I arrived in Baghdad on a Royal Jordanian flight from Amman a few months ago to evaluate the progress of the transition from US military to Iraqi civilian control. The US military offered to host my trip as an academic and advisor to the US Army’s Training and Doctrine Center. The flight was full with expatriate contractors and, to my surprise, many Iraqis coming back home after fleeing due to the violence of war.
The Iraqi government had already reclaimed control of the airport. There was not a coalition member in site. Entry visas were available for visitors, the airport staff was friendly and the place was clean. To me, this was unexpected, but definite progress. The Iraqis were clearly operating the airport successfully and, no doubt, could manage other parts of the country as well. The transition was clearly underway. The question was when the civilian government will fully stabilise the country and be able to provide for its security.
I visited several provincial development teams led by US civilian leaders who were protected by designated military teams. Iraqis were members of these civilian teams while local governors, businessmen and ministry officials participated in planning and helping them focus on economic development and rebuilding infrastructure.
My impression is that Iraq will eventually become a stable and functioning country in the region. Yet, it is abundantly clear that all dangers have not subsided.
Unfortunately, violent attacks continue pushing Iraqi deaths over the last seven years higher than the half a million estimates that already exist, begging the question of whether the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is the correct step.
Everywhere I travelled was with a military escort usually in armoured vehicles wearing the necessary bulletproof vest and Kevlar helmet. It was clear that security was still tenuous. My conversations with Iraqi provincial leaders confirmed that they too are apprehensive about what would happen after the American withdrawal. Many provincial governors I spoke with wanted the US to remain. They feared that the Iraqi military was still not capable of providing security from external influences. They did not seem to be very worried about Al Qaeda, which they referred to as weak, instead the governors were concerned about what they called “the militias.’
Most Iraqis fear the rising groups of militias who continue to terrorise communities and prevent progress in governance. These groups, both Shi’te and Sunni, are at the heart of the continued violence across the country. The Sunni militias, most notably the Sahwa, also known as the Awakening Councils or Sons of Iraq, were directly supported by the US military during the surge. They now feel neglected by their benefactors and focus on challenging a weak Shi’te led government taking advantage of the country’s inability to provide basic protections to its citizens. Shi’te militias like the Badr Organisation and the Mehdi Army are known to fight to protect the government. Both are feared by Iraqis trying to work toward a stable and normal life.
Unfortunately, much of the hostilities are possible because Iraqis continue to grapple with forming the national government limiting its ability to protect its citizens. When I arrived in Baghdad, the elections were still being contested. Four months later, there is no internal agreement on who should be head of the government, which is perhaps the growing pains of democracy, but continues to make the security situation fragile.
Nevertheless, as agreed under the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, thousands of American military personnel streamed across the borders to Kuwait where they would await transport and eventually come home. But fifty thousand troops will remain to “advise and assist” Iraqi military and police forces so they can maintain security within their own nation. By forming a government, Iraqi leaders will be able to take advantage of these troops to assist them in rebuilding their infrastructure while continuing to move toward economic progress. These troops can continue to train security forces and police to maintain internal security, disarm and contain the spread of the militias. A new government can also expand the Status of Forces Agreement allowing US military advisors to remain in order to ensure Iraq can protect itself from external invaders and influence. Iran being the major concern here.
The true test as to whether Iraq will move forward begins now with what the US military calls the beginning of “Operation New Dawn.” This operation, which began on 1 September, “coincides with a changeover from a military to a civilian lead in Iraq; the name was chosen to reflect the reduced role of US troops.
The United States, however, remains challenged with wartime transitions often leaving countries in chaotic conflict for years to come. It would serve America, the region and the Iraqi government if there are defined and mutually recognised steps to ensure Iraqi security in the face of insurgencies. The US could help Iraq to begin the incorporation of the militia groups with a spotlight on disarmament. Further the civilians transition groups can help to begin some reconciliation activities beginning with sectarian community work and then broadening it to multi-sectarian participation. Either way, these initiatives must be Iraqi led with US support to create a space for change.
The future remains to be seen. Any success requires the immediate formation of the Iraqi government. Only then can the Iraqis move forward, begin healing themselves, moving toward of economic progress and ultimately creating an Iraq that is safe, sovereign and self-reliant.
Patricia DeGennaro is adjunct professor at New York’s University Department of Politics where she teaches a course on international security. She is also a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute and a
subject matter expert on Afghanistan and Iraq for the US Army’s Training and Doctrine Command Centre for Intelligence.
Source: Global Expert Finder, a project of the United Nations Alliance of Civilisations,
29 September 2010