• Taking the wheel, slowly  - Greg Bruno
The true test for Iraq and America's future there will come with parliamentary elections in January 2010.

• Challenges and opportunities  - Safa A. Hussein
Now it will be a hard sell for the militants to convince people that they are fighting for liberty.

• The view from Kurdistan  - Hiwa Osman
Unlike in the rest of the country, in the Kurdish cities no public holiday was declared.

• Redeployment is only part of a vast mosaic  - Waleed Sadi
The US had no choice but to disengage from Iraq militarily in order to engage the entire region politically.

Taking the wheel, slowly
 Greg Bruno

With over six years of war now in the rearview mirror, American troops have officially been relegated to the back seat. The June 30 implementation of a security agreement inked late last year means US military bases inside most Iraqi cities are now abandoned. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki marked the occasion by declaring a national holiday this week (kicked off with fireworks), and American military officials have so far made no effort to dampen Baghdad's mood. "I think this is the right time for us to turn responsibility over to the Iraqis," Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top American commander in Iraq, told FOX News in late June.

Yet for all the pomp and sovereign pageantry, analysts say the American exit from most major cities raises just as many questions as answers for the frustratingly-long American mission. "This is only an interim step," says Kenneth Katzman, a specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs for the non-partisan Congressional Research Service in Washington. Americans "are relocating bases," Katzman says, "but the actual impact is yet to be determined."

A number of strategic uncertainties cloud the withdrawal (which, in truth, has been underway for months). In many urban areas and towns, American bases have been closed. But in Baghdad, analysts suggest it is the definition of "city" that will change, not necessarily the locale or staffing of American strongholds. Nor will the total number of US troops in Iraq decline; roughly 130,000 troops are scheduled to remain until at least September, encircling cities if not saturating them. And while American troops will officially assume a training and support role, US patrols could continue in some cities including Basra, while hulking armored vehicles will continue to troll Iraqi streets. "There are lots of ambiguities" with this handover, says Sam Parker, an Iraq expert at the United States Institute of Peace. "A lot of this is about semantics."

The true test for Iraq and America's future there, experts say, will come with parliamentary elections in January 2010, and the date US President Barack Obama has set for the end of combat operations, August 2010. While Maliki has sold the American retreat from cities as a victory for his countrymen, Iraq remains heavily dependent on the American military for training, surveillance and mission support.

Perceptions matter, of course, and trend lines indicate that now is as good a time as any to scale back, however slightly. Overall attacks are down, bazaars are open and disputes--once settled with bullets--are increasingly handled by ballots. But observers both western and Iraqi say a return to sustained bloodshed remains a distinct possibility. In the north, lingering tensions between Kurds and Sunni Arabs over Kirkuk, and political struggles in Mosul, have kept violence at the fore. Kenneth M. Pollack, an Iraq expert at the Brookings Institution, told the Council on Foreign Relations in late June that ongoing political disagreements, especially between rival Shi'ite parties, could pose challenges in Baghdad. Stephen Biddle, a defense policy expert at the CFR, warns that decentralized, negotiated ceasefires inked in 2006 to keep the peace between Sunni insurgents and Shi'ite militias could crumble in the absence of American oversight. And as a series of bombings across Iraq last week illustrates, tensions simmer just below the surface. "The violence is increasing as the Americans withdraw," one worried Baghdadi told London's Sunday Times. "Whatever the reasons behind it, we will be its victims."

Both Washington and Baghdad have reason to avert such a scenario. Maliki, for one, has staked his political future on a strong nationalist front. Maliki's Dawa party cruised to victory in parliamentary elections in January, trouncing many rivals, but keeping a grip on power will likely require backing up his pledges of continued security. For Washington the aim is even more tactical. Janet St. Laurent, a defense analyst with the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog agency, told lawmakers in February 2009 that the Pentagon's planned ramp-up of military efforts in Afghanistan is at least partly dependent on a drawdown in Iraq.

