Stephen Biddle, Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack have a plan for withdrawing from Iraq.  Their article, published in the September/October 2008 Issue of Foreign Affairs states that Democratic and Republican goals can both be met through a withdrawal timeline.  They argue that serious draw downs should not occur until after the Iraqi national election, set for late 2009.  Further, by 2011, at least half of our current troop population will still be there.  This means that we will continue to have quite a large number of US military in Iraq for the next five years.  I personally, do not see how this addresses the Democratic goals, and I further do not see how this addresses the increased need for more troops in Afghanistan. 

The article starts with a recent history of the violence in Iraq, and explains how much the situation has improved in less than three years.  Sectarian violence is at an all-time low, and the authors explain how the Iraqi and US governments have remedied the once dangerous situation.  They then address what the US should and should not do at this point, and this is where I begin my critique. 

The authors argue that threatening withdrawal will be counterproductive, and I agree. Many of our threats are becoming empty, and most Iraqis would see a threat like this the same way, especially with Bush still at the helm.  Instead of threatening, we should be talking.  We should address conditions to our withdrawal, such as a clause stating that US troops will be brought back if elections do not go as planned and violence erupts again.  Why should we assume that Iraqis, who, according to this article, have shown such progress, cannot conduct elections?  Obviously, we should be prepared, but shouldn't we react to disaster after it happens? 

The ”New Problems” facing Iraq, such as integrating the Iraqi Security Forces, reestablishing refugees and improving central government control, cannot be fixed by the US military.  These are problems that should be addressed by diplomacy, the UN, and US political advisers to Iraq.  The authors make a wonderful suggestion for offering vouchers for refugees and displaced persons to come back and build a home, and state that this would have to be undertaken by the Iraqi government.  The problem of improving the central government and their spending should be addressed by sharply curtailing US financial support for the Iraqi government.  At this point, American money should only be used after that of Iraq.  Therefore, letting their government stand on its own two feet would perhaps address the problem of its lack of responsible spending.  I also agree when they state that a coup would be disastrous, and that a US presence will help to avoid that situation.  However, we cannot let this be our excuse for continuing our occupation; a coup could happen the day after we leave, even if the government is considered completely stable by US standards.  We simply cannot stay there forever. 

The article addresses Kirkuk as a continuing and sticky problem, which I believe will be a large source of contention until the Kurds feel that they have been granted independence.  Whether this means actually granting their wish for “Kurdistan,” I do not know.  The place of Iraqi Kurds has been a problem long before the time of Saddam, and I believe should be addressed, and fixed, on its own, not wrapped up in the general topic of rebuilding Iraq. 

In addressing Iran, Biddle, O’Hanlon and Pollack state that there should be more Iraqi-Iranian-US dialogue, as well as incentives for Iranian cooperation in Iraqi reconstruction.  I believe that Iran has incited violence in the past in order to take pressure off of itself and its nuclear program.  The best incentive to offer Iran now is dialogue and diplomacy (not threats) concerning its nuclear progress.  As long as the US is bogged down in Iraq, Ahmadinejad knows that we cannot physically come after him.  Withdrawing our troops from Iraq would not only offer Iran some piece of mind, but also would allow us to bargain properly with them about their nuclear program, and give our threats (only if necessary) some real credibility. 

The end of the article addresses the importance of peacekeeping forces, especially when we look at Bosnia and Kosovo.  However, instead of taking on peacekeeping alone, we should be including the UN, NATO, the European Union and our allies (if we have yet to alienate them).  Peacekeeping is much different than occupation, which is the transition the US military will be forced to make with increased troop withdrawals.  This is something that the UN is familiar with, and with which our allies might be willing to help. 

The issue of whether a state is ready to succeed on its own can be debated until the end of time.  It was only my grandparents’ generation when Germany was considered the epitome of evil, and the mention of Japan made Americans nervous.  Now, Japan and Germany are close US allies.  Less than forty years ago we considered Vietnam a lost cause when we withdrew the last US troops, and today we are working toward an alliance.  Even twenty-five years ago, I highly doubt that a Russian father-daughter gymnastics combo would have become American Olympic heroes.  Things change; power cycles; states rise and states fall.  I believe that asking for independence is the best evidence that a country is ready.  And obviously the US will be there if disaster strikes.  This is, after all, how the United States came to exist. 

McCain said it best when he stated that our first priority is to make sure that US troops are safe.  Our troops are no longer as safe in Afghanistan as they are in Iraq.  'staying the course’ will only continue this trend.  It is time to change our priorities. 

