Iraq: the Road Ahead

April 17, 2008

In testimony before Congress earlier this month, General David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador in Iraq, offered their assessments of the current situation and provided recommendations for future U.S. involvement in the region. Petraeus and Crocker pointed to recent reductions in violence as evidence that the troop “surge” has resulted in a measurable success. Petraeus, however, emphasized that such gains were “fragile and reversible” and advised that 140,000 troops should remain after 30,000 surge troops return home this coming July. He also called for a 45-day period of evaluation before U.S. commanders reassess the situation.

In the days surrounding the congressional testimony, renewed violence flared in Sadr City in eastern Baghdad, claiming the lives of 15 U.S. soldiers and dozens of Iraqi fighters and civilians. Much of the fighting resulted from a military operative ordered by Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki in which Iraqi forces confronted the militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr the southern city of Basra as well Sadr’s stronghold within the capital. The operation was conducted with the support of U.S. military forces.

Wait and see

Since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, the U.S. Department of Defense reports that more than 4,000 U.S. troops have been lost. During the same period, nearly 8,000 Iraqi police and security forces have been killed. Estimates of the number of Iraqi civilian casualties vary widely.

In the United States, overall support for the war has declined sharply since its beginning; one recent poll indicates that 61 percent of Americans believe that U.S. troops be withdrawn within a year, at the latest. In contrast, a poll taken only months before the March 2003 invasion (Operation Iraqi Freedom) showed an overwhelming number of Americans—64 percent—supported military action against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Roadblocks to peace

On May 1, 2003, President George W. Bush stated, “My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and her allies have prevailed.” Celebration over the initial military victory, however, proved short-lived, as guerrilla warfare soon erupted in Iraq. Likewise, rival political factions were unable to cooperate and forge a new, viable Iraqi government, leaving the country vulnerable to insurgency and terrorist activity. Many later criticized the president for this declaration and few remember that Bush spoke presciently when he added that “the war on terror is not over.”

The United States appointed the Iraqi Governing Council in June 2003, but by then, violence in cities such as Falluja and resistance toward coalition forces had taken root. Reports of increasing violence and the inability to find weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) began fueling antiwar sentiment in the United States and abroad.

Media coverage of the December 2003 capture of Hussein highlighted the widespread celebrations across Iraq. His capture, trial, and subsequent execution, however, failed to deter violent resistance to coalition forces. With the help of the United Nations, rival political factions reached an agreement on an interim Iraqi constitution in March 2003 and a timetable for Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June 2004.

By the time a U.N. Security Council resolution (1546) legitimizing the interim Iraqi government’s authority was passed in June 2004, however, insurgent violence, especially in Anbar (geographically the largest province in Iraq with a predominately Sunni Muslim population) was, according counterinsurgency experts, “out of control.” Reports issued by the U.S. military conceded that terrorist groups, many linked to al-Qaeda, had grown alarmingly effective in carrying out deadly attacks on civilians, as well as U.S. and Iraqi forces, and that the Iraqi forces were incapable of containing the violence.

In 2006, the Iraq Study Group report released by the United States Institute of Peace (a bipartisan panel led by former secretary of state James Baker and former member of Congress Lee Hamilton; Hoover fellow Edwin Meese III was a member of the group) noted the “situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.”  The report recommended setting deadlines for Iraqi government action, implementing U.S. troop withdrawals, and engaging Iraq’s neighbors to resolve the conflicts in the country. In an address to the nation on January 10, 2007, Bush stated “It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq” and announced the beginning of a new military campaign in Iraq based on recommendations from the Iraq Study Group, military commanders, members of Congress, and outside experts. This plan included the “surge” of an additional 28,500 troops and a coordinated deployment of Iraqi forces across Baghdad. 

Hoover research fellow Josef Joffe believes that the United States’ continued engagement in Iraq is necessary, given that the “greater Middle East (including Turkey) is the central strategic arena of the twenty-first century.” Joffe predicts dire consequences if American forces should prematurely withdraw from Iraq, including a dramatic rise in terrorism within Afghanistan, Syria, and Lebanon. According to Joffe, a sudden withdrawal “cannot serve America’s interests on the day after tomorrow. Friends and foes alike will ask: if this superpower doesn’t care about the world’s central and most dangerous stage—what will it care about?”

Inherit the war

With no end to the war in sight, Iraq has become a major issue in the U.S. presidential race. Presidential hopefuls Senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama have each formulated strategies on Iraq. Clinton has outlined a three-step plan to end the war and bring the troops home within 60 days of taking office; Obama’s plan calls for a total pullout of troops within 16 months; and McCain’s plans include an increase in troop levels and no timetable for withdrawal.

In the United States and Britain, calls for the immediate withdrawal of troops continue. Hoover senior fellow Victor Davis Hanson sums it up, writing, “Most Americans now don’t think our Middle East venture is worth it—not just because of the cost we pay but because of what we get in return.”

Hanson, however,is convinced that the current surge is working. He states, “Thanks to the success of our counterinsurgency tactics and the consequent drop in violence—during 2007, ethnic fighting in Baghdad decreased by over 90 percent.” Hanson understands that, in the minds of many Americans, the costs of this war, and indeed the “entire region, are not worth the bones of a single marine.” Hanson argues that, aside from such understandable sentiment, Americans need to remember “a consensual government in Iraq—not just plebiscites—is in our long-term strategic interest.”

Likewise, Hoover senior fellow Thomas Henriksen states, “a stabile Iraq will go a long way in the fight against global terrorism; but in itself will not defeat the threat, which will last for perhaps decades.”—Michelle Bussenius, Editor