NIE: Withdrawal Discussion Frustrates Iraqi Political Progress

Bottom Line Up Front:  The NIE report on Iraq's stability points toward retarded political progress based on the withdrawal debate in Washington.

The newly released National Intelligence Estimate on the prospects for Iraq’s stability yielded 3 basic conclusions:

1) The surge is working and there is progress on the ground, including security, progress in local government, etc.

2) The Iraqi government is struggling for national unity and failing to pass some major legislation.

3) The expected withdrawal of U.S. troops is creating anticipation for outside forces who wish to fill the void left behind and is causing more sectarian division among Iraqis rather than bringing unity.

There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation since our last National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in January 2007.

Two new drivers have emerged since the January Estimate: expanded Sunni opposition to AQI and Iraqi expectation of a Coalition drawdown. Perceptions that the Coalition is withdrawing probably will encourage factions anticipating a power vacuum to seek local security solutions that could intensify sectarian violence and intra-sectarian competition.

The IC assesses that Iraq’s neighbors will continue to focus on improving their leverage in Iraq in anticipation of a Coalition drawdown. Assistance to armed groups, especially from Iran, exacerbates the violence inside Iraq, and the reluctance of the Sunni states that are generally supportive of US regional goals to offer support to the Iraqi Government probably bolsters Iraqi Sunni Arabs’ rejection of the government’s legitimacy.

The surge has been fully underway for 2 months. Giving the Iraqi government more time isn’t unreasonable. In fact, to ruin all the progress and sacrifice because the Iraqi government at the federal level is much like ours is hypocritical. Our legislators take recesses  during war time. Our federal government is decidedly partisan. Our local governments are far more successful and cogent than our national government. Sound familiar?

Democrats are shifting focus from a failing surge (since it’s working and working well) to the Maliki government in order to sway public opinion against the war. Its’ clear that #’s 1 & 3 are on the side of the “we need to complete the mission” argument, so pointing to a seemingly impotent Maliki government is their only device left to persuade reason.

But Democratic U. S. Rep. Brian Baird recently returned from a visit to Baghdad and expressed his belief that the U.S. should stay and not withdrawal from Iraq, adding that the discussion of withdrawal may actually be painting Prime Minister al-Maliki into a corner, along with ordinary Iraqis, who must choose an alliance of convenience in anticipation of a U.S. withdrawal:

You can imagine if you’re Maliki you might side with Iran naturally. They’re a better ally—maybe—than us. Or you might feel that you have to side with Iran because if we pull out and the Sunnis resurge, then you need to have Iran as an ally. Well, either of those scenarios, [coupled with] our threats of withdrawal, actually drive Maliki toward the Iranian camp. Either he goes with them because he thinks we’re going to withdraw and they’re going to have free rein, or he goes with them because we’re going to withdraw and he has to defend himself against Baathists or Sunnis. Conversely, on the Sunnis’ side, if they think we’re going to withdraw, they may say, “Well, gee, we have to protect ourselves from the Iranian-Shia factions and therefore we need to plus up our strength.” In both of those cases, [discussing] premature withdrawal tends to cause people to be less likely to work together, rather than more likely. Frankly, to be honest, I’m not sure I fully appreciated that prior to this visit. But I’m persuaded that it’s an accurate assessment.

When you listen, one-on-one, with Iraqi politicians—not filtered through public statement, not filtered through our media—you can discuss the various options, begin to get a better understanding of where they’re coming from, in ways that, by nature, can’t necessarily be public.

He also wrote this op-ed on why he believes Iraq could have a positive future. 

Democrats have a lot of nerve. In 2000 they said presidential elections should be decided by a majority vote… because Democratic nominee Al Gore won the majority but lost the electoral college. Then in 2004 when John Kerry lost to Bush by a smaller electoral college margin than majority vote they said the electoral college is the way to conduct a presidential vote… but that darned Osama bin Laden scared voters at the last minute or the victory would have been theirs. They also want to impeach the current democratically elected Bush/Cheney on the basis that they don’t like the war. And Alberto Gonzalez should resign… and Karl Rove, John Bolton….. anyone who is not them. To make matters worse, they insult the Iraqi people and government by suggesting Prime Minister al-Maliki be removed from office.

Where does it end with these people but utter defeat?

OTHERS BLOGGING:  Gateway Pundit  Wake Up America  Flopping Aces  Outside the Beltway 

Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1223774