In recent days there has been an uptick of fighting in Iraq.
Shiite militia groups have battled with government security forces
in Basra, and the fighting has spilled over into Baghdad and other
cities. In contrast to the spiraling violence two years ago, when
Iranian-backed extremists and al-Qaeda terrorists tried to goad the
country toward a sectarian civil war, this round of fighting
reflects the deep divisions among various factions within the
Shiite community.
While Iraq has made remarkable progress over the past year in
virtually every category including security, economic growth, and
humanitarian issues, the recent troubles demonstrate that political
stability at the national level is still in doubt. A proposal by
General Petraeus, the military commander on the scene, to pause the
reduction of U.S. troops after the surge runs its course and
subsides this summer therefore makes eminent sense.
U.S. Forces Are Needed
The U.S. military presence is an indispensable stabilizing
force; its effective employment in training and supporting Iraqi
security forces, defeating al-Qaeda, and improving security
conditions so that refugees can return to their homes is important
in helping the Iraqis achieve peace and stability. While the
long-term presence of American combat troops is not in the
interests of the United States or the Iraqi government,
how U.S. troops leave Iraq (when the country is clearly on
the path to peace and stability) is much more important than
when the troops come home. The Bush Administration and
Congress should fully support the recommendation on force levels
from the commander on the ground.
The fighting in Basra has clearly revealed the continuing
dependence of Iraqi security forces on American forces, which were
drawn more deeply into the fighting after the Iraqi government
offensive bogged down. The Basra violence also exposed the vicious
jockeying of rival Shiite political parties that reflexively mix
politics with the brazen use of force as a bargaining tool. Iraq's
government, dominated by Prime Minister Maliki's own Dawa Party and
the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, now has come down hard on the
Mahdi Army militia of the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and an
assortment of criminal gangs that have flourished in the chaotic
environment created by the premature withdrawal of British troops
from Basra.
Moqtada al-Sadr thus far remains curiously detached from the
conflict. He remains in seclusion, reportedly in neighboring Iran,
where he ostensibly is receiving religious training to burnish his
limited scholarly credentials. Rumored to be in ill-health, he
appears to be increasingly indecisive and is losing control of his
own Mahdi Army militia. While many of his own militia commanders
publicly call for the end of the cease-fire he proclaimed last
year, al-Sadr has yet to declare himself on that important
issue. The longer the fighting in Basra persists, the greater
the chances that the Mahdi Army will revert to its previous armed
opposition to the Iraqi government and coalition forces.
U.S. Interests
Winning in Iraq and helping the Iraqis get on the road to peace
and stability is clearly in America's interest. The eruption
of a full-blown civil war in Iraq and a wide-spread humanitarian
crisis could further destabilize the region. Abandoning the people
of Iraq would enable Iran's regional expansion and al-Qaeda's
effort to establish a sanctuary in the heart of the Middle East.
Turning its back on Iraq would lead America's other friends and
allies, including those trying to finish-off al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, to question American commitment and
resolve. Finally, a stable and prosperous Iraq would do much to
stimulate progress throughout the region or at least help to
prevent it from becoming even more unstable.
There is no way to achieve these important goals without
patiently maintaining a strong American military presence on the
ground for at least several years to come. The Bush Administration
and Congress must give the commander on the ground the resources to
get the job done. Both should weigh carefully the recommendations
of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker when they testify before
Congress next month.
James Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and
Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior
Research Fellow in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign
Policy Studies, and James
Phillips is Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs
in the Allison Center at The Heritage Foundation.