While US forces will technically only be a phone call away, says Katzman, some Iraqi leaders are skeptical they can handle the responsibility. In a statement posted on his website, Tariq al-Hashimi, Iraq's Sunni vice-president, suggested Iraqis should now "avoid, whenever possible, crowded areas unless there is something important". For now, Washington appears intent on letting go of the wheel. But as Pollack suggests, the true test may come if and when Iraq needs a little push down the road. "One of the big problems we have had has been this fervent desire on the part of the American people and their political leaders to try to just ignore Iraq as much as we can," Pollack says. "The simple fact is that we may not like the war in Iraq, but we can't afford to walk away from it."- Published 2/7/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org


Greg Bruno is a staff writer for CFR.org, the website of the Council on Foreign Relations.

On June 30, Iraqi tanks and vehicles rolled out to participate in a national celebration of the withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi cities. Article 24 of the security agreement set this day as a deadline for US combat forces to withdraw from all Iraqi cities, villages and localities. The agreement also calls for all US forces to be withdrawn by December 31, 2011. Actually, the American military had been gradually pulling its combat forces out of Iraq's population centers for months and completed the withdrawal two days ahead of the deadline.

When Iraqis and Americans concluded their negotiations on a security agreement last December, many observers wondered what would be the effect of an early, fixed-date withdrawal of American forces on Iraq's stability. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to his credit, insisted that withdrawal would provide substantial momentum for the political process and would outweigh the security risks that might result from the withdrawal.

What, then, are the challenges and opportunities that withdrawal brings?

The first challenge is security: the capability of the Iraqi Security Forces to successfully assume responsibility in each province. In the ten days preceding withdrawal, a series of attacks targeting civilians killed more than 200 Iraqis. Maliki had warned of a potential increase in attacks around the withdrawal date aimed at discrediting the Iraqi government and ISF, but he was confident that the ISF would be capable of providing security for Iraqi cities after US combat troops withdrew. Senior American officers affirmed this and emphasized that their forces would work aggressively in the outer rural belts to prevent infiltration of terrorists into the cities.

The ISF are making real progress and building confidence in the Iraqi capacity to cope with security challenges, including al-Qaeda and other militants. Iraq's intelligence capabilities also continue to mature. A series of large offensive operations conducted by the ISF in spring/summer 2008 demonstrated their ability to rapidly deploy in large numbers. Local security forces in Samarra (100 km north of Baghdad) successfully protected more than 200,000 pilgrims who visited the holy site on June 26. Two years ago, Samarra was a dangerous area for visitors as well as for local residents.

Political reconciliation, required to remedy Iraq's political, ethnic and sectarian divisions, is the largest challenge facing the Iraqi government. Tensions between Arabs and Kurds over disputed territory, distribution of wealth and oil revenues and distribution of power in the north between the regional and federal governments is critical to Iraq's future. The Kurdistan Region constitution that was passed recently by the Kurdish parliament may add to these tensions. United States forces had been playing a roll in easing them by encouraging dialogue to try and bridge differences. This role should now be transferred to the US embassy with the resources necessary to accomplish it.

Implementation of the security agreement and the withdrawal of American troops also present new opportunities to the Iraqi government. Iraqi public opinion generally sees the US as an occupying power and wants it and other coalition forces to leave as soon as possible. Various militant groups have exploited the slogan of "resisting the occupiers" in their struggle for power.

Now, with the withdrawal of American forces, it will be a hard sell for the militants to convince people that they are fighting for liberty. Unless they lay down their weapons and reconcile, they will lose many of their supporters. Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militants are a major security threat, released a statement urging Iraqi citizens to support the ISF and counseled his followers to participate in a new era of "political resistance" in Iraq and reject violent activities. Even a top figure in the insurgency, Izzat al-Douri (Saddam Hussein's former deputy), published a speech on the web early Tuesday calling on his group not to attack Iraqi security forces, though he urged Iraqis to keep fighting Americans "wherever they may be in Iraq".

