Quote of the Day

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Friday, March 12, 2010 - 11:51 AM Share

"We're going to have a prolonged period of government formation. It could take two or three months, [and] it's likely to be a pretty turbulent process. I think [the government formation process], in and of itself, is not likely to be destabilizing, but it means that the major issues out there aren't going to be addressed. Things like disputed internal boundaries, Kirkuk, the relationship between federal, regional, and provincial governments -- all of that's going to be on hold until you have a new government.

"That means that things aren't going to be much further along come August than they are right now. So I would be more comfortable, within the terms of the agreement we negotiated, with keeping a more robust force for a longer period of time."

That's Ryan Crocker, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, on what to expect in the coming months in Iraq. I recommend the whole interview, which is here.

CEERWAN AZIZ/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, IRAQ

(5)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

ADAGIO

7:05 PM ET

March 12, 2010

The never-ending waiting game

What a ridiculous statement! By implication Crocker is saying that those "major issues" WILL be addressed in the near term after the formation of a new government and that our military needs to hang around until that day. There is no credible evidence to support either contention.

ZATHRAS

11:29 PM ET

March 12, 2010

Living with discomfort

Living with discomfort is just part of life. I appreciate Amb. Crocker's service and respect his opinion, but suggest he get used to this.

TOM RICKS

12:38 AM ET

March 15, 2010

Know whereof you speak

Ryan Crocker has spent decades in the Middle East. He met his wife in Baghdad in the 1970s, I think. He was in the US embassy in Beirut when it was blown up. He has been ambassador to Pakistan and Iraq. I think he knows discomfort, and I think he is quite used to it.

So I'd think twice before condescending to Ambassador Crocker, friend.

Best,
Tom

WALKING WOUNDED

12:33 AM ET

March 13, 2010

'within the terms of the agreement...'

Perceptions may be more important than the fine print in this.

Any agreement has major and minor clauses, and implies trust that the other party not breach a major clause by means of secondary ones.

In late 2008 the GOI sold 'Withdrawal" as what they negotiated. That was the real shoe pitched at our lame duck President, and as great a victory in Iraqi eyes as the military defeat of JAM in Basra and Baghdad .

The broad spectrum of sadrists (Dawa, Hakim/ISCI, JAM/muqtada, and probably Sistani) will withdraw support from any PM that is not driving directly towards the end of occupation, the end of independant US ground combat ops. They may need us in so many ways on the ground, but the leadership can't afford to be seen as propped up by US troops implementing Together Forward 4.0.1

Obama's base and a lot of US officers who want their army back would also tend to feel betrayed by further delay of a force reset. So both executives would be under fire from core constituencies, at any hint of US troop extension negotiations. Those can't even begin until the new gov't is formed.

Unilateral breach of the Withdrawal/SOFA, even if it is supported by the 'treaty' language, would leave the US wielding deadly force without GOI local agreement or legal status. There's no UN fig leaf to cover us now, if the SOFA ends without a replacement. 'Shoot first and ask questions later' would reveal major desperation.

Kirkuk-Mosul is a powder keg with slow-fuse lit, according to Rand, Crocker, and Odierno's staff etc. But it Kurdistan has been unsettled since before Gertie Bell. Any GOI that gets busted for enabling even JSOC ops on Iraqi soil in 2011 is going to be taking a lot of heat in their parliament.

STEVE358

4:38 PM ET

March 14, 2010

I take it differently

Funny, but if you take the two interviews (Crocker and Friedman) together, the underlying concerns are the same.

The Ambassador's focus was not on US military so much as US influence---quietly and strategically---as organizational capacity grows. Friedman's points, too.

The lesson of Iraq's bias toward strong men remains, both as a bulwark against "unravelling" and a warning of the unique challenges of democracy in a nation who's future economy is, at present, deeply grounded in oil.

Once government power flows from the ground, and not from taxes on the people, the challenges for true democracy, and the risks of strong men acting against the people and neighbors is always greater.

This is one of those embedded challenges in Iraq, and the unique importance of carefully nurturing a people-centered focus in Iraq's national polity.

Iraq has successfully rebuilt itself before--always as a nation---but not as a democracy.