapped in Northern Iraq’s Maelstrom,” New York Times, 8/16/09

Iraq The Model, “U.S. sponsored talks between Nineveh’s Arabs and Kurds,” 9/7/09

Mohsen, Amer, “Iraq Papers Wed: A Wounded Country,” IraqSlogger.com, 6/23/09

Joint U.S.-Iraq-Kurdish Patrols Okayed In Ninewa Objected To In Kirkuk

August 2009 saw a sharp increase in mass casualty bombings across Iraq. After Baghdad, Ninewa was the hardest hit. On August 9 a suicide bomber struck a mosque in Mosul killing 23 and wounding 130. The next day two truck bombs hit the village of Khazna in eastern Ninewa killing 20 and wounding 110. Finally, on August 13 a suicide truck bomber attacked a café in Sinjar killing 20 and wounding 35.

Tensions were already high in the province due to the divide between the Kurdish Ninewa Fraternal List and the ruling al-Hadbaa party, and the two sides blamed each other for the violence. In response the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq General Ray Odierno suggested creating joint U.S.-Iraqi-Kurdish patrols in Ninewa. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the head of the Fraternal List initially welcomed the idea, and on September 1, 2009 it was announced that the joint operations would go ahead in the Mosul suburbs, the capital of Ninewa. The Americans have already set up similar patrols outside of Kirkuk in Tamim province, and are seen as a way to foster cooperation between Arabs and Kurds, so they could be a positive move in Ninewa as well since things have only gotten worse there politically since the January 2009 provincial elections.

In neighboring Tamim however, Arabs have protested against expanding the program to Kirkuk itself and other parts of the province. On September 3, the Arab bloc on the provincial council said they would conduct a boycott if joint patrols were created within the city of Kirkuk. Then on September 5, 500 people in the town of Huweija demonstrated against the patrols being formed across the rest of the province. The Arabs are probably afraid that the policy will give the Kurds a larger presence in Tamim and Kirkuk then before, and thus upset the delicate balance between groups.

The joint patrols when implemented have apparently helped relieve tensions, but they are only a band-aid. American troops are drawing down so the operations can only last for a set amount of time. The bigger problem is the growing divide between the Fraternal List and al-Hadbaa, Baghdad and Kurdistan, and Arabs and Kurds. This needs U.S. mediation, but Washington doesn’t seem to be giving it much priority. Only the American military seems to be taking the initiative, and that’s not enough.

SOURCES

Agence France Presse, “Humdreds protest against proposed US-Iraq-Kurd force,” 9/5/09

AK News, “Kurds welcome Americans Kirkuk proposal,” 8/20/09

Aswat al-Iraq, “Arab bloc in Kirkuk threatens to boycott council,” 9/3/09
- “Demonstrations in Huweija against tripartite force,” 9/5/09
- “Iraqi-Kurdish-U.S. security teams in Mosul-source,” 9/1/09
- “Mosul mosque blast death toll up to 38, wounded 90,” 8/7/09
- “Mosul truck bombs casualties rise to 153,” 8/10/09
- “Sinjar suicide blast casualties up to 55,” 8/13/09
- “Truck bombs kill 20, wound 110 in Mosul,” 8/10/09

Graeber, Daniel, “arab-kurdish divide dominating u.s. agenda,” Niqash, 9/1/09

International Crisis Group, “Iraq and the Kurds: Trouble Along the Trigger Line,” 7/8/09

Juhi, Bushra, “Iraqi Arabs protest US plan for Kurdish patrols,” Associated Press, 9/5/09

Nordland, Rod and Dagher, Sam, “U.S. Will Release More Members of an Iraqi Militia,” New York Times, 8/17/09

The U.S. Needs To Save Iraq From Itself Says Analyst

Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution has been one of the long-time American commentators on Iraq. He recently wrote a piece for The National Interest journal entitled “The Battle for Baghdad". In it he argues that Iraqis, left to their own devices will destroy the gains made in Iraq since the Surge. He warns that the older political parties that took over after the 2003 invasion are still clinging to power, and are willing to bring down Iraqi democracy to maintain their positions. According to Pollack the only thing standing in the way of this happening is the United States. Even that is endangered because of the moves of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Like most of his think tank counterparts, Pollack is arguing for a long-term American diplomatic and military presence in Iraq to act as peacekeepers and mediators. Without them Pollack believes that Iraqis will only think about their own short-term interests to the detriment of the country.

Pollack begins with two conversations he had with Iraq politicians after the January 2009 provincial elections. The first was with a group that was opposed to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They started off assuring Pollack that they had enough supporters for a no confidence vote against the Prime Minister in parliament, but in the end they admitted that Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council opposed this idea because it would go against the recent balloting that was in Maliki’s favor. The absence of Hakim’s support was considered a deal breaker. This represents one dynamic of the post sectarian war status quo in Iraq where many of the disputes are now political, and groups abide by the broad rules of the constitution and electoral system. On the other hand, Pollack met with a group of Dawa officials who were sure that Maliki would win in the 2010 parliamentary vote after his victory in 2009. They said the Prime Minister would run on services and security, and blame his opponents for any setbacks, something that’s actually happened recently. On the other hand when these politicians were asked about Maliki creating extra-judicial bodies and going outside standard procedures in the government they attempted to dodge the issues by saying that this was necessary because Iraq’s bureaucracy didn’t work and different political parties controlled the ministries and often didn’t listen to Maliki. This represented the other side of Iraq’s system where many believe that the Prime Minister is acting like leaders of the past and centralizing all authority around himself, which could intentionally or not lead to autocratic rule. To Pollack, this is the ying and the yang of Iraq. On the one hand democracy is taking root however precariously, on the other hand, there are plenty of forces in the country that threaten it.

There are two other issues that Pollack worries about. One is that Iraqi nationalism is making a comeback. This is helping to heal some of the wounds between Sunnis and Shiites created during the sectarian war. On the other hand, Iraqi nationalism is often interpreted as being solely Arab in character and anti-Kurdish. Maliki is playing on this by attempting to militarily confront the Kurds across the disputed territories in the north. There have been several times this has almost turned into shooting, only averted by the presence of U.S. forces. Pollack wonders if Maliki actually resents this outside interference, because he may want a confrontation with the Kurds so that he can rally the Arab public around him. Second, are the old Iraqi parties that have ruled Iraq since the 2005 elections. While he doesn’t name them, he is implying the Supreme Council, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and the Iraqi Accordance Front, all of which either controlled their own militia or had contacts with the insurgency, and used these armed factions to gain political power. Pollack believes that these groups are trying to cling to power, and will do whatever it takes to do so. In the 2010 election for example, they are pushing for a closed list voting system where the electorate only gets to pick from coalitions instead of individuals because this gives party bosses, rather than the public, control over the politicians and government. Pollack thinks both of these are threats to stability and democracy, because Maliki and the old guard parties are only thinking about their own personal gain rather than the future of the country.

