The jury s still out:
On the face of it, Iraq’s first springtime since American troops withdrew in December is turning into the most peaceful and promising the country has witnessed in a decade, offering what U.S. and some Iraqi officials say amounts to a vindication of President Obama’s Iraq policy.
This is good. Al Qaeda is still active but a shadow of its former self. Iran is not dominant. Oil exports are up. And Iraq is mending ties with Sunni Arab states that may not be happy with a Shia Arab government in Iraq but will settle for an Arab-dominated government that blocks Iran.
Yet even as we struggle to help rule of law take hold in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, where the Arab Spring has toppled dictators, are we indifferent to democracy and rule of law in Iraq where we lost thousands of troops to topple a dictator and defend the new government from multiple threats to a new and fragile democracy?
But the appearance of calm that has endured for four months has come at a price, many Iraqis say, in the form of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s increasingly authoritarian behavior. Maliki, they say, has been moving steadily to consolidate his control over the country’s institutions and security forces with the apparent acquiescence of the Obama administration.
Does President Obama simply want space? Has he told Maliki that all he cares about is quiet before the election? That is hardly an outrageous worry.
Yet the example of the arrest warrant for Vice President Hashemi is not proof positive for me. It is plausible that he or his staff are involved in supporting Sunni Arab terrorists--whether out of fear, greed, sectarian motives, or religious fervor. I'd rather focus on a fair trial for him that all sides can agree will arrive at the truth and then move on after the outcome.
The same is true of the Kurdish issue. Yes, they have deserved autonomy. But the Kurds could be pushing the boundaries of agreements and could be letting hot heads push them too far away from a unified Iraq. I don't think a separate Kurdistan is wise. Iraq would be upset at losing territory, Iran would be upset at a potential haven for their own Kurdish separatists, and Turkey would be upset for the same reason. So an independent Kurdistan would be landlocked, isolated, and seen as a threat by two of their surrounding neighbors.
Does the Obama administration hate the idea of a free and successful Iraq because of its association with Bush? Do they prefer a friendly dictator? Are they merely content to avoid any obvious signs of disaster until after the fall election?
Our national objective was a free and friendly Iraq in the heart of the Arab Moslem world that sets an example for the rest of the Arab Moslem world. Knowing that a better alternative to the dictatorships they've known and the theocracies that thugs promise will solve their problems is important.
But I don't know if our national objective is President Obama's objective. Iraq's future is certainly up to them. But they could use a little help from their friends. And we should be their friends rather than mere observers who shrug our shoulders and say "inshallah" over Iraq's future.
