Iraq faces up to life beyond the
'surge' By Erik Leaver
January 10 marked the one-year anniversary
of President George W Bush's "surge" strategy.
Many analysts are now claiming the "surge" is a
success, but with no end in sight to the war, the
year of the "surge" really is a tale of two Iraqs.
Coming off a very deadly end to 2006, the
first half of 2007 brought some of the highest
levels of violence and displacement since the war
began. But by the middle of the year, the level of
violence reportedly began to drop, with December
being the second least violent for United States
troops since 2003. But the current calm
has
been crafted on a foundation that can topple at
any moment, leaving its "success" in doubt.
Iraq today The dominant story in
Iraq is the downward trend in casualties for both
Iraqis and US soldiers. The single-minded focus on
casualties however, masks the internal problems in
Iraq that could cause the violence to rise to new
heights this year. Much of the decrease in
violence is a result of the US cutting deals with
Sunni insurgents. The US now has 70,000 "former"
insurgents on its payroll. At the same time, the
US military continues to recruit and train members
of the Iraqi military and police - agencies
heavily dominated by Shi'ites. Arming and training
these two groups has quelled the violence in the
short term but makes the chances of future
fighting between the groups to be a very bloody
affair.
Focusing on training and arming
all sides in the conflict has been
counterproductive in achieving the main goal of
the "surge" - providing the space for political
reconciliation. Provincial elections and the
referendum on the status of Kirkuk were postponed
in 2007. The Iraqi Parliament was stalemated for
most of the year and when it was functioning much
of its activities were in opposition to that of
the Iraqi cabinet. And the period for amending the
constitution in a fast-track manner, which was the
carrot for the Sunnis to help pass the
constitution, has been extended for the fourth
time. Politically, 2008 appears to be the most
difficult to date.
These political
tensions will come to a head as Bush and Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki move forward in signing a
formal agreement for the future US troop presence.
This agreement, scheduled for completion by July
31, will likely coincide with the completion of
the US Embassy. Both of these events will signal
what Iraqis feared when the US invaded - that the
occupation will become permanent, giving the US a
dominant position with military bases,
preferential access to oil and open access to
Iraqi markets. With opponents in the parliament,
the militias, the insurgency, and Maliki being in
an extremely weak position, completion of this
agreement could easily send the country into
chaos.
The war at home In the
US, the focus will be on two events: a drawdown of
troops back to pre-surge levels of 130,000 from
the current 160,000 and on continued funding of
the war. Given the November elections and the
perceived advantage Democrats still hold over
Republicans on the Iraq War, Congress will likely
continue to challenge Bush on the funding. But
Democrats will be in the same position they were
in 2007, without the votes needed to cut the funds
off or to pass legislation to bring the troops
home in 2008.
The result will be continued
funding, with an extension of reporting
requirements and perhaps legislation regarding how
long troops may be deployed, war profiteering, and
permanent bases. A wildcard in this calculation is
the state of the US economy, which appears to be
floundering at the moment. If the economy weakens
further, the public may strenuously object to
spending another $100-200 billion in Iraq.
There could also be an important challenge
this year in the Senate on the particulars of the
Bush-Maliki agreement. Signed in November, the
Declaration of Principles sets forth a plan for a
permanent US military presence in Iraq. A deadline
for a final agreement is set for July 2008. The
accord could take several legal forms (treaty,
congressional/executive agreement, or as Bush
argues, avoiding Congress altogether by entering
into "a status of forces agreement"). But with the
agreement committing the US to providing security
assurances, defending Iraq's democratic system
against internal and external threats, and
providing preferential trading conditions,
Congress should have a say in shaping this
agreement.
Bush will have the upper hand
on Iraq in the early part of the year as he will
take credit for the "success" of the "surge" and
will likely announce by March the drawdown of
troops to pre-surge levels. This may have a
quelling effect on the public. Public protests led
by peace groups such as United for Peace and
Justice scheduled for March will have little
effect in changing public opinion if the security
situation remains stable.
With the
drawdown likely to be completed around the same
time as the Bush-Maliki agreement in mid-summer,
any upsurge in violence will increase pressure to
resume larger troop levels. However, if the Iraqi
government and security forces are able to keep
the peace during the summer and fall, the issue of
the Iraq War will fade from the presidential
elections, sidelining any discussion on future US
redeployments.
Shaping
2008 Without hope for a change in strategy
from Congress or Bush, those seeking a change in
policy should focus on keeping the Iraq War front
and center in the debate on the campaign trail at
the national, state, and local levels. The lesson
drawn from Ned Lamont's campaign, where he changed
the national debate on Iraq during the mid-term
elections, cannot be forgotten.
No
president (Republican or Democrat) is going to end
this war without strong backing from the Congress
for doing so. To the extent that congressional
momentum is created in that direction this year,
there will be a positive impact on the
presidential campaign and decision-making in 2009
and beyond. The fact is that legislation aiming to
bring the troops home continued to make progress,
even in this last discouraging round of voting on
additional funding for the war.
In
Congress, significant progress can be made toward
improving the livelihoods of refugees, medical
care for veterans and deployment periods, and
stopping the permanent occupation that Bush and
Maliki are pushing. Legislative strategies should
address each of these issues, and hearings should
be organized at the national and local levels.
Using the supplemental budget bills and
the defense, state, and veterans affairs
appropriations bills to highlight the costs of the
Iraq War will be crucial. Polls last fall
indicated that 70% of registered voters think
Bush's supplemental spending requests should be
rejected or conditioned on redeployment. While
Congress hasn't been able to capitalize on this
public sentiment to cut spending on the war, with
the economy ranking as the number one issue coming
out of the New Hampshire primary for Republicans
and Democrats, the public will continue to balk at
the current spending and the long-term impacts.
Large demonstrations in March could help
counter Bush's assertions on the success of the
"surge". These efforts must be matched by Iraq
experts who can to debunk the president's claim of
success, especially before General David Petraeus,
the top commander for US troops in Iraq, testifies
before Congress in March. Even more critical is
the need to develop messaging and strategy if the
current calm continues. Just as the US has been
cutting deals with the insurgents, so too could it
seek a deal with Iran to stabilize Iraq. While
such a deal would be welcome for decreased
violence, long-term stability should not be
sacrificed for short-term gains.
Finally,
pressure must be applied to presidential
candidates, especially with many of the Democratic
contenders supporting the "occupation lite"
solution suggested by the Iraq Study Group report
of keeping some US forces in Iraq for
counter-terrorism, training, and diplomatic
protection. These plans, eerily similar to the
Bush-Maliki Declaration of Principles, could
easily leave upwards of 40,000 troops inside Iraq
for decades, not to mention an untold number of
military contractors. Whoever wins the presidency
must have a clear mandate to change the course and
bring all the troops home. Without this, the US
will likely continue to occupy Iraq for decades to
come.
Erik Leaver is the policy
outreach director for Foreign Policy In Focus and
a research fellow at the Institute for Policy
Studies.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