Pollack’s solution to all of these problems is a long-term American presence in Iraq. According to him, the U.S. needs to stay to provide support to the government and mediate conflicts. Only the U.S. he writes can help solve the problems between Baghdad and Kurdistan over disputed areas like Kirkuk and federalism. The U.S. needs to make sure that Iraqi prisoners and the Sons of Iraq are treated well. The U.S. needs to push the government to protect minorities. The U.S. needs to pressure Baghdad to increase its capacity and improve the bureaucracy. The Americans need to make sure that party bosses don’t take over the elections, and push for a closed list voting system. The U.S. needs to deal with Maliki’s attempt to centralize power, and corruption. In a nutshell, Pollack believes the U.S. is the only party in Iraq that will think about Iraq. The main lever of influence the U.S. has to achieve this laundry list of items is aid. U.S. advisors still partner with Iraqi units, the security forces are dependent upon the Americans for maintenance and supply, the Iraqi government has U.S. advisors throughout, the Provincial Reconstruction Teams are essential parts of the rebuilding provinces out in the governorates, and the U.S. still provides a large amount of economic aid and advice. All of this assistance needs to be made conditional based upon Baghdad’s compliance with the long list of reforms listed above. This is something many other American think tank writers have argued for over the last few years.

There is one major impediment to overcome to actually achieving this according to Pollack, Prime Minister Maliki. The Prime Minister seems to have an inflated sense of the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces and is playing politics with the U.S. presence. Maliki thinks that the Iraqi forces are going to be ready sooner rather than later so he wants to cut many of the public ties with the U.S. like joint patrols with U.S. forces and the blast walls in Baghdad. More importantly he is pushing for a referendum on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to coincide with the 2010 parliamentary vote. This will give Maliki a powerful tool to run on so he can portray himself as the leader that got the Americans to leave Iraq. He can also use it against his opposition since many support a longer stay for U.S. forces to protect against Maliki’s excesses. If the Iraqi public votes down the SOFA, a definite possibility, than Pollack is afraid U.S. influence will end that election day. A main priority then should be Washington lobbying Maliki to move the referendum to some other time.

Therein lies a major problem with Pollack and others who take this line of argument for a long-term U.S. role in Iraq. There is no real reason for Maliki to change the referendum date because holding it the same time as national balloting will benefit him the most. He has already given up many forms of American military assistance since the June 30, 2009 withdrawal from Iraq’s cities, and that is the greatest piece of leverage the U.S. holds. Iraqi domestic politics is a much greater force now than U.S. influence. The White House therefore, could make all kinds of assistance conditional, and the Iraqis might still not listen. Iraq may turn out to be the prodigal son for the United States, but Pollack and others can’t seem to let go. Ultimately, they seem afraid of Iraqis running their own affairs. Pollack in “The Battle for Baghdad” just happens to be the most explicit in voicing this opinion.

SOURCES

Biddle, Stephen, “Reversal in Iraq,” Center for Preventative Action Council on Foreign Relations, May 2009

Cordesman, Anthony, “Iraq: A Time To Stay?” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 7/30/09

DPA, “Al-Maliki courts Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders,” 8/11/09

Nagl, John and Burton, Brian, “After the Fire: Shaping the Future U.S. Relationship with Iraq,” Center for a New American Security, June 2009

Nordland, Rod, “Bombs Hurt Maliki Case That Iraq Can Guard Itself,” New York Times, 8/21/09

Pollack, Kenneth, “The Battle for Baghdad,” The National Interest, September/October 2009

The Passing Of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim

August 26, 2009 saw the passing of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC). Hakim was a symbol of Iraqi politics immediately after the 2003-invasion. He was an opportunist and pragmatist who was willing to align himself with various groups to gain power. He was widely successful in the early years following the overthrow of Saddam, but then his star began to fade in 2007.

The SIIC has its roots in the Dawa Party and Tehran. In the 1950s, Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr al-Sadr and Ayatollah Mohsen al-Hakim created the Dawa Party rallying Shiites to the cause of an Islamic state. Hakim eventually left Dawa, and in the 1980s fled to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War with his two sons, Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. In 1982 Tehran formed the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq to counter the Dawa Party, and assert more influence over the Iraqi opposition. The Hakims in turn, pledged allegiance to Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution. In 1983 Iran created the Badr Brigade, which was an official arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Qods Force. It fought on the Iranian side in the Iran-Iraq War, and recruited amongst Iraqi prisoners of war. After the Gulf War, Badr moved into southern Iraq and tried to unsuccessfully take over the Shiite uprising. These origins were always a major problem for the SIIC as many Iraqis resented the Hakims fleeing to Iran, their role in the Iran-Iraq War and the 1991 uprisings, and their pro-Khomeini stance.

Despite their Iranian origins, the Hakims were always pragmatic opportunists who would ally with any group that would give them a better chance at gaining power in Iraq. Beginning in the late-1980s they started quiet relations with the United States. In 1992 they joined the Iraqi National Congress, and its leader Ahmad Chalabi, was able to garner Washington’s support for the SIIC as the major Shiite party they would work with after the invasion. They also worked closely with the ruling Kurdish parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq. The three had forged ties when they all fought on the Iranian side in the Iran-Iraq War.

When the 2003 invasion of Iraq occurred, the SIIC was able to sweep into power and assume a larger position than they had support. First, they took over a series of cities like Kut, Khanaqin, Baquba, Basra, Najaf, and Karbala because of the vacuum left from Saddam’s overthrow. They also sank early attempts to include internal Iraqi leaders in any new government put together by the U.S. They quickly aligned themselves with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani as well to gain legitimacy and standing, and supported his call for elections to determine a new government and constitution, knowing that would benefit themselves since Iraq had a Shiite majority. Abdul al-Aziz al-Hakim ended up joining the Iraqi Governing Council, and assumed the leadership of the SIIC, when his brother Ayatollah Mohammed al-Hakim was killed in a car bombing in August 2003.