 
A picture of an Iraqi psychiatric hospital, now in disrepair. (NYTimes.com)
(Note: we know that US troops are suffering from psychiatric disorders upon returning to the US, but what about the Iraqi people?)

It seems that the US is bearing the brunt of reconstruction expenses in Iraq, even though the Iraqi government is projected to receive a $79 billion surplus from oil revenues by the end of 2008.  As the International Herald Tribune reported last week, Iraq is not only not spending its ever-increasing budget, but some of the government's money is actually sitting in a US bank.  The figures offered by the article could be easily misconstrued, such as the fact that the US spent $23.2 billion on reconstruction projects since the 2003 invasion while Iraq only spent $3.9 billion between 2005 and April, 2008.  It seems to me that the majority of US reconstruction spending would have taken place prior to that of Iraq.  Not to mention that oil reconstruction, which allowed for increased Iraqi revenues, was most likely a large chunk of the US budget.  Nonetheless, Americans should be questioning the continuing billion-dollar spending.  One worrisome statistic is that between 2005 and 2007, Iraq only contributed 1 percent of its operating budget to maintain reconstruction projects. 

In another story about budgeting US money in Iraq, The New York Times reported yesterday that 20% of US spending in Iraq has gone to contractors for the US military and other US government agencies.  This extremely interesting article states that private contractors now outnumber US troops in Iraq, and that this large population has allowed the US government to keep troop numbers as low as they are while also avoiding a draft.  Further, US spending on contractors (starting from 2003) is slated to reach over $100 billion by the end of 2008.  I won't paraphrase the entire article here, but I vehemently recommend that everyone read it.  I will be very interested to see how military contracting is used in future conflicts, US and otherwise. 

In a morning speech Thursday outside the Oval Office, George W addressed the Iraq war, political and military advances made by the Iraqi government and shorter tours of duty.  The International Herald Tribune published the full text of his speech. 

“This has been a month of encouraging news from Iraq.  Violence is down to its lowest level since the spring of 2004, and we’re now in our third consecutive month with reduced violence levels holding steady.  General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker caution that the progress is still reversible, but they report that there now appears to be a ‘degree of durability’ to the gains we have made. 
A significant reason for this sustained progress is the success of the surge.  Another is the increasing capability of the Iraqi forces.”

Some media outlets are focusing on Bush's statement about the possibility of “reversible progress,” or that he did not specify on the topic of the security agreement with the Iraqi government.  Bush did state that military tours in Iraq will be decreased from 15 months to 12, which I’m sure is good news for our troops.  However, he only vaguely addressed a full withdrawal timeline, as usual. 

The latest news this week is Iraq's demand for a withdrawal timetable from US officials.  The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that Iraqi National Security Adviser, Muwaffak al-Rubaie, demanded the timetable, saying that Iraq is “impatiently waiting” for the withdrawal of US troops.  This comes after Prime Minister al-Maliki's same request, and was “the strongest demand yet by a senior Iraqi official” on setting “specific dates for the departure of US forces.”  He went on to say that Iraq would not accept any deal in which a time line is not specifically delineated. 

This seems, in my opinion, like a good sign: the Iraqi government appears to be tired of relying on the US, and further, must believe that they can do the job themselves.  I would trust the judgment of these high-ranking Iraqi officials– if the country explodes again, they know that their lives will be on the line as they avoid assassination attempts.  In the past, the quandary about a withdrawal has involved both the Iraqi government and the American people; the Iraqis wanted us to stay for protection and resources, and Americans were operating under the premise, “you break it, you buy it.”  But here's our green flag.  Here's W's chance to negotiate for Iraqi military bases while pulling out and still keeping some dignity in the history books.  So why is the Bush administration blowing this off? 

Further, statements made by US officials are both confusing and frustrating.  They were quoted in this article saying that al-Maliki's previous calls for a timetable “were aimed at local and regional audiences,” and that they don't “reflect fundamental disagreements with the Bush administration.”  However, how could the timetable demand not be directed toward toward the US government when it is being addressed in terms of our bilateral security agreements?  Additionally, Tony Fratto, White House spokesperson, said that talks of a withdrawal are not currently on the table because the Iraqi government “would not take an action that would destabilize the country.”  Meanwhile, media and government reports lead us to believe that the surge worked and that security is getting better each day.  ”Destabilization” is not a word we hear now when the administration discusses Iraq.

