|
Brookings Institution event: Advisors of Presidential hopefuls address the future of Iraq and Afghanistan
March 31, 2008
By Matthew Plocher
The recent five-year anniversary of the Iraq war and the 4,000th American casualty made the timing of the March 31 Brookings Institution event, The Future of Iraq and Afghanistan, quite apt. The first panel featured Capt. Ann Gildroy, a Marine Corps officer just back from southern Iraq; Carlos Pascual, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy at Brookings; Jeremy Shapiro and Kenneth Pollack, Brookings Fellow and Senior Fellow, respectively; and was introduced by Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon. The second panel featured Lee Feinstein, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s national security director, Denis McDonough, Sen. Barack Obama’s foreign policy coordinator, and Randy Scheunemann, chief foreign policy advisor for Sen. John McCain.
Pollack described the fragmented nature of the Iraq conflict. The Iraqi government, international relief efforts, and even the warfare are all fragmented, he said. With an ever more disjointed set of allies and enemies, the U.S. armed forces finds itself fighting different groups, with each confrontation having a different objective and outcome. Pollack stressed the importance of continuing the U.S.’s difficult efforts in northern Iraq without diverting much-needed energy and funds from efforts to pacify and rebuild southern Iraq. Focusing all of America’s attention on the south might cause the north’s still-fragile infrastructure to fail, he argued. Additionally, Pollack said the efforts to pacify and rebuild the south must be done tactfully so as not to antagonize northern Iraqis through a violent or expensive campaign.
Gildroy suggested that more must be done to separate radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army from those seeking an al-Sadr-led political party. The Mahdi Army would be most effectively weakened by incorporating some of its members into the government through the establishment of a party, she said, emphasizing that the majority of people turn to violence when they have given up hope on finding a political channel to express their voice. She added that many Shia do not trust the leaders of the country’s largest Shia party, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), headed by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, deeming it either too conservative or too closely affiliated with Iran. With no alternative, she said, they support al-Sadr. Offering these disenfranchised Shia a politically legitimate, unarmed alternative to SIIC safe from real or perceived Iranian influence, would go a long way toward ending the violence in the south, Gildroy argued.
Pascual further stressed the importance of improving the Iraqi diplomatic process. He noted that 25 percent of the Iraqi Cabinet remains unfilled and that much-needed legislation for the protection of minority rights remains un-passed. The U.S. has to push Iraq’s parties to make compromises on more legislation that will survive a U.S. withdrawal, Pascual said.
Orienting the discussion next toward Afghanistan, Shapiro spoke at length on the gains and setbacks there. At first glance, he said, Afghanistan looks bad and in desperate need of more troops. But he cautioned that the portrayals of the situation aren’t necessarily accurate. He also said that the U.S. must stop using violence as the sole indicator of progress or stability, arguing that the Taliban is a weakened enemy with limited funds whose attempts to fan sectarianism to disrupt the government have antagonized the population. He added that civilian capacity is lacking, and this must be developed and not “secured.”
O’Hanlon moderated the second panel, and all three speakers agreed the wars would figure prominently in the upcoming Presidential election. Feinstein, representing Clinton, cited the failure of the troop “surge” in Iraq as a pervasive issue. Scheunemann, representing McCain, disagreed strongly about the effectiveness of the surge, but believes the Iraq war will remain important because it represents the larger regional conflict that involves Israel, Palestine, Iran and others.
Referencing the comments made in the first panel concerning the importance of improved diplomatic efforts, McDonough insisted that Obama was the only hopeful who has offered a plan to encourage reconciliatory dialogue between Iraq’s parties. This plan, McDonough said, involves tying U.S. funding and training to demands for greater reconciliation and the prompt resolution of essential legislation. McDonough also said that Obama would gradually withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq according to a timetable. Still, he tempered this promise with a commitment to listening to commanders on the ground, as well as keeping a substantial military presence in the Middle East. Scheunemann interjected, saying this was the wrong message to send the Iraqi government. How can the U.S. maintain political leverage or convey the seriousness of our intentions, he asked, if our enemies see an end date to our involvement. He insisted that the U.S. not “settle for defeat.” McDonough countered that a timetable is not an admission of defeat, but rather conveys that the U.S. is not an occupying force or an enemy of Iraqi autonomy.
|