Beginning in 2005 Hakim and the SIIC were able to put together a string of ringing victories after the U.S. handed back sovereignty to Iraq. The SIIC was the driving force behind the United Iraqi Alliance in the 2005 elections, which came away with the most votes. It also joined with the Kurds to push through a new constitution, and together the SIIC, PUK, and KDP were the ruling coalitions behind the Ibrahim al-Jaafari and Nouri al-Maliki governments. The SIIC also took over the Interior Ministry under Jaafari, got their Badr Brigade integrated into the security forces, and set up death squads to begin the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad. In August 2005 they began promoting federalism, and a nine-province southern Shiite autonomous region. In 2006, the U.S. came to rely upon the SIIC to counter the Sadrists, who were their greatest rivals. The two had been having a long-running battle across southern Iraq. The SIIC was able to gain these victories because they were better organized than their rivals, the Sunnis and Sadrists boycotted the first two elections in 2005, and both Washington and Tehran supported them.

In 2007, the SIIC’s fortunes began to change. First, their call for an autonomous region proved to create more problems than good since many Shiites rejected the idea. The SIIC also controlled most of the southern provinces, and did a poor job governing and providing services. Third, the Hakim’s base was the middle class and merchants, who began to flee the country during the sectarian war. Fourth, the SIIC was never able to shake their image as tools of Tehran. To counter this the party tried to remake itself, dropping “Revolutionary” from their name becoming the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, claimed that they supported Ayatollah Sistani rather than Ayatollah Ali Khamanei in Iran, and said they had disbanded their militia the Badr Brigade, which they then called a social and political group. They also tried to provide social services to gain support amongst the poor, a move led by Abdul Hakim’s son, Ammar al-Hakim, who was being groomed as the successor to his father.

In 2008 and 2009 things got worse. Prime Minister Maliki began distancing himself from the SIIC by creating his own popular base with the Tribal Support Councils. Maliki also came out against federalism in both northern and southern Iraq, and called for a strong central government. In turn, the SIIC, KDP, and PUK talked about having a no confidence vote against the Prime Minister in December 2008, but they couldn’t decide upon a successor and were hoping that Maliki would trip up, and ruin his image. In the 2009 provincial elections, Maliki ran his own State of Law List against the SIIC, who was soundly beaten across the south and Baghdad. Despite these setbacks, Hakim tried to mend fences with Maliki by lobbying him to join a new version of the United Iraqi Alliance to run in the 2010 parliamentary balloting. This failed to materialize, as the Prime Minister wanted to lead the new list, something Hakim and the other parties refused to agree upon.

By the time of Hakim’s death, the SIIC was a shell of its former self. After the sweeping victories in 2005, the Supreme Council is now fading, and desperately trying to remake itself once again to return to power. They now talk about national unity, but they are remembered for their Iranian roots and pro-federalist stance. The death of Hakim could also lead to a power struggle within the organization. While Hakim’s son, Ammar, was the anointed successor, there are a number of possible rivals in the old guard like the head of the Badr Organization Hadi al-Ameri, Finance Minister Bayan Jabr, and Vice President Adel Abd al-Mahdi. The SIIC may be at a crossroads, lacking popular support and strong leadership with Hakim’s passing.

SOURCES

Abedin, Mahan, “The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI),” Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, October 2003

Dagher, Sam, “Rising player with a vision for Shiite Iraq,” Christian Science Monitor, 11/20/07

Elkhamri, Mounir, “Iran’s Contribution to the Civil War in Iraq,” Jamestown Foundation, January 2007

Felter, Joseph and Fishman, Brian, “Iranian Strategy in Iraq, Politics and ‘Other Means,’” Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, 10/13/08

Kemp, Geoffrey, “Iran and Iraq The Shia Connection, Soft Power, and the Nuclear Factor,” United States Institute of Peace, November 2005

International Crisis Group, “Shiite Politics In Iraq: The Role Of The Supreme Council,” 11/15/07

Packer, George, “War After The War,” New Yorker, 11/24/03

Raghavan, Sudarsan, “Shiite Clerics’ Rivalry Deepens In Fragile Iraq,” Washington Post, 12/21/06
- “Shiite Contest Sharpens In Iraq,” Washington Post, 12/26/07

Ramzi, Kholoud, “daawa-siic conflict splits Shiite unity,” Niqash,” 11/27/08

Santora, Marc, “Shiite Power Broker Dies, in Blow to Iraqi Party,” New York Times, 8/26/09

Semple, Kirk, “Heavy battle between shiite militias reveals deep split in ruling coalition,” San Francisco Chronicle, 10/22/06

Serwer, Daniel and Parker, Sam, “Maliki’s Iraq between Two Elections,” United States Institute of Peace, May 2009

Visser, Reidar, “Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim Dies in Tehran,” Historiae.org, 8/26/09

Walt, Vivienne, “U.S. Ally: Shiite leader preached unity before attack,” San Francisco Chronicle, 8/30/03

Obama Administration Needs A Real Iraq Strategy

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies is one of the leading military analysts on Iraq. Every month he authors a few reports on the subject, and at the end of July issued a short paper on the short-comings of the Obama administration called “Iraq: A Time To Stay? The US Needs an Exit Strategy, Not Just an Exit.” Cordesman thinks the Obama White House is solely focused upon withdrawing, and isn’t adequately planning for a long-term Iraq policy afterward.

June 30, 2009 was the beginning of the American pull out of Iraq. That was when U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq’s cities. Until today’s slew of bombings in Baghdad, things were going better than expected. What will come next is Cordesman’s main concern. The U.S. needs to leave behind a stable Iraq that can defend itself. There are still some major barriers to overcome before this can happen. Those are continued development of the Iraqi security forces, the Arab-Kurd divide, political divisions, fighting insurgents and Special Groups, and the development of Iraq’s economy. Cordesman believes that the Obama White House will fail if it doesn’t adequately manage this situation properly. They have to come up with a sustainable strategy for Iraq that switches emphasis from a military led effort to a civilian one.

