Iraqis eye reconciliation — after U.S. withdrawal

When it comes to U.S. policy in Iraq, we’ve thankfully seen some progress on the security front, but the administration’s so-called “surge” has fallen far short of its goals. The White House and the Maliki government established a series of benchmarks earlier this year, nearly all of which have gone unmet. Political reconciliation, ostensibly the purpose of the surge, remains non-existent.

If you ask Iraqis about how best to achieve political progress, they’ll offer a helpful perspective.

Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of “occupying forces” as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month. […]

Dated December 2007, the report notes that “the Iraqi government has still made no significant progress toward its fundamental goal of national reconciliation.” Asked to describe “the current situation in Iraq to a foreign visitor,” some groups focused on positive aspects of the recent security improvements. But “most would describe the negative elements of life in Iraq beginning with the ‘U.S. occupation’ in March 2003,” the report says.

That’s probably not what the administration wants to hear.

To be sure, Gen. Petraeus & Co. are putting their most encouraging spin on the focus-group results. The WaPo noted, “At the very least, analysts optimistically concluded, the findings indicate that Iraqis hold some ‘shared beliefs’ that may eventually allow them to surmount the divisions that have led to a civil war.”

Yes, I suppose that’s true. But if those “shared beliefs” include the notion that we’re an “occupying force” responsible for ruining Iraqis’ lives, isn’t it a little difficult to be “optimistic”?

These focus groups in Iraq appear to cover quite a bit of ground, and not all of the results are completely discouraging.

Some of the news has been unarguably good, including the sharply reduced number of roadside bombings and attacks on civilians. But bad news is often presented with a bright side, such as the focus-group results and a November poll, which found that 25 percent of Baghdad residents were satisfied with their local government and that 15 percent said they had enough fuel for heating and cooking.

The good news? Those numbers were higher than the figures of the previous month (18 percent and 9 percent, respectively).

And Iraqi complaints about matters other than security are seen as progress. Early this year, Maj. Fred Garcia, an MNF-I analyst, said that “a very large percentage of people would answer questions about security by saying ‘I don’t know.’ Now, we get more griping because people feel freer.”

But then there’s that political reconciliation problem again. Matthew Warshaw, a senior research manager one of the companies polling in Iraq, said, “In Iraq, I just don’t hear statements that come from any of the Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish groups that say ‘We recognize that we need to share power with the others, that we can’t truly dominate.’ ”

So Iraqis don’t want to share power, but they think reconciliation would be more likely if the “occupying forces” got out.

It paints quite a picture, doesn’t it?

How long can our military sustain the “surge”? Once the troop numbers start going down, will the violence shoot back up? What are we accomplishing be remaining there?

  • jen pointed to the elephant in the room. Unless Bush calls for a draft there’s no way to keep the surge going much longer, and the Iraqis know it. And since calling for a draft would put the final nail in the GOP, it’s not really an option (unless Bush really is a Democratic mole, a possibility Tom Tomorrow pointed out long ago). Maybe the powers that be are hoping that the next president will a) be a Dem and b) have to call for a draft, thus keeping the “two party” system alive.

    I don’t know anyone who thinks “Iraqi reconciliation” means anything other than all-out civil war. The British played the old “divide-and-conquer” game when they cut and pasted the nation of “Iraq” together back in the 20’s, and they finally had to leave because even when they bribed everyone in sight and used chemical weapons on the ones who wouldn’t take the cash, they still couldn’t keep a lid on the “ungrateful volcano”. Of course we’re now trying to keep that same game going, trying to keep the Iranian and Iraqi Shiites from returning to their natural union.

    It isn’t going to work.

  • But then there’s that political reconciliation problem again. Matthew Warshaw, a senior research manager one of the companies polling in Iraq, said, “In Iraq, I just don’t hear statements that come from any of the Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish groups that say ‘We recognize that we need to share power with the others, that we can’t truly dominate.’ ”

    That’s a huge problem. It sounds like they’re saying the U.S. needs to get out of the way for their faction to be able to win and successfully assert itself over the others.

  • jen: How long can our military sustain the “surge”? Once the troop numbers start going down, will the violence shoot back up?

    according to some reports the ‘surge’ is working because tribal leaders in certain areas like fallujah have decided it’s time to kick the foreign fighters (read: al qaeda) out. if so it’s questionable how much of the success can actually be attributed to the surge.

    maybe the tribal leaders simply want to be rid of the diminishing returns from outside elements to lay the groundwork for the real post-occupation power struggle to come.

  • We should really put an end to the “Daddy America knows best. Baby Iraq should just shut up and listen” attitude. Then we will have some hope in this world.

  • If getting out-of-Iraq was a winner the Democrats would defund the war?

    Instead, time-and-again Congress appropriates money to keep it going because there’s a risk that this fragile, fragmented Middle-East country, with the Worlds 3rd largest oil reserves, could become even more geo-politically problematic?

    It is anolaogous to our maintaining military bases in Japan & Germany for over a half-century because WWII was so horrific? And with the recent Ken Burn’s PBS documentary about the awesome heroics, endurance and sacrafices by American’s in fighting WWII, there now seems to be the political will for a long, and yes, in many ways costly occupation.

  • Iraqis may think they can get on with reconcilation only after we leave, but I suspect they are about as right about that as a typical Bushite is right about anything.

    That said, I’ll withhold endorsing a withdrawl because the Iraqis think things will get better.

  • Comments are closed.