Focus on Iraq and the future

OPINION:

With Congress beginning hearings today on the long-awaited Iraq report card from Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, Republicans and Democrats will continue their fight over Iraq policy. Democrats will likely score points over the invasion and the surge in absentia of Iraqi political reconciliation. Both sides have more than enough reason to be frustrated and depressed about Iraq. An end is unlikely in the foreseeable future. The presidential race may play a role in any intensified rhetoric. After all, the candidates may gain some votes with their statements for either a longer stay or a quick withdrawal from Iraq. But neither makes any sense strategically until the United States makes clear its end goal.

The surge lowered the level of violence, but it may have raised the stakes even higher. As part of the surge, the United States cut a deal with the Sunni insurgents: allowing militias to mass, arm, conduct unilateral operations, gather their own intelligence, make arrests and conduct interrogations. “It was an indirect American assassination,” said Michael Ware, CNN’s Iraq correspondent, last week at the Middle East Institute. “They knew where al Qaeda slept. …They took care of their business.”

Having spent more than $22 billion to build up Iraq’s security forces, as news stories reported last week, but the United States has not quelled the militias. It’s important — and sad — to remember that the Iraqi government, from the top down, is comprised largely of militias. “In Iraq, you ain’t got guns, you ain’t got power,” Mr. Ware said. “That’s why Maliki is nobody… He certainly does not have one.”

That said, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered a major operation in Basra against Shiite militias, targeting the Mahdi army, shortly before Gen. Petraeus and Mr. Crocker’s critical congressional testimony. Ironic enough, the surge was also about providing political accommodation for Muqtada al-Sadr, and one of the reasons he declared a ceasefire. Now that Mr. Maliki has declared Sadr the enemy, President Bush has approved. Mr. Crocker says he learned of the operation just four days before it began, and the British say they were not informed at all.

While it’s difficult to follow the logic behind these decisions and the official statements, it’s safe to say that this operation is about Shi’ite infighting. The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Mr. Maliki seemed to agree to rule out the Mahdi army. But it’s a mystery why the United States supported Mr. Maliki’s operation. If Sadr, an Iraqi nationalist, is declared the enemy, and the United States agrees to clamp down on him, who benefits? Why was he targeted when the Mahdi Army put down its arms for almost six months?

In September, Britain decided to draw down its troops in Iraq. The reason, a British official told me, was that they believed in the readiness of the Iraqi security forces. Iraq is Iran’s natural backyard, he explained, ruling out any suggestion that Britain’s decision affected Iranian strategy. He stressed that British presence in Basra was for Iraq, and never meant to be for Iran. “This decision was not affected by U.K. policy towards Iran; the U.K. has no military intention against Iran,” he said. Separately, Britain has announced a halt on their decision to withdraw. But the trouble is, as the Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday, Whitehall is worried that a strong statement from Gen. Petraeus about Iran’s intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a U.S. attack on Iranian military.

In other words, Mr. Maliki’s Basra offensive may hide the U.S. aim for Iran but, confusingly enough, Tehran feels even more victorious as a result of this latest operation. Furthermore, Iran has become critical to any scenario to end the violence in Iraq. Iran is betting on all horses — yet it also runs the risk of over-reaching and exaggerating the perception of victory. The bloody Iraqi battlefield gives Iran confidence that it would remain untouched even if it continues building a nuclear weapon.

“If you say that you can play a game between China and Russia and America in dispute between the two countries, I would say you’re damn wrong,” Ebrahim Yazdi, secretary general of the Freedom Movement of Iran, told me last week. “The international situation, the economics in the global village are such that it’s impossible and unimaginable that China will side with Iran vs. America. … That’s what the policy [Iranians] pursue.”

Civilians have the right to feel frustrated and depressed, and to demand that our governments provide security. But it’s no time for lawmakers to be overwhelmed by the difficulty of a policy they approved. Many mistakes have been made, and they have put America’s closest allies in the region, as well as millions of innocent lives, at risk. Hopefully today lawmakers will shed some light on a new policy not defined by staying or leaving — but with one with a clear moral duty to make life possible. There’s enough dark talk about a disastrous ending for Iraq and the larger region. Let’s hope that today’s critical testimony does not only focus on what went wrong.

Tulin Daloglu is a freelance writer.