There are several policies Cordesman suggests that could help with this process. First, American trainers need to remain in Iraq for the long-term until the Iraqi forces are self-sufficient. Second, the U.S. needs to work with the United Nations to try to moderate the Arab-Kurdish disputes, something that could take years to resolve. Aid needs to be sustained, and used strategically to push for reforms in the Iraqi government and economy, as well as alleviate differences. Fourth, Iraq’s economy needs serious investment and reform. The U.S. could help by providing business models for Iraq’s oil and agriculture sectors, as well as getting an investment law passed in parliament. Last, the White House needs to prepare the Congress and the American public for a lasting relationship with Iraq so that these policies can be implemented.

Cordesman’s sees some planning going on in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad for this change, but none in Washington. According to him, this is mostly happening on the military side in Iraq. The civilian agencies in comparison are caught up in short-term goals such as finishing on-going projects instead of planning for the future. In the U.S. Cordesman sees no leadership by the Obama administration on Iraq. This seems like a strong call for action, but one that may not be heeded. According to members of the Tamim provincial council, when Vice President Joe Biden talked to them this year, he told them that development aid was coming to an end since the U.S. had such a large deficit. There are plans to cut the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams that work in each province by more than half. While administration officials are talking about the need to mediate the Arab-Kurd dispute and Kirkuk, there is no strong push by the U.S. to actually do something. Whenever a U.S. role is mentioned, it appears to be going on quietly behind closed doors, when this needs to be a major policy push before U.S. forces are out and America’s influence fades even more. The Americans are not the solution to everything, but they can definitely help in selected areas like governance, development, security, and the Baghdad-Kurdistan dispute. With domestic issues taking a precedence, and emphasis switching to Afghanistan in foreign affairs, the Obama administration may not have the time, focus or patience to deal with Iraq adequately. The White House talks about Iraq every now and then, but actual action seems lacking.

SOURCES

Cordesman, Anthony, “Iraq: A Time To Stay?” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 7/30/09

Dagher, Sam, “2 Blasts Expose Security Flaws in Heart of Iraq,” New York Times, 8/19/09

Department of Defense, “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq,” June 2009

International Crisis Group, “Iraq and the Kurds: Trouble Along the Trigger Line,” 7/8/09

One American Attempt At Building Democracy In Iraq Looks To Be Fading

One goal of the United States before it departs Iraq is to leave it a functioning democracy. The U.S. has facilitated four national elections, two provincial, one parliamentary, and a referendum on the 2005 constitution, since the U.S. invasion. In January 2010 Iraq is to have its fifth balloting for a new parliament. Voting is only the most visible form of democracy. Since 2003 the Americans have been building up local councils to give everyday Iraqis a say in their government. These look to disappear however when the U.S. leaves.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was the first government agency in the U.S. to seriously contemplate democracy building in Iraq. It joined the post-war planning in August 2002. The State Department was supposed to be in charge of governance in Iraq after the invasion, but never came up with anything concrete. That left the USAID to create a policy on its own. They wanted to decentralize power away from Baghdad to the local level. Under Saddam, the Baath party was in control of all levels of government. The USAID wanted to break that hold. They wanted to create neighborhood councils that would create jobs, be in charge of reconstruction, and give common Iraqis a say in their government. When they presented their plans to a National Security Council subgroup on humanitarian issues in Iraq, their ideas were rejected. The official stance was the U.S. was not going to be doing nation building in Iraq, and USAID had just crossed that line.

The situation in Iraq after the invasion proved so chaotic, that the U.S. military began implementing some of the USAID’s plans without knowing it. American units wanted Iraqi partners in their area of operation. To find some they began building up local councils across the country. This was done on an ad hoc basis, as there were no orders from above on how to do it. In Mosul for example, General David Petraeus, who was then the commander of the 101st Airborne Division, set up a convention of 270 delegates from the city representing its diverse population, who in turn elected 24 city council members and a mayor. In Najaf, General James Conway of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force started organizing provincial elections, registering parties, finding candidates, etc. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) had to step in at that point letting the general know that he could not carry out such a large undertaking because Iraq did not have an election law to legalize any voting. Some were far less representative and participatory. In the Karkh district of Baghdad only around 2,500 Iraqis of 30,000-35,000 showed up to vote for their council. In al-Kindi, fifty-five Iraqis elected 12 members to the council there. The U.S. military funded all of the councils they created, but believed that they would eventually hand them over to some other government body. That never happened, as the USAID lacked the money and personnel to deal with them. The U.S. military is still in charge of running these councils to this day.

The USAID was doing a similar job independent of the military. Iraq’s bureaucracy disappeared with the invasion. The tie between Baghdad and the rest of the country was severed in the process. The USAID tried to step in, offering three contracts to companies to create local councils. One company set up 22 offices across Iraq in the spring and summer of 2003 to complete this task. In April, the USAID also allocated $120 million to start local reconstruction that would assist these local groups. $61.7 million was spent in the end on 1,700 projects.

The U.S. military and USAID’s work eventually clashed with the CPA and the fledgling new Iraqi government. By 2005 437 neighborhood, 195 sub-district, and 96 district councils had been created by the Americans. CPA head Pual Bremer wanted to build a democracy in Iraq and decentralize power as well, but was more focused upon the provincial governments than local councils. The councils also ended up clashing with the Iraqi ministries and director generals over priorities and power.

This became more complicated after the two Iraqi elections in 2005. The provincial and parliamentary votes were closed list, meaning Iraqis voted for coalitions, which in turn picked the politicians. This was a blow to the U.S. military and USAID’s effort to empower local forces as the large national parties were in control of the process. The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and the two main Kurdish parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) came out the major winners in both votes. They too wanted to disperse power outside of Baghdad, but into their hands. As the new rulers of the provincial councils and ministries they too came into conflict with the U.S. created councils over authority. A mid-2006 report by the Americans for example noted that the SIIC and its militia the Badr Brigade had tightened their grip on the provincial governments, and were against any new elections or reforms that would weaken their power. The result was that provinces and ministries largely refused to work with the U.S.-backed local councils.

By the time the Surge started in 2007, the situation had grown no better. Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) were created to build up local and provincial governance, reconciliation, and reconstruction. They spread out across Iraq and began working with the local and district councils. They still had no real authority in the Iraqi government however. They had a small budget to pay salaries, which they got from the Americans, and some small scale U.S.-funded rebuilding projects, but no real say in ordinances, taxes, larger reconstruction efforts, provincial councils, or Baghdad.

