Future of Iraq uncertain

OPINION:

Friedrich Nietzsche said that we can only think the thoughts we have words for. And sometimes we have words, but we do not have satisfactory explanations as to why things happen as they do. We continually see stories about ambitious and incapacitated politicians, failing policies, people’s suffering, war, terrorism, violence, hatred, etc. We try our best to cope with these realities, but Nietzsche was right; real understanding of them eludes us.

President Bush says the surge in Iraq is working — that because of increased U.S. troop levels, violence in Iraq is significantly reduced. Even though that appears to be true, Democrats argue that the surge was all about creating some breathing room for Iraqi politicians to work out their differences and start making the political compromises necessary to unify the country. Now, Democrats seem convinced that such unity is out of reach.

While that also seems to be true, the Iraqi Parliament recently passed a de-Ba’athification law that will essentially allow members of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party to be part of the new Iraqi government, and will give them legal rights to seek their pensions as well. Mr. Bush welcomed the law as an important step for the prospects of reconciliation. But this de-Ba’athification measure has its opponents, and promises no guarantee for fair implementation.

In the meantime, Baghdad is complaining that the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) has been too ambitious, signing oil contracts with foreign companies without the central government’s approval, and calling KRG’s deals illegal. A group of Sunni and Shi’ite politicians have also challenged the legality of an upcoming referendum in Kirkuk, which under Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution calls for either the KRG or the Iraqi central government to be in charge of this oil-rich city’s resources. But the referendum was supposed to have been held by the end of 2007. Now the Iraqi politicians who oppose the referendum have challenged Article 140’s legality in the Constitution Court. Their argument is that the missed referendum deadline nullifies Article 140. But the Iraqi Kurdish leadership under Massoud Barzani has made it clear that the referendum was postponed for six months, and will take place in June 2008. If the referendum takes place, it will doubtless bring Kirkuk under KRG control. It’s unclear what the Iraqi Constitutional Court will decide, or how the United Nations and the United States will intervene on this issue. It can also be anyone’s guess how Turkey and other neighboring countries will respond to such a development.

What does seem clear is that while different sects and ethnicities continue to jockey to maximize their interests, they are making their political decisions without a fear of costing more innocent lives. As defined by these different groups, their interests supersede the right to life. And from that perspective, the rationale behind the surge was correct — it would create breathing room for the politicians to come to their senses and agree on compromising for the good of the majority. But it seems that politicians accept lost human lives as a cost of doing business in real-life politics — some lives must be sacrificed for the sake of larger interests.

At times, some moments present themselves as though a clear policy is on track — a policy that will lead to a brighter future. But then there are times when things seem totally out of control. And most of the time, the reality is somewhere in between — a large gray area to be explored. In those gray areas, another fact becomes clear: a different kind of surge, found in the increased influence in the regions of Iran, Russia and China.

In the midst of all the confusion, there seems to be no real solution to making things right in Iraq. Both staying or withdrawing bring their own sets of issues. Democrats and Republicans continue the debate in their presidential primaries, but it’s anyone’s guess how to reconcile the options and forge ahead. The stakes are getting higher every passing day. The hopeful presidential candidates have made a number of significant statements in response to a discombobulated regional environment. Yet none seems to propose a convincing strategy. In fact, no one can judge which option would lead to a better or acceptable ending. Staying or withdrawing does not address the root problems — the Pandora’s Box has already been opened. However, Democrats’ promise for a full withdrawal could be misleading.

Withdrawal is the wrong word to describe a possible winning strategy. This should be the time — not to withdraw from the fight — but to stay in to get it right. The question is what the “right thing” will ultimately be.

Tulin Daloglu is a freelance writer.