Riding the Tiger

By Colin Kahl

There are two NPR stories worth listening to on declining U.S. influence in Iraq and the challenges that presents for achieving "sustainable stability" -- that is, a degree of stability that can be maintained as U.S. forces draw down.

As our presence diminishes, Iraqi sovereignty concerns intensify, a new bilateral agreement (if reached) puts constraints on what we can do and how much coordination we need, Iraqi oil wealth grows, and the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces (ISF) increase, our ability to shape events goes down.

Part of this is also psychological -- especially on the part of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his closest advisers. Their confidence in the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces definitely exceeds the ability of those forces to conduct operations independently of U.S. support -- making Maliki and his inner circle think they need us less than they do.

This is part of a complex set of motivations Maliki has at the moment. On the one hand, he feels militarily ascendant as a consequence of successful operations in Basra, Sadr City, Mosul, Amara, and now Diyala. He has also consolidated control over elements of the Iraqi Security Forces (in part, probably, to "coup proof" his government), including seizing control over the Iraqi special operations forces, Emergency Response Units, and (to some extent) the Iraqi Army (via the various "Operations Centers" in Baghdad, Basra, Ninevah, Diyala, etc.). On the other hand, while he is militarily (over)confident, he will continue to be politically vulnerable. His Dawa party is fractured and has a small base; political competition and tensions with its political ally the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq are increasing; Moqtada al-Sadr's party is no longer part of the prime minister's coalition; and ongoing Arab-Kurd tensions mean the Kurds are no longer reliable coalition partners.

So, with provincial and national elections on the horizon at some point over the next year, what to do if you are Maliki?

First, roll-up all your adversaries now while you still can. Maliki has followed this course by going after Sadr's Mahdi Army militia and party,and he is now cracking down and playing divide-and-rule with the Sunni Awakening/Sons of Iraq militias. And if things go badly? Well, the United States is still there for a while to bail him out.

Second, Maliki is refashioning his "brand." To stay in power, he is positioning himself as the guy who stabilized Iraq (a "strongman" of sorts) and a staunch nationalist who kicked the United States out by demanding a timeline in strategic framework talks.

But our diminishing leverage is not the same as no leverage. Even Maliki realizes he needs the United States to stay for a few years longer (at least until 2011) -- and most other Iraqi political and military elites think they need us for longer than that. Thus our influence and leverage, especially over the Iraqi Security Forces, can still be effective. We can push for things like the integration and employment of the Sunni Awakening militias and fair elections -- but only if the next U.S. president cancels Iraq's blank check and chooses to use this leverage early in his next term.

But if the next American president waits too long, our diminishing leverage will likely disappear altogether, leaving us with two strategic options: resign ourselves to "ride the tiger" -- that is, simply accept what the Iraqi government does, and at most, mitigate or help buffer the consequences -- or jump off the tiger altogether.

By washingtonpost.com |  September 10, 2008; 3:38 PM ET  | Category:  Iraq
Previous: The New Old American Militarism | Next: Learning from the Triangle of Love

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Curious. Once the Sunni get tired of playing ball and reject permanent minority status, how long will we have to stay until they do accept it?

Is there something in the Sunni psyche that justifies rationalizing they'll have such a weak will? Not like they live there or anything.

Here's an idea. Let's just take the occupation budget for the next four years, ~$500B or so, and set them up in Jordan or Oklahoma. Win-win.

Posted by: srv | September 11, 2008 12:19 AM

>>>But if the next American president waits too long, our diminishing leverage will likely disappear altogether, leaving us with two strategic options: resign ourselves to "ride the tiger" -- that is, simply accept what the Iraqi government does, and at most, mitigate or help buffer the consequences -- or jump off the tiger altogether.

Diminishing leverage...isn't that what so many of you have been screaming for since the beginning? Now you want a plan for best leveraging that? I wish you would all just make up your minds. You want us out...but you want to retain some control. Out means no control. You can't have it both ways.

Oh, and "NPR" and "worth listening to" is about as close to being an oxymoron as there is.

Posted by: Panhandle Willy | September 12, 2008 1:28 PM

Willy, unsuprisingly, you are very confused. Colin has written that we have to keep ~80K troops in Iraq for quite awhile. You're arguing with your own kind.

Colin is an instrument of the CFR and the National Security apparatus, trying to dress up the cowpaddy as purty as possible. In your world, no doubt, Maliki will just do whatever Dittoland wants him too. Sad to say, NPR is giving them a platform to propagandize how this will all need to be carefully engineered.

Are you grandkids learning Arabic and training for ME? Well, that's where Colin and crowd want them, so please get with the program.

Posted by: srv | September 13, 2008 10:22 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company