Former Iraqi P.M. Says Surge Not So Great

| Thu Jul. 24, 2008 10:51 AM PDT

When it comes to Iraq, the surge is a great success, right? Well, according to Ayad Allawi, Iraq's former prime minister, that depends on what you mean by "success".

In a briefing before members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday, Allawi answered questions from members of he subcommittee on international organizations, human rights, and oversight. When asked by Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), the subcommittee's ranking member, for Allawi's "assessment of of what's come of the surge," Allawi all but said, not much.

Reminding Rohrabacher that the original objective of the surge was to create a safe environment for a process of national reconciliation, Allawi said, "Now, militarily, the surge has achieved some of its goals. Politically, I don't think so."

Allawi rattled off a laundry list of perils that still confront the Iraqi people: internal displacement of large numbers of people, millions of refugees outside Iraq, security forces he described as sectarian militias dressed in national uniforms, no enforcement of the national constitution, which he described as a "divisive" document.

The former prime minister, who is now a member of the Iraqi parliament, also alleged that the process known as "deBaathification" is "being used to punish people." Originally designed to purge Saddam Hussein's loyalists from the military and security forces, Allawi said the process has become politicized and can be used against virtually anybody, since Saddam Hussein's "Baath party ruled for 35 years, and every individual had to join..."

Continues Below

Continued From Above

"So, if you measure the surge from a military point of view, it
has succeeded," Allawi said. "But I don't think this was the [prime]
objective, because soon you will have reversals. Security has not
prevailed, and the key element in security is reconciliation, and
building national institutions for the country. If this does not
happen, then the surge will go in vain."

Despite his role as arch-rival to current Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki (whose party defeated Allawi's in Iraq's 2005 elections),
Allawi seems to concur with Maliki's call for a plan for withdrawal of
U.S. troops. In his opening statement, Allawi told the subcommittee,
"As we think about moving to the next stage of our relationship, it
is appropriate to discuss a time frame for reduction of U.S.
forces."

He cautioned, however, against any withdrawal that would take place
before non-sectarian institutions and defense forces take shape, or before a
reconciliation process, which he noted as being high on Congress's
list of benchmarks,
is under way in earnest.

Nonetheless, leaders of Allawi's political party, the Iraqi
National List, were among the 31 leaders in the Iraq parliament who
signed a letter (PDF) presented to Congress on May 29 requesting
that a timetable
for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq to be
part of any future agreement between the two countries. The 31
signatories signed as representatives of their political parties,
collectively speaking for a majority of Iraq's 275 members of
parliament.

The Bush administration has been negotiating with the Maliki
government an agreement based on a "declaration
of principles
", which the two leaders signed November without the
approval of their respective legislatures. This coming December, the
U.N. mandate that protects U.S. forces in Iraq will expire, and the
administration apparently seeks to replace it with a bilateral
agreement that takes the U.N. out of the equation.

Subcommittee Chairman Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) yesterday conducted
the seventh in his series of hearings on the declaration of
principles. Allawi did not appear as part of that hearing, but rather
in a briefing held afterwards. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Delahunt's
co-sponsor on legislation
that would extend
the U.N. mandate for another six months, sat in
for the "conversation", as it was called, with Allawi, commiserating
over the lack of transparency by their respective executives about
agreements under discussion via the declaration of principles.
(DeLauro is not a member of the foreign affairs commitee.)

"When you said you don't know what the substance of that agreement
is—that's the same for us," DeLauro said.

Once seen as a tool
of the Bush administration
(especially during
the 2004 campaign
against John Kerry), Allawi today is singing a
different tune from the cheerful notes he once struck in favor of
Bush's Iraq policy. His eyes are clearly trained on the 2008 U.S.
presidential election—and Iraq's 2009 national elections.

—Adele M. Stan
The Media Consortium

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

With all the doublespeak of candidates, it almost seems like democracy and elections are getting in the way of a solution in Iraq. Part of the problem is probably that it's an artificial country, created by people outside its borders instead of being a country that was created by a people forming organically over time. Really experienced world figures are needed.

I don't think Obama makes the grade. I keep seeing the little boy in "Sweetie" footage with his eyes glazed over as he looked at the shiny car. I can just hear him saying : "Let's take some of the toy soldiers out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan."

Hope he picks someone capable as secretary of state and secretary of defense ... or we could actually be in a worse position after he gets in than we are in now.

The "so-called" experienced leaders are the ones who have screwed up Iraq. Now it is going to take someone who has the TRUST and confidence tackle this quaqmire head on. If people think McCain is going to do that then those people are living in fantasy land. At this juncture in history, Obama is most suited for this task.

Bad idea to go into Iraq. But we did, so what is the next best thing?

Partitioning the country. We should have divvied it up, moved people around, created a loose federation and got the hell out. Well, that time has passed. Strike two.

The surge is half way there - and totally half ass. Strike 3. It is a de-facto partition that will only make the eventual civil war that much bloodier.

And that leads me to Kathy's point of a country "created by a people forming organically over time". Like it or not, that is the way a civil war works. Don't expect these folks to talk it out till they spend a few years fighting it out, pissing away their oil resources and killing each other.

So, the question is how much money will we spend before we let the cage match happen?

'THE SURGE IS WORKING' reminds me of another Republican catchphrase from a few years back: do you remember this one?

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Photo Essays

When you dial a 1-900 number, who picks up the phone?
Meet the KKK's seamstress of hate couture.
The other side of Gitmo.
A photographer’s year at Angola Prison.