Op-Eds

Bush Plan Hinges on Four Factors

Orlando Sentinel

By Najmaldin Karim

January 15, 2007

President George W. Bush has argued for a new strategy in Iraq that will concentrate on providing security for Baghdad and its diverse religious and ethnic population. Although this change in the American military approach has been long overdue, it alone will not be enough to stop the violence in Iraq -- nor will it bring home U.S. troops any faster.

There is no doubt that the Iraqis must step up to the plate in order to achieve a sustainable and stable democracy. The new plan, however, must coincide with a political strategy, one that accepts the reality of a country torn apart by its past and present.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq created the culture of sectarian and ethnic hatred that we now see unleashed; it is the intentional result of his divide-and-rule dictatorship. The al-Qaeda cult of terrorism pounced on Iraq after the liberation, and its main objective was to incite these long-standing tensions and offer itself as a desperate alternative to chaos. We must accept that the terrorists have succeeded in fomenting lawlessness in certain parts of Iraq, particularly Baghdad. This can be the only conclusion from daily findings of mutilated corpses. A sudden withdrawal of the foreign presence in Iraq would certainly increase the scope and scale of this bloodshed.

Ultimately, everything in Bush's strategy depends upon four factors:

Security, which is the sine qua non for success. Hence, the terrorists must be defeated.

A thriving economy, which would deprive terrorists of support.

An end to external meddling in Iraq's affairs. That includes Middle Eastern rulers who benefit from U.S. security protection and pretend alliance with the United States.

The cutting off of infiltration by foreign jihadists into Iraq.

Simply encouraging a "unity Iraqi government," as some have suggested, will not undo decades of oppression based upon Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions. "Bringing Sunnis to the table," another catchphrase of the moment, has already been doctrinal U.S. policy, to the detriment of the process. This has only alienated Kurdish and Shiite representatives -- and rightly so. They have been asked to assimilate the opinions of blatant Sunni racism. The supposedly objective Iraq Study Group ignored the Kurdistan region altogether. This amounts to a punishment for its consistent cooperation and overall success.

Even though the current surge in American troops may help the military conflict in Iraq, unless the United States adopts a political policy toward Iraq that accepts these problems, which it has yet to do, relief will only be temporary. U.S. resources will continue to be wasted.

A federal and decentralized Iraq is the only way out. This would merely follow the regional autonomy and federation defined in the Iraqi constitution. It's the only way for all the warring factions within Iraq to gain anything near a compromise.

The British colonial creators of Iraq in 1921 knew that they were drawing together disparate populations, but they made no provision for them. The failure of the Kingdom of Iraq -- and the Republic of Iraq after 1958 -- to acknowledge the desire for self-rule by most Iraqis, as well as the imposition of a highly centralized state, divided Iraq and made the country inherently unstable.

With regard to the much-misunderstood provisions on natural resources, the constitution aims to prevent the abuse of Iraq's natural endowment that in the past gave us a country of poverty and palaces, a country that could manufacture chemical weapons but not provide running water to its people.

In contrast, the Kurdistan region already flourishes with regional self-governance. A democratically elected Kurdish parliament is no minor achievement. Kurdish society is still recovering from attempted genocide and decades of fighting for its existence, but it now has the right to determine its own future. Why would this model be ignored?

Establishing separate Shiite and Sunni regions will require patience and considerable effort, but it remains the only alternative to constant civil war between them. In addition, the Kurdish region should receive resources toward strengthening its autonomy. A regional agreement would ensure fair distribution of Iraq's oil resources. Crucially, American forces would be able to redeploy to the Kurdish region, where they have yet to lose a soldier and are widely appreciated, and the Anbar province, where al-Qaeda has its strongholds.

Unless the Bush administration follows this political plan for securing Iraq, it will only postpone failure and its ramifications.

Dr Najmaldin O. Karim is the President of Washington Kurdish Institute