Today it seems like only the U.S. military still considers these councils relevant. Stars and Stripes reported that few Iraqis go to the councils. The Iraqi political parties ignore them as well. If Iraqis want something done they go to the U.S. or Iraqi security forces, sheikhs, or other local leaders. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is also intent upon recentralizing authority in his hands. The attempt to give everyday Iraqis a say in their government was an admirable move. Simply voting does not make a democracy. A culture and norms also have to be created. The local councils were a move in that direction, but they were another sign that the Americans cannot dictate to the Iraqis how to develop their society. For better or worse, the post-invasion Iraqi elites are now in control of this process. That will mean these councils will all but disappear when the U.S. leaves. After all, they will have no more money to run, and have never been able to integrate into the new Iraqi political system.

SOURCES

Special Inspector General For Iraq Reconstruction, “Hard Lessons,” 1/22/09

Warden, James, “Focus turns to matching old, new Iraqi institutions,” Stars and Stripes, 3/1/09
- “Local leaders are making a comeback in Iraq,” Stars and Stripes, 3/2/09

U.S. Forces Staying Or Going From Iraq’s Cities?

During March and April 2009 U.S. generals repeatedly talked about asking the Iraqis to stay in certain unstable cities past the summer deadline set by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Domestic Iraqi politics are now complicating that idea. A series of raids by American forces that killed Iraqi civilians, a possible July referendum on the agreement, and parliamentary elections have all put pressure on Baghdad to abide by the SOFA benchmarks. Publicly Iraqi officials are saying that the Americans will be out, but they may end up staying anyway.

At the end of the Bush administration in December 2008 the U.S. and Iraqi governments signed the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). The deal created a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal, which the Obama White House has said is binding. In February 2009 President Obama announced his plan to pull out of Iraq. Following the SOFA, all U.S. troops have to be out of Iraq’s cities and towns by June 30, 2009. After Iraq’s provincial elections, combat troops will be drawn down leaving behind a force of 35,000-50,000 that will ultimately leave by December 31, 2011. Either side can end the agreement or amend it if both sides agree. There is also supposed to be an Iraqi referendum on the SOFA in July 2009.

Taking advantage of the loophole in the SOFA the U.S. military began floating the idea of American forces staying in certain Iraqi cities past the June 2009 deadline. The U.S. commander in Iraq General Ray Odierno for example gave an interview with ABC News in early March 2009 saying that he planned on asking Baghdad to allow American troops to stay in Baquba, Diyala province, Mosul, Ninewa province, and Kirkuk, Tamim province. At the end of the month the U.S. general in charge of American ground forces in Iraq made similar statements, adding the city of Basra as another place where the Americans were hoping the Iraqis would ask them to stay longer. By May 8, Gen. Odierno had shorted the list to just Baghdad and Mosul. All of those cities except for Basra are some of the most violent in the country, and American commanders are worried about what will happen to security without their forces there. At the end of April, formal discussions began on extending the U.S. stay, and they are still on going.

What’s complicating the matter is domestic pressure within Iraq. First, American troops conducted a series of raids that resulted in several deaths of Iraqi civilians recently. In January 2009 U.S. soldiers shot a couple in a town near Kirkuk in Tamim province. In February another raid outside of Kirkuk led to the death of an Iraqi man. The local police chief and Iraqi Army commander claimed they knew nothing of the U.S. operation. In April two civilians in Kut, Wasit province were killed in their house by Americans. 100s of Iraqis protested the deaths. Maliki demanded that the soldiers responsible be turned over to Iraqi courts, that the attack violated the SOFA, and he told the BBC that he would not ask the U.S. to stay in urban areas past the June deadline. The same day a spokesman for the Defense Ministry repeated Maliki’s remarks, followed by the Prime Minister’s spokesman at the beginning of May.

The purpose of Maliki pushing for the SOFA in the first place was to prove his nationalist credentials to his population. Now Iraqi ire at Americans killing civilians is putting pressure on Baghdad to condemn any extensions on the agreement’s deadlines. It’s unknown whether Iraq will hold the July referendum on the SOFA, but if it does happen, the government needs to appear to be asserting Iraqi sovereignty whenever possible to get it passed. The country is also expected to have parliamentary elections within a year, and the agreement will be used by Maliki’s State of Law List to prove that they are for an independent Iraq that can defend itself. At the same time that Baghdad is playing politics, American forces will still be able to carry out operations in Iraqi cities, just from large bases on the periphery, and negotiations are still underway for staying in some cities. Maliki and American commanders are thus hoping for the best of both worlds, propping up popular support for the Prime Minister, while maintaining a U.S. presence.

SOURCES

Abdul-Zahra, Qassim, “Iraq wants US forces out of Mosul on time,” Associated Press, 4/27/09

Agence France Presse, “US on track to exit Iraqi cities by end June: commander,” 5/8/09

Arraf, Jane, “US general: American forces may not leave key Iraqi cities,” Christian Science Monitor, 3/27/09

Aswat al-Iraq, “Bush, Maliki sign SOFA,” 12/14/08

Bumiller, Elisabeth, “General Sees a Longer Stay in Iraq Cities for U.S. Troops,” New York Times, 5/9/09

Faraj, Salam, “Iraq to hold referendum on US troops pact,” Agence France Presse, 11/26/08

Al Jazeera, “Iraq: US raid broke security pact,” 4/27/09

Muir, Joh, “’No Delay’ in US withdrawal from Iraq,” BBC News, 4/27/09

Nordland, Rod, “Exceptions to Iraq Deadline Are Proposed,” New York Times, 4/27/09

Raddatz, Martha and Martinez, Luis, “EXCLUSIVE: Top General in Iraq Says ‘If They Ask Us to Stay We Will Probably Stay,’” ABC, 3/9/09

Reuters, “Iraq rules out extension of U.S. withdrawal dates,” 5/3/09

Rubin, Alissa, "U.S. Military Violated Security Agreement Twice in 2 Weeks, Iraqi
Leaders Say," New York Times, 2/7/09

United States Government Accountability Office, “IRAQ Key Issues for Congressional Oversight,” March 2009

Norwegian Institute’s Policy Paper On The Way Forward In Iraq

In February 2009 the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs released a report entitled “More than ‘Shiites and ‘Sunnis,’ How a Post-Sectarian Strategy Can Change the Logic and Facilitate Sustainable Political Reform In Iraq.” The paper was written by members of the Norwegian Institute, including Reidar Visser, who is a research fellow there and runs the blog Historiae. It also included input from a group of Iraqi academics and professionals. The paper is a policy proposal for the U.S. government on how to overcome Iraq’s problems before it withdraws. Overall, the report believes that the Surge brought about dramatic security improvements, but no real political change. The Norwegian Institute argues that unless the U.S. reforms its policy before it leaves, Iraq will be plagued by long-term problems. What the paper advocates is that the U.S. move away from supporting Iraq’s current political system, and support revising the constitution to strengthen the central government. The Institute believes that the 2009 parliamentary election should be the center of this new policy. It argues that this will unite Iraqis and push nationalism to the fore.

