The aptly called “Awakening” in Iraq has provided a monumental opportunity not only to ensure the future of a viable country, but also to change the region. For some time now, we have heard various pundits and prognosticators wantonly predict and opine about the untenable situation between Shiite and Sunni’s. They wax about historic differences, tribal societal differences and every possible obstacle which will stand in the way of functioning, successful democracy in Iraq. However, this often ignores one important truth; that a majority of Iraqis, irrespective of demographics, want their country to succeed and secure a safe future for their families.
We can and often do disagree on some of the reasons we entered into the war with Iraq. While the reasons, discussions, evidence and basis presented within the Iraq AUMF are of pristine clarity, many Democrats, even some signing the legislation, have chosen to discompose the consensus of that effort. This is not only unfortunate, but deserving of scorn and antipathy. What could possibly be the motive for such digressive and confounding sophism? Certainly they are all of independent minds, able to discern both gravity of such a decision and the substantial body of evidence used to support the action. Otherwise, upon what basis would they make such a decision; emotion? Please. That implausibility and the accompanying attempt to reject responsibility by blaming others deserves every ounce of contempt purely for its dishonesty.
It is inconceivable that any American is not aware the Middle East has been a cauldron of terrorism and conflict during the greater part of our lifetime. That is not a political platitude or parochial point of view and is supported by historical actions. Whether it was the 1974 TWA hijacking, Munich, Beirut, Iran or September 11th, the list of victims and actions are endless. To compound the resulting tragedy, a generally inept response and substantial propaganda value has been ascertained by exploiting our lack of direct involvement with a disaffected populace. We instead opted for negotiations and sending aid, usually in the form of food or money, without any real accountability or incentive for lasting and formidable change. While there were some successes, on whole these policies can be seen as a failure. Witness the fact they mostly prompted more violence and further detachment from populations which needed to understand our motives through interaction; not through some second tier, quasi sovereign governmental handout.
In the Middle East, there is no substitute for a currency of trust which is gained by committed, interactive work with others. It is in this latter regard our military is making a monumental and lasting contribution. They have forever changed the understanding of America’s intention, goodwill and resolve with one of the most important Middle East populations. It is an effort that is not only underestimated, but forever changing both the diplomatic paradigm and extinguishing premises which fostered years of misguided policy.
The progress made in Iraq has not come cheaply. It has, and continues to be paid for with precious American blood, sweat and tears. This sacrifice, lasting impact of our military’s action and sagacious strategy has not been lost on a large section of our population. Despite the inconceivable, heinous actions of Democrats to prevent success and remove the lifeline of funding from our troops, we continue to make gains each day. However, the time for Iraq to play a bigger part in this success is now at a critical juncture. This issue is not lost on individuals such as Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council who in part said during prayers on Friday that Iraq should secure a lasting agreement with the U.S. to "secure Iraqis' rights in all aspects and accomplish total sovereignty”. Al-Hakim faces his own challenges from other Shiites such as Muqtada al-Sadr who believe his relationship with our country is too close. But irrespective of his sect, al-Hakim’s guidance has been measured and shows an inclination to promote the well being of “Iraqi’s” not a particular sect or faction. This type of standing is central to building trust, advancing Iraq’s successful proliferation and securing future status as a force for change in the Middle East.
With respect to the “Awakening” which has primarily been accomplished by Sunni’s turning away from terrorists and other destructive forces, al-Hakim had the following to say;
"I stress the necessity of having the awakening councils be on the side of the government in chasing terrorists and criminals, but not be a substitute for it, weapons should be within the hands of the government only."
While one might put this in context of the larger Sunni-Shiite interactions, it is not inconceivable or wrong to suggest this is a perspicacious action important to achieving centralized governmental control in a fledgling democratic society. Both the timing and the means by which this is accomplished will be yardstick for success. This is where Mr. al-Maliki can be a critical force and truly define the future path for his country.
The militias which compose many “Awakening” groups are mainly being paid by the United States and Mr. al-Maliki has been slow to integrate them into the Iraqi Security Forces. At this point only about 6% of the estimated 60,000 volunteer militiamen have become part of these groups. That is a looming danger which not only adds to an air of distrust, but does nothing to build a cohesive Iraqi population. While certainly caution in the ISF screening process is an absolute necessity, the Iraqi government has not done enough to mitigate potential fallout. More importantly, it has not seized a monumental opportunity to build goodwill amongst the various groups. This will not only help synthesize trust, but can also be a measure which will elevate future Iraqi prominence in a region badly bereft of role models. My advice to Mr. al-Maliki; make it a priority.
Recent comments