BUB: Iraq

So what does the future of Iraq look like? There are several concerns...

GEN Odierno in concerned that a political stalemate will disillusion the population with the political progress they've made.

The departing commander of American forces in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, said Sunday that a new Iraqi government could still be two months away and warned that a stalemate beyond that could create demands for a new election to break the deadlock, which has lasted since March.

While General Odierno said he believed negotiations had picked up and would prove successful, he predicted politicians still needed “four to six to eight weeks.”

“That’s a guess,” he said in an interview at his headquarters, whose plaster roof is still engraved with the initials of Saddam Hussein. “If it goes beyond 1 October, what does that mean? Could there be a call for another election? I worry about that a little bit.”

The prospect of another election would probably throw Iraq’s already turbulent politics into even greater turmoil as the United States begins withdrawing its last 50,000 troops, scheduled to be out by the end of 2011. While the election in March was viewed as successful, the periods before and after included bitter disputes over disqualifications, recounts, legal challenges and score-settling that exacerbated still smoldering sectarian tensions.

Even the suggestion of a new election underscored the ambiguity in an anxious and unsettled Iraq these days. President Obama plans a speech from the Oval Office on Tuesday to address what the administration describes as the end of combat operations here. But the date has largely gone unnoticed by Iraqis, whose frustration with the political deadlock has mirrored their deepening anger over a dysfunctional government and the shoddy delivery of the basic necessities of life.

“The longer that takes, the more frustrated they might get with the process itself,” General Odierno said. “What I don’t want is for them to lose faith in the system, the democratic system, and that’s the long-term risk, do they lose faith in the process.”

+++


In the meantime, Iraq'a military needs specialized support more than raw numbers.

Iraq does not need more soldiers and police to wage war against insurgents as U.S. combat operations end, a senior Iraqi security official said.

Instead, it needs better intelligence gathering and a way to stop countries intent on torpedoing Iraq's nascent democracy from supporting Sunni Islamist insurgents linked to al Qaeda, or Shi'ite militia, said Deputy Interior Minister Ahmed al-Khafaji.

"Whether the U.S. troops are here or not, these groups will continue their operations because they are the hired guns of regional states with agendas, which want to sabotage democratic Iraq," Khafaji told Reuters in an interview on Saturday.

"They come from known dictatorships. They have a single message -- to kill Iraqis and scorch the earth they live on."

+++


So who are these "hired guns of regional states with agendas"? Funny you should ask. Reuters isn't so sure that that they'll be able to push Iraq around, but their collective efforts are still worrying.

The weakness and wealth of Iraq, now shorn of all but 50,000 U.S. troops, tempt its anxious neighbors to vie for influence among Iraqi factions struggling to form a government nearly six months after an election.

Iraq's fledgling army remains ill-equipped to defend the national borders, but for now Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria are pursuing their goals mostly by non-military means.

None can count on getting the upper hand.

The 2003 U.S.-led invasion empowered Shi'ite Islamist groups friendly to Iran, but intra-Shi'ite conflicts, assertive Shi'ite politicians and core Iraqi nationalism limit even Tehran's sway.

Turkey, using its growing regional influence, diplomatic reach, economic power and new popularity in the Arab world to act as a soft-spoken counterweight to Iran, advocates bringing Sunnis and Kurds, as well as Shi'ites, into any new government in Baghdad.

Although the U.S. combat mission ends this week without an agreed Iraqi government in place to check spurts of violence, adjacent countries seem less inclined to revive the widespread bloodletting that threatened to consume Iraq a few years ago.

"In 2005, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia were all feeding the violence in Iraq; the United States was adrift without a strategy; and the Iraqi government and security forces were barely existent," said Eurasia Group analyst David Bender.

Today, he argued, those neighbors preferred stability in Iraq, Iraqi security forces had improved and the viability of the Iraqi state was not being threatened as it was in 2005.

By: Brant