The Iraqi Reality

A good article from the Washington Post paints quite a different picture of Iraq than the one George Bush described in his speech yesterday.

Bush, in his speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, spoke of progress toward independence, of land restored to Iraqi control, of gains in stability and democracy, and of the "skill and courage" of newly trained Iraqi security forces.

But on the streets of Baghdad, such optimistic rhetoric contrasts sharply with the thunder of suicide bombs, the scream of ambulance sirens, the roar of racing police cars bearing men with masks and machine guns, and the grim daily reports of assassinations, murders and hostage-taking.

But that's generalizing. Maybe things have gotten better? What about now, at the time of the speech?

On the same day Bush spoke, nine farmworkers were killed when gunmen opened fire on a bus near Baqubah, snipers fired on the office of a National Assembly member in the capital, and three Iraqi army officers were wounded when a bomb went off near their patrol. In Fallujah, 20,000 people marched in a funeral for a Sunni cleric shot while leaving prayers.

For Iraq, that was a quiet day.

Ok, but Iraq is a pretty big country, it can't be bad everywhere, so how do Iraqis feel?

"At least we didn't have terrorism under Saddam Hussein. Now, we have explosions, kidnapping, stealing," said [Ali] Kathem, 24, a stocky man who has sold cigarettes on a busy roadside in the Iraqi capital for nearly a decade.

In an electronics store nearby, Haider Falleh, 32, said his opinion of the new Iraq crystallized when a half-dozen men in police uniforms, driving police cars, robbed his shop of 45 cell phones. He ran for help to police at a checkpoint across the street. They shrugged.

For Ghassan Abdul Haider, 26, a Shiite police officer in the capital, the religious lines dividing the country have kept him from his home in northern Baghdad for three months. The last time he was there, little children brought notes from his Sunni neighbors saying he would be killed.

...

"You just never know what you will face. Each day when I come to work, I think it will be my last day alive," said Falleh, the electronics store operator. He said he survived one bomb blast and escaped death a second time when police reacting to the bomb fired wildly into his car.

But things have got to have been improving in the past couple of years? Right?

Multiple-death bombings reached an all-time high of 46 in September, a record likely to be broken this month. More than 400 people have died in bombings this month, compared with 91 a year ago. Every day, according to an estimate by the Brookings Institution in Washington, there are roughly 100 attacks, double the rate of a year ago, and each month between 200 and 300 Iraqi policemen and soldiers are killed. Ninety-three U.S. troops died in October, the fourth-highest monthly toll since the invasion of Iraq.

So how does the situation improve then? What do Iraqis think should happen?

Iraqi political leaders see the U.S. debate as a key to their own futures, and in the foyer of the National Assembly, many offered diverging opinions on the subject.

"The Iraqi security forces and army are not yet at the level of performance to maintain security for the Iraqi people," said Arif Tayfor Sarder, deputy speaker of the National Assembly and a Kurd. "We feel the presence of the American forces is a safety valve for keeping the forces who are trying to incite trouble under control," he said.

The Kurds in Iraq's north are the least eager among Iraqi groups to see the departure of the United States, which has helped ensure a large degree of autonomy for them.

"A withdrawal rate of 40,000 year is doable," said Ali Abdul-Amir Allawi, a former defense minister and now the finance minister. "If the rate of progress of the Iraqi forces continues, then I think we can replace the U.S. forces man-for-man when the Iraqis are battle-ready."

That sounds optimistic. However, what will happen in such a power vacuum?

[Allawi] also said he saw a growing movement toward carving Iraq into large regions -- one for Shiites, one for Sunnis, one for Kurds. That notion of division has stoked fears of a civil war among the sects when the Americans leave.

"We see the beginning of that already. All these assassinations every day," said Wael Abdul-Latif, a parliament member who helped write the constitution. "The security is deteriorating. It's becoming worse day by day.

"I think there are 60 to 70 assassinations every day, and most of these are sectarian killings," Latif added. "The Sunni, Kurd and Shiite militias are the ones that control the street. If the multinational forces withdraw in such a situation, there will be even more assassinations, and the government will get weaker."

Back in his electronics shop, Falleh predicted that "if the American troops leave right away, there will be massacres between Sunnis and Shiites. If they go, there will be no law left. But they are a target here," he said. "The U.S. troops make the situation worse."

He paused, struggling to make a choice.

"I guess what I'm saying is that if they stay, they will cause problems. If they leave, they will cause bigger problems."

Seems like a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation when it comes to considering an American withdrawal. The thing is the decision will be mostly based on the political situation in the U.S., not the one in Iraq. That's not how it should be, but how it will likely play out. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a disastrous move, as much because of that reality as anything else.

Americans have never had the stomach for the kind of long term commitment needed to produce any real stability in the region. I'm talking decades. My prediction if Bush won re-election last year, which of course he did, was that by 2006 the mid-term elections would cause a political backlash that would drive to a premature withdrawal from Iraq. Republicans fear a drubbing at the ballot box should the situation continue much longer.

I actually believe that had Kerry won election, politics could have been set at bay and a policy toward Iraq based on strategic and military factors would have had a greater chance.

Bush still hasn't given a real indication about the speed and size of a withdrawal, but even were we to pull out 50,000 troops we'd still have 100,000 left. Hardly the type of action that will appease the critics calling for a immediate withdrawal of all troops.

It is hard to argue that minimizing our casualties by pulling out sooner rather than later isn't the best option available. The insurgency has proven to be more resilient than anyone would have predicted. Our presence in Iraq fuels the fire we're trying to put out. If America is to have a serious debate on the issue, beyond politics, it will have to recognize both that reality and balance it with all the others.

One thing is for sure, this is a mess of our making, from even before the invasion. Let's not forget how Saddam rose to power in the first place. America will pay a price one way or another before all is said and done. That is not my wish, it is simply the most likely outcome.

Cross-posted at On The Road To 2008.