To me, US officials are making a mockery out of Iraqi officials.  It seems that the Bush administration is treating the new government like a petulant child who doesn't know what it wants.  But even more, this offends me as a US citizen; these statements by the administration don't add up.  Americans have dealt with patronizing and conflicting reports like these for five years now, and so far most have fallen through (and this includes the motives for the 2003 invasion).  But the jig is up now: avoiding the truth with the American public is just not going to fly anymore. 

February, 2006: Shi’a Iraqis sift through the rubble of the al-Askariyya, or Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra, Iraq in order to find remnants of their religious texts.  The city lies in rubble from the supposed al-Qaeda bombing (although no one actually claimed responsibility for the attack).  One of the most internationally important Shi’a mosques is almost unidentifiable, cloaked in an invisible, yet thick layer of fear and sadness.  The attack set off the worst sectarian violence since the US overthrew the Ba'th regime in 2003. 

June, 2008: The Shrine still sits in ruins.  The remains of the famous dome once covered in gold-plated tiles still lie on the ground.  Concrete blocks of rubble sit in piles awaiting attention.  The shops next door, once filled with bustling Iraqis buying food and gifts, still have closed doors.  But all is not lost– one shop remains open, serving the workers that have started trickling onto the construction site.  The Iraqi government, partnering with UNESCO, (the United Nations’ heritage agency) has taken on the restoration of the mosque, and plans to reconstruct it exactly as it looked prior to the bombing.  The rebuilding effort is reported by Deborah Haynes, from the Times Online blog, “Inside Iraq.” 

On the subject of recontruction progress in Iraq, I admit it: I am a cynic.  Even Ms. Haynes mentions the lack of electricity and running water in Samarra houses and the abundance of trash in the streets.   But after reading this story, I have gained some hope.  That architect Haj Zuhair al-Auzari is taking on this incredible project leads me to believe that Iraqis are slowly starting to fix their country, and in a sense, reclaim it as well.  We can only hope that the reconstruction of the Golden Dome mosque will return Samarra to the center of Shi’a pilgrimage that it once was, and in turn, begin to rebuild its economic base.  And with this, give all Iraqis the courage and determination they need at a time when their country and culture have been ripped to shreds. 

The story of this mosque holds a special place in my heart; it was my MA Thesis topic.  I thought that the bombing was one of the most incredible stories to come out of this war in terms of destruction and devastation.  But I might be wrong (and I certainly hope that I am).  The story of the al-Askariyya Mosque might, in fact, still be one of the most incredible; this time a story about hope and healing. 

The latest news involving Iraqi reconstruction revolves around just one word: oil.  (Reported on Informed Comment) Both UK newspapers, The Independent and The Guardian, published stories today about recent foreign oil company deals with Iraq.  The articles discuss the new contracts negotiated by Exxon Mobil, Total, Shell and BP (amongst others) for “repair and technical support.”  The contracts are not long-term (only two years) and do not include the full set-up for drilling and exploration.  However, there are insinuations, and even some flat-out comments, that the companies are using these agreements as a “stepping-stone” for future, more lucrative contracts.  Both British authors compare this latest development to the western exploitation of Iraqi oil following the post-WWI creation of the Iraqi state (for more historical background, click on Informed Comment or The Independent.)  Essentially, these stories have turned oil companies into the McSinisters of the world (not that I completely disagree with that right now). 

The Washington Post , The New York Times and USA Today also reported on the new contracts.  They state that foreign investment means that Iraq is finally on track with its security and reconstruction efforts, while implying that the US is doing its job in reducing violence and improving Iraqi government and infrastructure.  USA Today's version of the continuing oil saga is particularly interesting.  Entitled, “Hope arises for Iraqi oil production,” this article views the same story in a completely different way than that of the Brits.  Quoting a Basra councilman, author Charles Levinson describes the return of the oil companies as Iraq's “wish.”  Here, we are led to believe that the oil conglomerates will save the day (more specifically, Iraq's economy). 

The US media is claiming that these contracts would propel Iraq into modernization, and more importantly, wealth.  But does this really mean wealth for Iraqis?  Or just more for the oil companies?  As The Guardian, The Independent and The New York Times all state, these oil deals are making Middle Easterners nervous that getting our hands on their oil was the US government's goal all along.  And of course, the latter group of articles include Iraqi oil output in the discussion about alleviating gas prices in the US, something that Americans are desperate to hear right now.  I don't have a strong background in economics, but I have to ask: with the exponential increase in consumption by China and India, is a 4% addition to the global supply really going to lower prices for the next six months, one year, five years? 

We’ve all seen it a thousand times before: one set of facts, ten different stories.  That's just how the media works.  But I’m always left wondering, who should we listen to?