A senior USIP team from Washington, D.C. and Baghdad in late June met with male and female Iraqi leaders from across the country's diverse political spectrum as well as with Iraqi youth, civil society and representatives of vulnerable minority groups. USIP’s Sean Kane reports from Baghdad on some of the main themes on the issues of the day which emerged from USIP’s conversations with a cross section of Iraqi leaders.
July 14, 2011
A senior USIP team from Washington, D.C. and Baghdad in late June met with male and female Iraqi leaders from across the country's diverse political spectrum as well as with Iraqi youth, civil society and representatives of vulnerable minority groups.
The meetings provided the opportunity to discuss decision-making in the Iraqi government, including defining the relationship with the United States after the expiration of the current Security Agreement later this year. USIP’s Sean Kane reports from Baghdad on some of the main themes on the issues of the day which emerged from USIP’s conversations with a cross section of Iraqi leaders.
- As U.S. military forces prepare to leave Iraq, how would you assess the security situation?
- What are some concerns regarding the U.S. military’s departure?
- In your experience of visiting Iraq, how does the country compare to a few years ago regarding its political development?
- How does USIP’s work contribute to Iraq’s long term stability and in turn help the United State’s long-term foreign policy goals?
As U.S. military forces prepare to leave Iraq, how would you assess the security situation?
Current levels of violence in Iraq remain high by any normal standard (an average this year of around- 200 civilians killed per month), but still represent a substantial improvement from the peak of sectarian strife in 2006-2007 (when approximately 3,800 Iraqis were being killed per month). The security gains brought about by the surge in U.S. forces has largely been maintained since U.S. troops withdrew from Iraqi cities in June 2009 and turned over lead security responsibility to the Iraqi Security Forces.
As U.S. troops prepare to fully exit the country by December 2011, there has been an uptick in violence. While there is no longer a full-fledged insurgency, there have been high profile terrorist attacks on local governments in several Iraqi provinces over the past few months. Radical Shiite militias in the southern Iraq have also increased the tempo of their activities in order to create a narrative that they are driving the United States out of Iraq. Perhaps most significant is the new phenomenon of targeted assassinations of senior government and security officials using silenced weapons. To many observers, this new tactic is an ominous sign of how contending actors are jockeying to fill the power vacuum left by the U.S. military drawdown.
What are some concerns regarding the U.S. military’s departure?
The meetings by the USIP Iraq team in Baghdad provided the opportunity to discuss Iraqi decision-making with representatives of all of the political blocs that make up the country’s national partnership government. The scheduled departure of U.S. troops in December is right now a key topic of internal discussion. There is a clearly a strong desire among Iraqis to no longer have foreign troops present in their country. There are also two mainareas of concern that lead many in the political class to privately conclude that a full U.S. departure in 2011 may be premature.
In the security realm, there is a sense that the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are largely capable of handling internal security in the country but still require further training, intelligence coordination and assistance with external defense, especially in maintaining control of Iraqi airspace and safeguarding the vulnerable oil export terminals in the Persian Gulf that generate 95 percent of government revenues. Most parties are looking to the Iraqi Army and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to provide a technical assessment of the gaps in the ISF before taking a position on this politically risky issue themselves. According to several people we met with who were present in the room, the prime minister provided an initial brief focused on external defense shortcomings to a gathering of 20 senior Iraqi political leaders earlier this week.
From a political standpoint, the U.S. military has provided a balance against Iranian influence in Iraq and a psychological confidence boost that no one actor will try to overturn the country’s new political system. Especially among Iraq’s minority Sunni-Arab community and Kurds who have historically fought with the central government, there are concerns of marginalization by the Shiite majority or of the history of Arab-Kurdish conflict repeating itself if the U.S. military fully departs.
In your experience of visiting Iraq, how does the country compare to a few years ago regarding its political development?
In years past, the core concerns with respect to Iraqi politics and the Iraqi government related to their fragmentation and weakness. The full scale insurgency that surrounded Iraq’s difficult post-2003 political transition from dictatorship to democracy and the penetration of the government by armed groups raised fears of perpetual conflict and a failed state. The security improvements brought about the surge appear to have helped to create greater space for politics to flourish and allowed stronger leaders, such as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to emerge.
It can perhaps then be taken as a sign of progress then that the most frequent worries we heard about the political process regarded the concentration of power in the institution of the prime minister, particularly its commander in chief role and in his political party (which has led all of Iraq’s post-2003 governments). The key challenge now appears to be balancing Iraq’s need for effective leadership with developing appropriate checks and balances on the exercise of power and ensuring that the state apparatus and security forces are not used to settle political disputes. Stronger public engagement in governance could help towards that end. The public protests and civil society organizations putting pressure on the government to improve services and fight corruption send positive signals of Iraqis making use of civic channels and openness available to them.
How does USIP’s work contribute to Iraq’s long term stability and in turn help the United State’s long-term foreign policy goals?
The U.S. government has articulated the goal of an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, self-reliant and can contribute to peace and stability in the Middle East. After enormously costly investments in both human and financial terms, Iraq has made progress in this direction over the past several years. But it still has some distance to travel. As the lead U.S. military role in Iraq is transitioned to a civilian-led mission this year, USIP and its permanent field office in Baghdad are contributing to the achievement of these outcomes by promoting reconciliation and moderation, strengthening governance and civil society, and giving the next generation of Iraqi youth a stake in peace and stability.
The Institute’s work in Iraq is guided by its core mandate to grow Iraqi capacities to prevent, manage and resolve conflicts peacefully. In a country that is emerging from decades of war, internal conflict, and sanctions and is faces continuing struggles over the control of power and resources, it is the development of indigenous institutions and leaders who possess these capabilities that will be a key determinant of whether U.S. policy objectives in Iraq can be achieved.