What next for Iraq?

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

Two days of congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker reflected the best efforts by honorable and highly competent civil servants to reconcile two irreconcilable realities concerning Iraq. The first is the determination — many would argue the obsession — of the Bush administration to will a successful outcome in Iraq. The second consists of the contradictions inherent in Iraq and in American policy that, unless rectified, make success, however defined, an illusive and at best very distant goal.

Remember the original reason for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. President Bush intended to "change the strategic landscape of the Middle East" by imposing democracy on Iraq. In essence, this was a "faith-based" policy propelled by the aim of ending Saddam"s evil regime. Unfortunately, America's view of democracy was not transferable to Iraq or to the Arab world. Good intentions alone cannot constitute a democracy, a democratic government or a safe and stable state.

We learned little new from these hearings. Yes, the "surge," about to finish, did help to lower violence in Iraq substantially. But violence was also capped by the "awakening" in al Anbar that helped turn Sunnis against al Qaeda and the truce offered by Moqtada al Sadr, perhaps made problematic after the Maliki government"s decision to launch the assault on the southern city of Basra late last month.

We learned about signs of progress in political reconciliation and in improving the economic lives of Iraqis. We also learned that Gen. Petraeus understandably recommends a 45-day pause in drawing down U.S. forces below the pre-surge troop strength in order to assess "conditions on the ground."

Unfortunately, we did not get answers to crucial questions that the White House has refused to address since pre-war planning for the overthrow of Saddam began six years ago because these are above the pay grades of both the general and the ambassador.

The "mother" of these questions is "what next?"

Neither Congress nor the public received any idea of how much longer we must remain engaged in Iraq; at what level of troop deployments and costs; and what "Plan B" may be post-surge or as required by future conditions on the ground. And not a scintilla of thinking was offered about a broader, more comprehensive strategy for how the United States could or would engage the region diplomatically and limit Iranian influence beyond past declarations and approaches that so far have not worked. Those answers can only come from the president. And this president seems comfortable waiting until "conditions on the ground" in Iraq dictate otherwise.

Before the hearings, much was made of the possible intrusion of presidential politics into the Senate hearings. Instead, the three candidates made useful and thoughtful cameo appearances in questioning the two witnesses. What should have been clear was blurred by the reluctance of Messrs. Petraeus and Crocker to address the "what if" question, another painful reality.

No matter who becomes the 44th president, there are simply no good choices for Iraq, only bad ones. We can, as John McCain advocates, stay until we win, meaning that Iraq becomes a less violent, more or less governable state capable of looking after its own security without massive reliance on us and without being partitioned into several pieces. The risks and costs are self-evident. Internecine Shi'ite war over political power now adds to Sunni-Shi'ite and Arab-Kurdish sectarian conflicts with no clear sign of resolution. Hundreds of billions of additional dollars will be needed to pay for our military presence above projected budgets. And there is only the promise, not the guarantee, that this will work.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama argue for some form of a "responsible" drawdown without defining what "responsible" means. Neither has addressed the "what next?" question regarding Iraq, Iran and the region to determine whether both the United States and Iraq will be better or worse off for the short and long-term if there is a "responsible" troop reduction. And neither Democrat has addressed what he or she will do with a military that has been exhausted and depleted in Iraq with still another conflict in Afghanistan that will require far more forces if the Coalition is to succeed there.

Americans can be for or against the war and for or against an immediate drawdown in Iraq. But opinions are only good for faith-based — not fact-based — decisions.The "Great Decider" in the White House has deferred to his successor deciding "What next?" It will be eight and a half months until the next administration takes office, and many more months before it is fully in place. The tragedy is that neither America nor Iraq can afford the wait.

Harlan Ullman is a columnist for The Washington Times.