28 Jan 2010: Houston Chronicle
While Haiti and Afghanistan currently have the priority of the Obama administration, Iraq is a potential spoiler. Parliamentary elections on March 7, followed by the formation of a new Iraqi government, are critical benchmarks for Iraq's transition to sovereignty. The U.S. role in the coming weeks and months will be decisive in Iraq's future.
Barack Obama campaigned for president on ending the war in Iraq and, one year into his presidency, that policy is on track. There are approximately 115,000 U.S. troops in Iraq today. Obama has said the U.S. combat mission in Iraq will end in August, and all U.S. troops will be withdrawn by December 2011, according to the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement.
The winding down of the U.S. combat mission does not mean an end to U.S. vital national interests in Iraq. While there has been progress, Iraq remains a fragile state where governance lags politics, corruption rivals economic development, political institutions are weak, and reconciliation among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is incomplete. Despite the flurry of recent oil deals, Iraq is exporting only about 2 million barrels per day, roughly equal to or below pre-2003 levels. Terrorism continues throughout Iraq; just this week bombings in Baghdad killed dozens.
The Iraqi elections and the formation of a new government should be considered an urgent priority for the U.S. If the elections go well, Iraq has a good chance for further progress in 2010. If not, the Obama administration could find itself bedeviled by yet another crisis — Back to the Future in Iraq. In a worrying development, a controversial ban on nearly 500 Sunni politicians from participating in the elections because of alleged ties to the outlawed Baath Party of former President Saddam Hussein remains in place.
U.S. policy toward Iraq should therefore be organized around these four objectives:
-
First, the U.S. should press the Iraqi government to revisit the decision on the ban and assure effective participation by Sunni politicians and parties in both the elections and the next Iraqi government. Vice President Joe Biden discussed the election ban with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad last week. If Sunni Iraqis continue to see themselves as disenfranchised, the probability of further Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence and terrorism will be high.
-
Second, the U.S. must intensify counterterrorism and intelligence cooperation with Iraq even after the end of combat operations. In this vein, President Obama has called for a “transitional” U.S. force of 35,000-50,000 troops for training of Iraqi forces, counterterrorism operations and protection of U.S. civilian and military personnel.
-
Third, the U.S. must help Iraqi and Iraqi Kurdish leaders agree on a hydrocarbon law, or, at least to start, a mechanism for revenue sharing. An oil law would lead to a more welcoming foreign investment climate, add 100,000–250,000 barrels per day of oil exports from the Kurdistan region and deepen energy cooperation with Turkey through pipeline networks. It would be the most practical step in reducing tension between Baghdad and the Kurdistan region, including over Kirkuk and the “disputed territories,” potential flashpoints. With that in mind, the U.S. has set up joint checkpoints and patrols with Iraqi federal and Kurdish forces along the “fault line” between the Kurdistan region and the rest of Iraq.
-
Fourth, Obama has said Iraq should “be a full partner in a regional dialogue.” This is overdue. After the formation of a new Iraqi government, the U.S. should institutionalize a regional security conference among Iraq and its neighbors, including Iran and Syria.
-
Given the stakes in Iraq, Iran and the Persian Gulf, a diplomatic surge around Iraq's elections, followed by a renewed U.S.-led regional security initiative among Iraq's neighbors, should be a top priority for the United States, right up there with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Afghanistan.
Parasiliti is executive director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies-U.S.
