“Not Lost”: Increase our Investment in Iraq

In advance of the Petraeus report, the military surge in Iraq is paying military dividends so critics of American policy are pointing to the shortcomings of the al Maliki government (and our own) as reason to quit. But the American public told a Zogby poll this week they believe Iraq is “not lost.” While it is also “not won,” the public appears to have good instincts.

In advance of the Petraeus report, the military surge in Iraq is paying military dividends so critics of American policy are pointing to the shortcomings of the al Maliki government (and our own) as reason to quit. But the American public told a Zogby poll this week they believe Iraq is “not lost.” While it is also “not won,” the public appears to have good instincts.

There was no Sunni-Shiite “civil war,” although extremists tried mightily to provoke one and haven’t given up on the idea yet. Iraqi Sunnis and their foreign allies used a horrific bombing campaign to regain domination. Shiites and their Iranian allies both retaliated and took massive revenge for past horrors. But Sunni extremists overplayed their hand in the Triangle – non-Iraqi al Qaeda fighters demanded to marry local women to give themselves local status, among other faux pas. [Why do we think only Americans are ham-handed in their dealings with foreigners?] In the Shiite south, rival gangs fighting for local power were responsible for the gunfire in Karbala that killed dozens of pilgrims. The Iranian-backed Sadr forces announced a unilateral cease-fire.

On the other hand, in Baghdad, The Washington Times notes that Iraq’s political leadership (Shiite Prime Minister, Kurdish President, Sunni and Shiite Vice Presidents and the head of the Kurdistan regional government) have agreed on changes in de-Baathification laws; oil revenue sharing, provincial elections and prisoner releases right before the Iraqi parliament returns for business. Parliament will vote on those laws.

What does it mean for American involvement in Iraq?

The strongest reason for the U.S. military to be in Iraq is to deny al Qaeda territory from which to spread terrorism and Sunni jihadi radicalism. We aren’t done yet, but we are radically reducing the safe haven for al Qaeda in Iraq. Forcing them back to Waziristan would be a good next step. As for the Shiites, Sadr’s “cease fire” is like a Hamas “cease fire” – it means they are losing and want their enemies to stop shooting at them so they can reorganize and rearm. Hard-won wisdom from the Israeli experience suggests that America not play that game.

Politically, no one would mistake al-Maliki for Abraham Lincoln in wartime. But the estimable Charles Krauthammer makes the case that if a Prime Minister loses the confidence of the government, new elections are not a sign of national failure, but successful politics. He also suggests district-based voting next time so legislators will be beholden to the voters, not to the party bosses.

There is surely room for political reorganization in Iraq. So rather than talking about an American withdrawal, we urge the President to increase our investment and increase America’s political profile. If the President would strengthen the State and Justice Department’s representation in Baghdad and invest as much effort at the political level as American troops have invested on the battlefield, he may prove the American people right and Iraq may be “not lost” after all.