INDCJournal: "Report Cites Grave Concerns on Iraq's Government" <b><i>(UPDATED)</b></i>

« Fallujah Coverage | Main | The Mafia in Anbar »

August 23, 2007

"Report Cites Grave Concerns on Iraq's Government" (UPDATED)

Posted by Bill

As this is a story based on a leaker's analysis of a forthcoming report, and not a direct analysis of the report (nor is it the report itself), apply grains of salt to taste:

The administration is planning to make public today parts of a sober new report by American intelligence agencies expressing deep doubts that the government of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, can overcome sectarian differences. Government officials who have seen the report say it gives a bleak outlook on the chances Mr. Maliki can meet milestones intended to promote unity in Iraq.
As the end of the Congressional recess draws closer, the debate over Iraq policy will only intensify, and the new intelligence assessment, called "Prospects for Iraq's Stability" is likely to play an important role in that discussion. Officials said the assessment concluded that Mr. Maliki retained support among Shiite groups in part because putting together a new government would be arduous. Officials in Washington and Baghdad have said for months that any military gains would be ephemeral if Iraqi politicians were not able to bridge sectarian divides.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report will be issued this morning, and spokesmen for both the White House and the director of national intelligence declined to comment. "The report says that there's been little political progress to date, and it's very gloomy on the chances for political progress in the future," said one Congressional official with knowledge of its contents.

Disheartening, but none of this is shocking.

Remember to factor in ground-up political progress, as well as how quickly the political equation can change in any given direction in Iraq. The "tenuous case for strategic patience" remains, based on the young application of the new security strategy and the new opportunity in the west.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, the WaPo is labeling Maliki a scapegoat:

More broadly, the frustration of Americans with Iraqis is based on the assumption that a political reconciliation among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds is achievable within weeks or months. This is wishful thinking, driven by the common desire of the White House and Congress to end or at least wind down the U.S. mission. In fact, Iraqis are not yet ready to come to terms with each other and may not be for some years. They will settle their country's future on their own timetable, responding to events in Iraq rather than to pressure from Washington. Mr. Maliki is a poor prime minister, but a change of government would not quickly lead to the elusive accords. The coming debate about the future of the U.S. mission in Iraq needs to grapple with that reality.

UPDATE: Rich Lowry features passages from the actual report.

Posted by Bill at August 23, 2007 12:31 PM | TrackBack (0)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2985

Comments

The report flat-out rejects the Democrats' suggestions and "plans":
concluding para --
"• Recent security improvements in Iraq, including success against AQI, have depended significantly on the close synchronization of conventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. A change of mission that interrupts that synchronization would place security improvements at risk."

Bill, y'know tho', I'm getting quite puzzled by the lack of mention or analysis of something I personally think is almost paradigm-changing information:
Anbar oil probably amounts to 100 bn bbl reserves or so. This explodes the need for Sunnis to parasitize the ROI in the medium to long term, and, btw, was reportedly known to and covered up by SH.

Posted by: Brian H at August 23, 2007 09:15 PM

I find it laughable concerning the demands by us on the Iraqi government. We forget that our history of rule of law took a back seat with our treatment of the large portion of our population in 1781 that had supported Great Britain. Our citizens/government initiated/supported confiscation of loyalist property, forced many to flee to Canada and in some cases they were executed. Besides that short term lack of restraint, America went without a strong government under the Articles of Confederation for over 6 years allowing the states to drift into semi-autonomous entities prompting Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts over that state’s judicial injustice.

In a modern age of instant communications and quick travel over long distances, we expect the Iraqi people to do in short order what Americans had difficulty doing with few external caused disruptions. We also ignore the history of representative government that it is many times sloppy, inefficient and slow to resolve problems. Dictators on the other hand can and will cause change to occur swiftly utilizing a government's power of coercion. Of course, if we don’t like this government in Iraq, we can follow our example in South Vietnam and support a coup. That worked so-o-o well!

Posted by: amr at August 25, 2007 08:37 PM