The US redeployment also presents an opportunity to Iraq regarding its foreign relations. Some neighboring countries held negative attitudes toward Iraq because they felt the presence of American forces there posed a direct threat to them. They reacted by intervening to destabilize Iraq. The withdrawal of American forces will enhance the opportunity to build healthy relations with these countries.

In addition, many countries were hesitant to build normal economic and diplomatic relations with Iraq because of their doubts regarding the ability of Iraq's government to prevail. Prime Minister Maliki has rightly described the transition as "a new phase that will bolster Iraqi's sovereignty and send a message to the world that we are now able to safeguard our security and administer our internal affairs." - Published 2/7/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org


Safa A. Hussein is a former deputy member of the dissolved Iraqi Governing Council. He served as a brigadier general in the Iraqi Air Force. Currently he serves in the Iraqi National Security Council.

On June 30, the US military pullout from the cities dominated Iraqi news bulletins. But in the Kurdistan region, people were busy with regional parliamentary elections. Unlike in the rest of the country, there were no US troops in the Kurdish cities, the actual day did not mean much and no public holiday was declared.

There is however another category of Kurds, those who live under the control of the central government in the areas bordering the Kurdistan Region. Kirkuk is one of them. It has, in many ways, become a gauge of Iraqi politics, stability and prosperity. There, these were the headlines:

* a car bomb in Kirkuk's Kurdish quarters killed over 30 people;

* the Arab and Turkoman representatives of the city call for the pullout of Kurdish forces;

* President Obama asks Vice President Biden to oversee US departure from Iraq and to promote internal political reconciliation.

The events of pullout day reminded Kurds of their dilemma and uncertainty regarding the future. They are seen as one of the Iraqi groups closest to the United States. In the various official statements about the pullout, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, was the only one who thanked the US troops for their sacrifices and efforts.

Hence, the Kurds are a target for every anti-American group, and these are not few, in the region. The car bomb demonstrated this clearly. The statement of the Arab and Turkoman representatives also highlights the need for a real settlement of the disputed areas that are covered by article 140 of the Iraqi constitution. Article 140 lays out a roadmap for solving the status of the areas that were Arabized by Saddam Hussein, who expelled the original Kurdish population to the northern governorates and replaced them with Arabs from the south.

So long as the issue of Kirkuk and other Arabized areas remains unresolved, the situation will continue to be volatile and the Kurds who live in these areas will feel vulnerable and fear retaliatory attacks by extremist groups. Despite repeated assurances from some politicians, fear that the situation could degenerate into a violent conflict has always been present. Recent history shows that terrorist activities thrive on areas of conflict. Kirkuk is one of them.

So far, Baghdad has been unable to protect these areas. The Kurds have had to fill the security gap and for them, this was not unusual. A leading Kurdish figure said: "Why was it okay for us to go all the way to Baghdad and protect them from al-Qaeda, and we are not allowed to protect our fellow Kurds in Kirkuk?"

When the Arab and Turkoman representatives of the cities of Kirkuk and Mosul requested that Kurdish forces leave the disputed areas, the Kurdish reaction was that this can only happen if Article 140 is implemented. The burden of implementing the article and settling the issue lies with Baghdad. No real practical step has been taken yet.

The UN submitted a report to the various parties that laid out a few scenarios for solving the issue. However, none of the parties seemed to accept it. An added complication to the issue is anticipated ratification of the Kurdish constitution on the day of the regional parliamentary poll, July 25.

Kurdish politicians and leaders say that now is the time for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to show statesmanship and step in. He can seize the moment, capitalize on the "victory" and broker a settlement. Given the current deadlock between Baghdad and Arbil, resolving one issue may pave the way for solving the rest.

It is particularly important that Maliki not appear to be taking sides, just as he passed the test of impartiality when dealing with the security situation in Basra and other areas.

