As things stand now, I believe the likelihood of any U.S.-Iranian pact on Iraq will be sabotaged not by the negotiating parties from Washington and Tehran, but rather by the Iraqis themselves. Thus far it has been the Iraqis that have been the main obstacle to peace, regardless of what the United States and Iran may want to see happen. It is true that foreign fighters have played a role in the continuing violence, making grand efforts to stoke sectarian conflict by attacking Sunni and Shi'a Iraqi civilians indiscriminately. And it is equally true that Iraq has become a central front in the Global War on Terrorism since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. But the main source of the fighting does not stem from the multitude of terrorist organizations operating within Iraq's borders. The chief fomenters of violence are Iraqis, and they are killing each other by the tens of thousands.
Why is this happening? Why would Iraqis insist on sectarian warfare that prevents national reconciliation and the possibility of a stable and secure nation? I suspect that it is because the Iraqis themselves have no real desire to get along with each other and to move the country forward. There is a deep-seated hatred between the three main ethnic groups, a hatred that was violently suppressed under Saddam's ruthless dictatorship, and none of the fighting parties have thus far been willing to take any meaningful action to end the cycle of violence that is preventing political progress and the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces.
There has been some progress in al-Anbar Province, where some Sunni leaders have joined together with coalition forces to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq. And there have been some initial signs of success in Baghdad, where General Petraeus says he sees "astonishing signs of normalcy." But significant numbers of Sunnis still attack American and Iraqi troops and Shi'a militias still roam the streets like vigilante death squads, conducting mass executions and terrorizing the populace. The Syrian border remains porous, with foreign fighters flocking to Iraq to take on American troops. And the Kurds, who have thus far managed to avoid much of the conflict plaguing Iraq, are becoming progressively more vocal in their demands for increased regional autonomy and resolution of the status of oil-rich Kirkuk.
The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is barely functioning, and the police and army forces have been thoroughly infiltrated by sectarian militias more loyal to tribe and sheikh than to the authorities in Baghdad. The population is not secure, and the people refuse to put their faith and trust in a government that cannot protect them. The outlook is grim, but the war is not yet lost.
The final troops involved in President Bush's security plan for greater Baghdad and al-Anbar Province are now in place and the "surge," announced in January, is just now getting fully underway. The purpose of the "surge," to remind readers, is to provide the Iraqi leaders in Baghdad a level of security that will facilitate political progress among the major fighting factions. This means that al-Maliki's government must get control of the militias, and it must resolve the issues of de-Baathification, revenue sharing, regional autonomy, and minority representation in the government.
But above all, it means that Iraqis have to step up to the plate, now more than ever, and demonstrate that they are willing to live together first as Iraqis, and second as Shi'a, Sunni, or Kurd. Time is running out, and the American public's will to keep up the fight is quickly fading. The will of the Congress is already gone. The consequences of failure have been pushed aside in favor of getting out of this mess as quickly as possible.
And while the United States and Iran may reach an agreement on the future of Iraq, it will be meaningless unless Iraqis can take control of their future, moving beyond sectarian division and toward a peaceful and prosperous Iraq that can serve as an example for the rest of the region.
Published by Greg Reeson
I am a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal and a The Veteran's Voice. I also regularly contribute to GOPUSA and The Land of the Free. View profile
President Bush and "The War on Terror"My personal views on President Bush's War on Terror and how the funds spent on his war effort could have been put to better use elsewhere.- War on Terror Vs. War in IraqAt one time, we were told the war in Iraq was part of the war on terror. Now there supposed to be separate?
- The United States and Israel Will Attack Iran in the Coming Months Not YearsA brief overview of the reasons the United States and Israel will attack Iran and how the United States and Israel are preparing the world to if not support at least accept the action
Why We Must Win the War on TerrorWhy this disabled veteran and concerned parent feels we must win the War on Terror.
Why the "War on Terror" is WrongIntended as a rebuttal to Greg Reesons article, What the Democrats Don't Understand about the War on Terror. I contend that the "war on terror" is wrong. It is wrong because the...
- Bush vs. Iraq: How the war on terror became a war on Iraqi human rights
- Anbar Salvation Council Rises to Challenge Islamic Council of Iraq
- Democrats Need Iraq Surge to Fail
- Progress in Iraq
- Tensions Between the United States and Iran Escalating
- Sheep of the United States and Iran
- War on Terror

4 Comments
Post a CommentJim, good to hear from you. Thanks for the comment, and the link.
I am not as cynical as Mr. Meyers but join in your pessimism about the future of Iraq. As long ago as last Fall, I suggested that there will be no hope in that country unless and until the Iraqi people will it. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/60939/iraq_the_future_awaits_us.html
I see no real hope that they will and so we need to get out of the midst of a civil war in which our interests will never be served.
Michah, the notion that we are seeking a war without end is ridiculous and without basis in fact. Not to mention the minor inconvenience called the American public, which would never stand for a war without end. Where is this hard evidence you mention? And please, don't mention the New York Times.
This piece is written well, but you need to widen your knowledge base. President Bush doesn't want to win the war in Iraq. The neocons, indeed the entire American political establishment, has been looking to fight a war without end since the USSR crumbled. This is destined to be it. The attacks by our boys on the mosques is about as accidental as Ariel Sharon taking an armed contingent to visit the Dome of the Rock, Muslim holiest place in Jerusalem. Both got the desired response, a flare in tensions. There have also been reports of our troops being ordered on divide and conquer missions, real Lawrence of Arabia adventure. Attack the Sunnis but make it look like the attacks came from Sadr's militia and vice versa. The surge, sending more guns into an area where violence is already the problem, has done nothing but worsen the problem, just as was wanted and expected by Cheney.
There's plenty of hard evidence for all this, in case you're wondering.
You've read about the plans