In a recent post entitled Political Dog Wags the Military Tail, I covered the issue of Iraqi politics and how it has undermined the U.S. war effort.  Two core political problems face us in Iraq at the present.  First, the system of government that has been set up is not conducive to stability.  Prime Minister Maliki is just that – a Prime Minister, and member of parliament (or a so-called “special member of parliament”).  The parliamentary model is designed to be held together by a coalition in a multi-party system, and Maliki is beholden to the power of the Shia, and in particular the more radical elements such as that led by Muqtada al-Sadr.  This dependence on al-Sadr prevents the Iraqi army or police from cracking down on the Shi’ite militias.

Stratfor recently released an analysis of the situation that closely follows this line of thinking:

Essentially, U.S. strategy in Iraq is to create an effective coalition government, consisting of all the major ethnic and sectarian groups. In order to do that, the United States has to create a security environment in which the government can function. Once this has been achieved, the Iraqi government would take over responsibility for security. The problem, however, is twofold. First, U.S. forces have not been able to create a sufficiently secure environment for the government to function. Second, there are significant elements within the coalition that the United States is trying to create who either do not want such a government to work — and are allied with insurgents to bring about its failure — or who want to improve their position within the coalition, using the insurgency as leverage. In other words, U.S. forces are trying to create a secure environment for a coalition whose members are actively working to undermine the effort.

The core issue is that no consensus exists among Iraqi factions as to what kind of country they want. This is not only a disagreement among Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, but also deep disagreements within these separate groups as to what a national government (or even a regional government, should Iraq be divided) should look like. It is not that the Iraqi government in Baghdad is not doing a good job, or that it is corrupt, or that it is not motivated. The problem is that there is no Iraqi government as we normally define the term: The “government” is an arena for political maneuvering by mutually incompatible groups.

The second core political problem that we face concerns where the U.S. stands in Iraqi politics.  The Small Wars Journal has an important discussion thread entitled Iraq: Strategic and Diplomatic Options.  Part of this discussion thread includes a link to a Newsweek commentary by Fareed Zakaria.  These insightful nuggets have been posted in the discussion thread:

Here is the tough question: What are America’s objectives in Iraq and how can we achieve them? More bluntly, what is to be done with the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops stationed there? What is their mission? If they have new goals, do these require more Americans or fewer? Not to tackle this issue is to present a doughnut document—all sides and no center.

In answering this question, we need to keep three factors in mind:

This is not our chessboard. The Iraqi government has authority over all the political issues in the country. We may have excellent ideas about federalism, revenue-sharing and amnesty, but the ruling coalition has to agree and then actually implement them. So far, despite our many efforts, they have refused. There is a desperate neoconservative plea for more troops to try one more time in Iraq. But a new military strategy, even with adequate forces, cannot work without political moves that reinforce it. The opposite is happening today. American military efforts are actually being undermined by Iraq’s government. The stark truth is, we do not have an Iraqi partner willing to make the hard decisions. Wishing otherwise is, well, wishful thinking.

Time is not on America’s side. Month by month, U.S. influence in Iraq is waning. Deals that we could have imposed on Iraq’s rival factions in 2003 are now impossible. A year ago, America’s ambassador to Iraq had real influence. Today he is being marginalized. Thus any new policy that requires new approaches to the neighbors and lengthy negotiations carries the cost associated with waiting.

America’s only real leverage is the threat of withdrawal. Many outsiders fail to grasp how much political power the United States has handed over in Iraq. The Americans could not partition Iraq or distribute its revenues even if Bush decided to. But Washington can warn the ruling coalition that unless certain conditions are met, U.S. troops will begin a substantial drawdown, quit providing basic security on the streets of Iraq and instead take on a narrower role, akin to the Special Forces mission in Afghanistan.

And one last thing: for such a threat to be meaningful, we must be prepared to carry it out.

It might come as a surprise to some, but the U.S. is under what is called by the U.N. Security Council a “security partnership” with the Iraqi government.  This means that the poitical will necessary by the U.S. administration to bring about security and stability in Iraq is enormous.  In order to accomplish this mission, the U.S. would essentially have to retake ownership of military operations without regard to the wishes of the Iraqi government or the U.N..  This would render the Iraqi government not just marginalized, but essentially impotent and an artifact of the past.  It isn’t likely to happen.  Even at this late date, with the right force projection (in the range of 400,000 troops), the war can be completely won, security brought to Iraq, and hostilities ended.  To do this would require clearing operations in the Sunni triangle similar to Fallujah, and the disarming of the Shi’ite militias.

Such a large commitment of troops doesn’t appear to be in the works, and so we are essentially left with only one option.  Stratfor appears to have landed on this option with their assessment:

We do believe that the ISG will recommend a fundamental shift in the way U.S. forces are used. The troops currently are absorbing casualties without moving closer to their goal, and it is not clear that they can attain it. If U.S. forces remain in Iraq — which will be recommended — there will be a shift in their primary mission. Rather than trying to create a secure environment for the Iraqi government, their mission will shift to guaranteeing that Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, do not gain further power and influence in Iraq. Nothing can be done about the influence they wield among Iraqi Shia, but the United States will oppose anything that would allow them to move from a covert to an overt presence in Iraq. U.S. forces will remain in-country but shift their focus to deterring overt foreign intrusion. That means a redeployment and a change in day-to-day responsibility. U.S. forces will be present in Iraq but not conducting continual security operations.

The only two viable options for the U.S. in Iraq are to (a) increased troop levels and go on offensive operations against the enemy, with the enemy being defined as everything from the Shi’ite militias to the Saddam Fedayeen and al-Qaeda, or (b) withdraw forces to the north in Kurdistan, supporting the Iraqi army and police in offensive operations on an as-need basis.  This support would not include regular or routine “security” patrols, since these patrols are not bringing security to Iraq.  This presence in Kurdistan would have the side benefits of ensuring that Turkey and Kurdistan remain at peace and limiting the influence of Iran and Syria in Iraq.  In addition to assisting the Iraqi forces, the U.S. forces could then ensure security along the porous borders with Iran and Syria. 

The Shia want the U.S. in Iraq to destroy its enemy, the Sunni.  The Sunni want the U.S. in Iraq to destroy the Shia.  Our new strategy must oblige neither.  Bush has said that he is open to ideas from the Iraq study group led by James Baker, but has also indicated that he is skeptical of troop reductions.  Even the Iraqi administration knows that the immediate departure of U.S. troops from Iraq would have disastrous consequences.  It is unlikely that troops will be withdrawn, but an option is needed other than the continuation of “security patrols.”

As I have pointed out, the trend line slope for U.S. casualties is positive under the current strategy.  These casualties are occurring with regularity on security patrols.  Whatever strategy is pursued, Iraq must take responsibility for street security.  If we are going to war, then let’s war.  If we are going to re-deploy from Iraq, then let’s re-deploy.  What is not a viable option is to continue with the current strategy.