The military situation in Iraq is improving. Everybody seems to be admitting it, even Democrats. But an improving military situation is not the end of the story. As the number of US troops declines with the end of the surge, we will have to see whether Iraqi forces can do the job when US troops leave. The Iraqi forces were unable to do so before the surge, but there are reasons to hope they can do it now. First, the insurgency is more under control. Second, our new counterinsurgency strategy and the additional time for training and experience should help. Third, Sunni militia units in places like Anbar province have added numbers to the anti-insurgency forces.
However, the military cannot win Iraq alone. There are three parts to winning in Iraq. In addition to the military, there are also political and economic sides to the battle. Military success is a necessary condition to overall success, but there needs to the success in the political and economic areas, too. By creating and maintaining population security, the military can establish the conditions in which success can come in the political and economic spheres, but the military cannot win the war by itself.
So, how is it going, and what needs to be done, in the political and economic spheres?
First, consider the political situation. Now that the Democrats are having to admit there has been progress in the military situation, the lack of progress on the political side is the reason they claim we have to get out of Iraq. It is true that goals we set for progress by the Iraqi government have not been met. Laws on things such as the equitable allocation of oil revenues, de-Baathification, etc., have not been passed. The national government is not getting things done.
But does the fact that the national government in Iraq has not done what we think it should have done by now mean that we ought to get out? It seems a little strange to hear complaints from members of our Congress about the failure of the Iraqi parliament to pass specific laws. Our Congress could not pass appropriation bills for fiscal year 2008 until almost three months after the year started, and when the bills were finally passed, they were filled with earmarks nobody had a chance to even look at before voting on them. (Those of us who live in Illinois have even less right to talk. Our governor and legislature put the "dis" in dysfunctional, and our politicians have made investigations into government corruption Illinois’s biggest growth industry.)
Of course, our failures are not a justification or excuse for the failures of Iraq’s government. If things need to be done, they need to be done. Just because Congress can’t do anything does not justify the failure of the Iraqi government to do its job. But are these things so absolutely necessary that Iraq will collapse without them? I think not. Even if progress is not being made at the national level, progress is being made at the local level. Maybe, instead of having progress trickle down from the top, we can have progress grow up from the bottom. Local government can be as important as national government. If different groups can learn to work together at the local level, maybe they can transfer that cooperation to the national level. If groups can have the security of their own power bases at the local level, maybe they will not feel so fearful about what a national government led by other groups can do to them.
The key is developing effective political institutions. The Iraqis need governments, both national and local, which will help them and protect them. But this isn’t easy. Building a country and effective political institutions is as much a journey as it is a destination. Iraq is now on that journey. There has not been as much progress at the national level as would be desirable, but things in the provinces are improving, not just militarily, but politically, too. Overall, the Iraqis are not as far along as we would like (or as many of them would like, either), but they have now started on their journey. There is no reason to abandon them just because they are not as far along as we think they ought to be – unless we want them to lose.
Which brings me to the economic sphere. The Iraqis not only need to rebuild their government, they need to rebuild their economy, too. As with the political side, economic development is not something that can only be done at the national level. There is much that can be done, that can probably be done better, at the local level. In fact, economic development is not as hard as political development because it can be started by individual people themselves.
The key is security. If people do not fear local insurgents and suicide bombs and all that, they will start things themselves, and they have already done so. As we have established security in cities and towns, the Iraqis have started to re-establish their markets. As security is maintained, more of this will occur.
But there is more we can do. We can help businesses reopen, so they can hire people and give them jobs. As John Taylor, a former undersecretary for international affairs in the Department of the Treasury, said in The Washington Post, we should:
"Establish organizations of entrepreneurs to tell us and the Iraqi government what they need. Build industrial enclaves if necessary. Work with Iraqis to provide security for shipments of products and key raw materials for manufacturing or agriculture.
You have heard much about the need to secure an area before significant political progress can be made; the same is true for economic progress. But economics is quicker than politics. We should move in economically even before our teams start helping on political reconciliation. If the environment is secure, entrepreneurs -- both Shiite and Sunni -- can create jobs much more quickly than politicos can reach agreement, let alone pass legislation. Job creation, the economic integration of communities and the taste of prosperity will accelerate political reconciliation and the achievement of our ultimate objective in Iraq."
Providing jobs is of critical importance. A functioning economy that provides jobs will give Iraqis something to do other than be an insurgent. If you are working full-time, you are not going to have enough time, or most likely even a reason, to be an insurgent. An article in The Washington Post on November 20, 2007, talked about men in Iraq who have become insurgents not because of ideology, but for the money, to be able to feed their families. Economic development will enable these people to earn money in better ways. While there are things that the national government needs to do in this area, local initiatives are even more important in the economic area than the political area, and this is something we can help with.
Even if money is tight, we must not skimp on economic development. We need to provide the follow through to help secure the victory that our new military strategy has helped make possible. Money we spend on economics now will result in less spending on the military in the future. General Petraeus has said that a US program that pays for a Sunni job corps "saves double the cost per month in the number of U.S. military vehicles not lost to insurgents, not to mention the lives."
As with those who would use the lack of political progress at the national level as a reason to withdraw from Iraq in a rush, the only reason to skimp on the economic side is if we do not really want to win. Complaints that we need the money at home do not cut it. The amount of money we are talking about is minimal compared to the unnecessary earmarks that are constantly being approved in Congress. We have already spent a lot of money and lost a lot of lives in Iraq. That would not be an argument to keep going if we were losing and had no idea how to do better. But we are not losing and we know what to do. Providing more economic help now increases the chances we will succeed in the future. It would be sad and a terrible waste to have come this far, to be this close, and to refuse to spend the little bit more that it will take to increase our chances of success.
We cannot guarantee success in Iraq. Nobody knows what will happen in the next months. However, our soldiers and their new strategy have helped turn around the situation in Iraq in a way that few would have thought possible twelve months ago. What we need to do now is to recognize the new situation in Iraq, be grateful for it, and follow through on the chances for success that it has created.
[12/29/2007: Corrected date and time of publication.]
Recent Comments