“More than ‘Shiites’ and ‘Sunnis’” argues that the root of Iraq’s current problems is sectarianism. They believe that this is enshrined in the 2005 Constitution. Although 80% of voters ratified the document, the Institute thinks that it was rushed through with few Iraqis actually knowing what it was about. When it was passed it included a clause promising that it would be revised in the future, but this has never happened. The constitutional review committee is just as sectarian and deadlocked as the rest of the government. The effect of the Constitution was to empower a small group of mostly exile politicians who claimed they spoke for their sect or ethnic group. These leaders oppose any change to the system because it would endanger their positions. The result, the Institute writes is that a majority of Iraqis do not believe in this system and feel that it is illegitimate as a result.

The Institute believes that the main opponents of Iraq’s sectarian system come from parties in parliament that are loosely called the July 22 movement. They successfully pushed through the provincial election law despite the opposition of the Kurds and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. Reidar Visser has been arguing that this bloc represents the true Iraqi nationalists as it includes a variety of parties such as the Sadrists, Ilyad Allawi’s Iraqi National List, Fadhila, and others that cuts across sect.

The problem is that the U.S. perpetuates Iraq’s sectarian system, and supports those that are currently in power. The Institute writes that this has led to a series of misplaced policies such as calling for a national compact between the major sects, the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, rather than pushing for Iraqi unity. This began with the Coalition Provisional Authority who created an Iraqi governing council based upon a sectarian quota system. The Americans have also pushed for an oil law that is supposed to ensure a share for Sunnis. The U.S. then allowed the ascendancy of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the Kurds that pushed for decentralization. When the Surge started, the Bush White House gave unconditional support to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. As Bush left office he signed the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which included no clauses to encourage Iraq to move towards political change. Maliki and other leaders have taken advantage of this to stay in office. The U.S. has therefore caused rather than solved the divisions within Iraq.

The differences between the U.S. and Iran have also perpetuated Iraq’s problems. Some Americans have argued that Iraqi leaders secretly want the U.S. to stay to protect their positions. This ignores the fact that Iraq could turn to Iran instead of relying upon the U.S. As long as Iran and the U.S. are opposing each other in Iraq, that will lead Teheran to support Iraq’s current political system. After all, sectarianism means that Shiites will always be in the lead, which gives Iran the most influence.

The Institute argues that sectarianism is a foreign idea throughout most of Iraq’s history. They count only three times before, in 1508, 1623, and 1801 when sectarian differences were in the forefront in the country. This leads the Institute to believe that the sectarian war of 2006-2007 was the exception not the rule. From their point of view, Iraqi nationalism and the belief in a strong central government are much stronger beliefs in Iraq’s past.

Because the U.S. helped create this system, they should be the ones to try to fix it before they leave. The paper includes a long list of proposals to accomplish this. By couching these moves in nationalist rhetoric, the Institute believes that it could be a unifying policy that will assist with the American withdrawal, and create long-lasting stability. The suggestions are to place a limit on federalism. Kurdistan should be the only area where an autonomous region should be allowed. Instead, power should be centered in Baghdad. This should be enshrined in revisions to the Constitution. As part of this the Oil Ministry should control the development of Iraq’s oil and gas resources. Revenues from these should be distributed solely on a per capita basis, not by sect. Instead of federalism, ministries could be decentralized with oil being based in Basra for example. All sectarian quotas in the government should be ended with officials appointed according to their competency and professionalism. While the Institute was open to negotiating over the future of Kirkuk, it emphasized that it should be Iraqi. Finally, political influence over the security forces should be ended.

“More than ‘Shiites’ and ‘Sunnis’” also argues that the U.S. should clearly state its mistakes and long-term plans in Iraq. This means announcing that it stands for the unity of Iraq, that it supports a strong central government, that it rejects the partition of the country, and will oppose undue influence by regional powers in the country. The Institute also believes that the Americans need to admit that they were wrong in creating a sectarian system, and that it has not worked. The U.S. also should publicly state that it does not want permanent bases in Iraq, and that it is committed to withdrawing even if Iraq’s government runs into problems.

The first step in this restructuring of Iraq can begin with the 2009 parliamentary elections, which are scheduled for the end of the year. The U.S. should stress constitutional reform as the main issue, and America’s commitment to democracy in Iraq. The U.S. also needs to work towards ensuring that they are free and fair, and organize a massive international effort to monitor the voting. Iraq refugees should also be allowed to vote, something that happened in the 2005 vote, but not in the recent provincial elections.

To prepare the environment for the vote, the paper has another list of suggestions. First the U.S. should encourage a freeze on all major work by parliament so that laws will be held off until a new, hopefully improved group of legislators takes office. The U.S. should also threaten sanctions on Baghdad if it takes any authoritarian measures before the election. America should also stop encouraging Iraq’s neighbors from opening up embassies, freeze working with the international compact on Iraq’s debt because it sets no conditions on Iraq, deter investment in Iraq’s oil sector, and open negotiations with Iran in an attempt to offer them deals on other areas so they will not focus on Iraq. Oddly the Institute also advocates giving aid to parties that stress the constitution. The thrust of the paper is that the U.S. needs to push Iraqi nationalism to the fore, but then giving direct aid to Iraq parties could undermine their chances because they could be seen as being American puppets.

Selecting a new parliament should then be followed by a revision of the Constitution. To encourage that the U.S. should offer debt relief, withdrawing its troops, and guarantee Kurdish autonomy as rewards for a successful constitutional process, but also continue to deter foreign investment, including in Kurdistan, hold off any regional conferences, and try to end the United Nations work on disputed territories to apply pressure on Iraqis to finish the task.