Every Iraqi and American involved in the Iraqi political scene agrees that now is the time for politics to settle outstanding issues. This would be Maliki's first post-pullout political test. If he fails it, Biden will have to fix it for him.- Published 2/7/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org


Hiwa Osman is Iraq country director at the Institute for War & Peace Reporting, Baghdad.

There is really nothing especially magical about the June 30 date for the US redeployment from urban areas in Iraq. Nor is there any significant military reason for the US armed forces to set a 2011 deadline for their complete withdrawal from Iraq. What is important is that these dates signify a wholesale shift in US policy in the entire region. Disengagement and withdrawal from Iraq, to all intents and purposes, mean a wholesale rejection of previous US regional policy. Just as well. These proved to be disastrous and counterproductive.

The agreement between Washington and Baghdad to withdraw from Iraqi cities was prompted in part by the fanciful notion that the situation in the country had stabilized sufficiently to warrant such a withdrawal. In actual terms, at least 10 high profile bomb attacks have taken place in Iraq in the past few weeks. As recently as last week, a truck bomb was detonated outside a mosque near Kirkuk killing at least 70 people. Not a single week passes by in Iraq without a major terrorist attack.

The US has been seeking a face-saving exit strategy from Iraq ever since finally discerning the futility of its six-year occupation of a large Arab country and the failure to achieve any comprehensive military victory against Iraqi insurgents. The US military disengagement from Iraq also acquired added impetus when Barack Obama was elected president. Obama has ushered in a new US approach to the entire region including, of course, to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which continues to defy all attempts to solve it on durable and just grounds.

President Obama's recent speech in Cairo to the Arab and wider Muslim world signaled a significant turn-about in the US approach to the region, above all the Arab-Israel conflict. The new US tone on the Middle East was amply reflected in the extremely conciliatory words Obama used to declare the opening of a new page in his country's relations with the Arab and wider Muslim world. In doing so, Obama has in effect established a link between what goes on in Iraq and in other parts of the region, including the occupied Palestinian territories. What Obama is aiming for is a comprehensive policy for all the conflicts in the region. He has rightly understood that they are interrelated and impact one another in more ways than one.

What was equally impressive and remarkable in this context is the Arab reaction to Obama's speech. Reading between the lines of the recent declaration adopted by the Arab foreign ministers in Cairo, one can easily discern Arab joy at this new US stance. First of all, the tone of the meeting was extremely positive and conciliatory toward the US and its new regional policies. Second, the Arab foreign ministers' final communique was adopted without a single voice of dissent. When it comes to reacting to US policy in the region, seldom has the Arab world managed to agree unanimously on interpreting a US initiative in a positive light.

Finally, the Arab foreign ministers also signaled, in no uncertain terms, that Arab countries would entertain taking confidence-building measures in support of Obama's new initiative the minute Israel halts its colonization program in occupied territory. These developments are remarkable and reflect the positive mood in the Arab world in reaction to President Obama's bold stance on Israel, even if Israel continues to defy his counsel to stop its settlement program.

But the US redeployment in Iraq plays an important role in these regional developments. Indeed, the scheduled US withdrawal from Iraq has laid the foundation for the adoption of a new and comprehensive policy by the US administration. As long as the US continued to occupy an Arab country there would have been no way to nurture better relations between Washington and the Arab and wider Muslim world. The US had no choice but to disengage from Iraq militarily in order to engage the entire region politically.

There is therefore strong justification for the sudden euphoria generated by Obama's Cairo speech. It is now possible to hope that all regional conflicts can begin to be disentangled, one by one. The end of the US occupation of Iraq could lead to the end of the Israeli occupation of Arab territories.

Of course all these positive forecasts will ultimately depend on Israel consenting to play ball with the US. For now, President Obama appears determined to exercise pressure on Israel. He knows that without succeeding on the Arab-Israel fronts, his entire regional policy for the Middle East and beyond may not survive long.- Published 2/7/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org


Waleed Sadi is a former Jordanian ambassador to Turkey and the UN and other international organizations in Geneva. He is currently a columnist for the Jordan Times and Al Rai newspapers.