Holding successful elections and revising the Iraqi Constitution have been long sought after goals by a wide variety of groups ranging from the U.S., and other governments, to various think tanks. Iraqi nationalism is also an important ingredient, especially after the country fractured after the U.S. invasion. The Norwegian Institute’s paper however has some major flaws, which undermine its argument. First, it gives undue influence to the July 22 bloc. While the opposition parties were able to pass an election law before the Supreme Council and the Kurds wanted, it was something supported by the Prime Minister. That was actually one of its only major accomplishments. The provincial election law for example maintained the status quo in Kirkuk by setting up a committee to figure out how to conduct elections there, but all that did was maintain the status quo, something that suited the Kurds who control the province. The Institute claims this was a victory for the July 22 bloc, but it was actually a defeat of their earlier proposal that would have forced the Kurds to share power before the vote. Second, it believes that the parliamentary elections will lead to a new set of nationalist politicians that will want fundamental changes in Iraq’s government and constitution. That’s not guaranteed. Nationalist parties did do well in the 2009 provincial elections, but it was still mostly the ruling parties that came out on top, the very ones the Institute is advocating against. Also Shiites tended to vote for Shiite parties, Sunnis for Sunnis, and Kurds for Kurds. More importantly, Prime Minister Maliki could champion most of the paper’s main points such as a strong central government and constitutional reform, yet Maliki is also the type of exile politician that the paper condemns. More importantly his moves are meant to ensure his power over the country. Another point is that in all political systems, the ruling parties want their people to take up positions of power in the government after they win. That would make non-political appointments to the bureaucracy and military nearly impossible. Fourth, the paper believes that the Americans are the major perpetrators of Iraqi sectarianism. That overlooks the fact that rule under Saddam, which lasted for decades, was also sectarian as he went after the Shiites and Kurds. The report says that the U.S. supported the ascendancy of the Supreme Council and the Kurds who pushed for decentralization. The U.S. also supported Ilyad Allawi of the Iraqi National List and currently backs Nouri al-Maliki of the Islamic Dawa party, both of which were nationalists who wanted a strong central government. Finally, “More than ‘Shiites’ and ‘Sunnis’” also largely ignores the current major divide in Iraq, that between Arabs and Kurds. Iraqi nationalism is being created on the basis of opposition to the Kurds. This stretches from the Prime Minister to the July 22 bloc. While the report says that the U.S. should ensure Kurdistan’s autonomy that overlooks the fact that the Kurds would oppose almost every other proposal made by the Institute. That includes revising the constitution, shoring up a strong central government, empowering the Oil Ministry, ending work on the disputed territories, stressing that Kirkuk should be Iraqi, etc. The Institute argues that their proposals will unite Iraqis and are ideas shared across sectarian lines, but that’s probably mostly true of Iraqi Arabs. “More than ‘Shiites’ and ‘Sunnis’” is good at pointing out the levers the U.S. can still use to influence Iraqi politics before it withdraws, but ironically if the paper’s plans were followed it could actually increase the new divisions in the country as it attempts to solve an old one.

SOURCES

Associated Press, “Iraqi parliament passes election law,” 7/22/08

Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, “More than “Shiites” and “Sunnis,” How a Post-Sectarian Strategy Can Change the Logic and Facilitate Sustainable Political Reform in Iraq,” February 2009

Visser, Reidar, “A Litmus Test for Iraq,” Middle East Report Online, 1/30/09
- “Debating Devolution in Iraq,” Middle East Report Online, 3/10/08
- “The Law on the Powers of Governorates Not Organised in a Region: Washington’s ‘Moderate’ Allies Show Some Not-So-Moderate Tendencies,” Historiae.org, 2/11/08

Pentagon Pushing For Slow Withdrawal Process

When President Elect Barak Obama was campaign in 2008 he promised to have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by May 2010. The military commanders in the Middle East however, are not comfortable with such a speedy withdrawal, and have proposed a much slower one loosely based upon the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). That would mean most U.S. troops would be out by the end of 2011, with an unknown amount of Americans staying behind as advisors and support staff for Iraqis. This is an approach that has been advocated by quite a few of America’s leading think tanks as well. Finding a compromise between Obama’s election promise and the desires of the military will be the first task of the new President’s Iraq policy.

In the middle of December 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen presented President Elect Obama and his national security team with their initial plans for withdrawal. General David Petraeus, commander of the Central Command, and General Ray Odierno, U.S. commander in Iraq, drew up the timetable. They loosely based their schedule upon the dates set in the SOFA newly signed between Iraq and the United States. Their withdrawal would start with two brigades of between 7,000-8,000 personnel coming out in the first six months of 2009. After that, the remaining 12 brigades would stay during most of 2009 to ensure Iraq’s elections. There are three planned for that year, provincial, district, and parliamentary. In the middle of the year U.S. forces are supposed to be out of Iraq’s cities however. The Americans are already pulling out of some of their camps and joint military stations, but General Odierno plans on getting around that deadline be re-designating some U.S. soldiers as trainers rather than combat personnel so that they can remain embedded with Iraqi forces. The rest of the U.S. troops would be consolidated into large bases. Only after the elections have been finished and the new politicians seated does Odierno want to begin drawing down large numbers of U.S. troops. By the end of 2011 most U.S. forces would be out, but again General Odierno wants to keep some American troops in Iraq past 2011 as advisors.

This slow approach to withdrawal has been advocated by some of the leading think tanks in the United States. Stephen Biddle, from the Council on Foreign Relations, and Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon, both of the Brookings Institution, have long been pushing for a gradual pullout of American forces. In a recent chapter they wrote for book for example, they echoed General Odierno’s concern about securing the Iraqi elections, and only starting sizeable withdrawals after they were completed. They too would have most U.S. forces out by the 2011 SOFA date, but like Odierno would keep some soldiers in the country afterwards.

Although these Iraq experts have criticized the Bush administration for giving Iraq an open-ended commitment, and call for conditional support of Iraq’s government, they and Odierno both want to keep U.S. forces in Iraq as long as possible in the hopes that it will develop politically. The problem is there is no guarantee that this will happen. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is consolidating power around himself to the great disdain of his coalition partners the Kurds and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. The upcoming provincial elections, may only shift power from one ruling power to another, giving few seats to new independents. Afterwards Iraq may be just as divided as before, giving American planners more reasons to stay.

This will present President Obama with his first test on Iraq. Will he stick with his election promise of withdrawing combat troops by the middle of 2010 or will he give into his ground commanders? Perhaps he will disregard Petraeus’ and Odierno’s strategy so that he can transfer troops to the growing crisis in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s almost impossible to build up troops there without drawing down from Iraq first. There’s also the fact that Americans are not considering the Iraqis that much. In July of this year there will be a referendum on the SOFA. If the agreement is voted down, Baghdad and Washington will have to start all over again working out a deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Either way, the Pentagon’s and the Obama teams’ planning are in their early stages, and changes can be expected on just when U.S. combat troops will ultimately be out, and how many will stay as advisors.

SOURCES

Ashton, Adam and Hammoudi, Laith, “What are ‘combat troops’? Iraq withdrawal depends on answer,” McClatchy Newspapers, 12/23/08

Baldor, Lolita, “Commander: Troops to stay in cities past deadline,” Associated Press, 12/13/08

Biddle, Stephen, O’Hanlon, Michael, Pollack, Kenneth, “The Evolution of Iraq Strategy,” Brookings Institution, December 2008

Bumiller, Elisabeth and Shaner, Thom, “Generals Propose a Timetable for Iraq,” New York Times, 12/18/08

Burns, Robert, “Troops begin to shift out of Iraqi cities,” Associated Press, 11/12/08

Carter, Chelsea, “Top US general in Iraq prepares for troop decision,” Associated Press, 12/22/08

Hauslohner, Abigail, “Iraq’s Iffy New Year Resolution,” Time, 1/2/09

Kenneth Pollack: Too Soon To Wave Victory Flag

Kenneth Pollack is an Iraq analyst and senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. At the beginning of December 2008 he was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman from the Council on Foreign Relations. Pollack voiced his concerns over the future of Iraq, and U.S. policy. With a financial crisis hitting the United States and violence down in Iraq, he was afraid that the American government and public would forget about Iraq, and walk away when there was still much work to be done.

Pollack started his conversation with Gwertzman by expressing his concerns about America’s wherewithal in Iraq. Pollack said he was worried that the American public and its leaders thought the U.S. had achieved victory in Iraq. He believes that the country is still not stable, and that there are still major problems to be overcome. Some of these have the potential to bring Iraq back to the brink. This was happening at a time when the U.S. was reducing its role in the country, and has agreed to a 2011 deadline for combat troops to be out of the country under the Status of Forces Agreement. America has also been hit by a growing recession that will distract the public’s attention away from foreign affairs to domestic ones. It will also mean there are less resources available for Iraq. All together, Pollack was worried that the result would be America forgetting about what they started in the country.

In Iraq, the major problem that Pollack focused upon was the development of its political system. He warned that its government, parties, and institutions are still immature, and that there is an on-going struggle for power within the ruling coalition. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for example, is centralizing authority in his office. Pollack doesn’t believe he has the ability to become a dictator, but his moves are worrying his partners, the Kurds and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. This has the potential to topple the government if one decides to have a no confidence vote in Maliki.

Another potential threat to stability is the growing strength of the Iraqi security forces. The Army is growing in capabilities and self-assuredness. With weak politicians, they could launch a military coup. Pollack first mentioned this possibility after a trip to Iraq back in May 2008. This may or may not have just happened with the arrests of several officers in the Interior Ministry recently.

The third problem Pollack mentioned is the continued division and marginalization of the country’s Sunnis. The Sunnis as a group are still not unified. The Sunni Accordance Front is the largest Sunni coalition, but they are widely unpopular, and one of its members, the Iraqi Islamic Party of Vice President Tariq Hashemi will probably lose power in Anbar to the Awakening movement. Many tribes have also joined the Sons of Iraq program and hope to capitalize on that to run in the upcoming provincial elections. The problem is that they are not political parties or politicians who are organized to run campaigns, garner votes, or work the system. That means many may not be successful in the polling. More importantly, the state of disarray amongst them means that the Shiites and Kurds continue to exclude them from power.

Pollack finished his interview by urging America to stay focused and working on Iraq. He said that the U.S. needed to keep pressure on the Iraqi government, so that it makes the necessary compromises for national reconciliation. This is a paradox however, because the U.S.’s influence is declining, when it needs it to ensure a stable Iraq. Pollack has expressed similar opinions before in journal pieces, and is part of a larger group of Iraq analysts that believe America needs to stay in Iraq for the long haul until the country has overcome most of its problems.

Pollack is right, Iraq still has many issues that need to be resolved, but Americans probably won’t fix them. One major issue with Pollack’s argument is that the ruling parties may not want the same thing as Pollack and other Americans. For example, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said on several occasions that there has already been reconciliation in Iraq. The Accordance Front is part of the government, the parliament has passed the Amnesty Act and the Accountability and Justice Law to replace the old Debaathification process, as well as agreed to pay for and integrate the Sons of Iraq. Maliki therefore doesn’t see any reason to make any more compromises with the Sunnis. Not only that, but with the Sunnis divided, and their political parties weak, that gives more opportunities for the Shiites to gain power in central and northern Iraq. Lastly, why would Maliki give up centralizing authority around him? What kind of pressure could the Americans bring to bear, that would stop him? While he doesn’t have the ability to become a dictator, he could very well become more autocratic. His moves have upset his coalition so much, that there are already rumors that they may force him out of office. That leads to the last criticism. Pollack is calling for an open-ended commitment to Iraq, a country that may never turn out how he or other Americans want. If recent events point to anything, it’s that Iraqis will determine their own future, not the U.S.

SOURCES

Aswat al-Iraq, “National reconciliation behind security improvement – PM,” 12/4/08

Biddle, Stephen, Nasr, Vali, Nash, William, “Political and Security Developments in Iraq and the Region,” Council on Foreign Relations, 6/12/08

Biddle, Stephen, O’Hanlon, Michael, and Pollack, Kenneth, “How to Leave a Stable Iraq, Building on Progress in Iraq,” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2008

Gwertzman, Bernard, “Despite Security Improvements, Iraq Remains ‘Very Troubled Country,’” Council on Foreign Relations, 12/10/08

Robertson, Campbell and Maher, Tareq, “An Inquiry in Baghdad Is Clouded by Politics,” New York Times, 12/18/08

Salman, Raheem and Parker, Ned, “Iraq detains police officials, including Interior Ministry generals,” Los Angeles Times, 12/18/08