POMED Notes: “Preserving Progress” In Iraq, Part 2
On Thursday, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia held the second hearing on “Preserving Progress: Transitioning Authority and Implementing the Strategic Framework in Iraq.” In attendance were Congressmen Steve Chabot (R-OH), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), and Brian Higgins (D-NY). Witnesses included Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations; Michael Eisenstadt, Director of Military & Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Richard Fontaine, Senior Fellow, Center for New American Security; and Marisa Cochrane Sullivan, Deputy Director, Institute for the Study of War.
For full notes, read below or click here for the pdf.
Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) began by expressing regret that the testimony from the first hearing on “Preserving Progress” did not ease his fears about the transition in Iraq, which he believes is “neither well timed nor well reasoned.” He reiterated his belief that the State Department cannot succeed without military assistance, and a continued U.S. military presence is important for the ongoing development of a democratic political system in Iraq. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) also made opening remarks, arguing that the administration’s plans are “likely unsustainable,” without efforts to convey to Congress and the public the need for a continued U.S. commitment to Iraq.
Max Boot testified that there is a need for continued engagement in Iraq that cannot be exclusively diplomatic. Long-term security must be provided by the U.S. or an international peacekeeping force. He recommended that 20,000 troops remain, although the planned 10,000 force is better than nothing. Boot expressed concern about the timetable for negotiating with the Iraqi government, noting that both U.S. President Barack Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki must work to gain support for the ongoing military presence.
Next, Michael Eisenstadt testified that “security is still job number one” for the U.S. and the Iraqi government. He noted that assessments of Iran as the “big winner” in Iraq are premature, yet “they may yet prove prescient” if the U.S. does not work to counter Iranian influence. Eisenstadt recommended that the U.S. adopt a “whole-of-government approach,” promote a business surge in Iraq, utilize preventive diplomacy and peacekeeping, strengthen ties with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), and support a national reconciliation process. He argued that the recent peaceful protests, inspired by the Arab Spring, have been met by a “heavy handed” response, and recommended that the U.S. pressure the Iraqi government to allow peaceful protests, and clearly communicate that “the quality of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship will be influenced by the Government of Iraq’s adherence to international human rights standards.”
Richard Fontaine reiterated that Iraq has the potential to be an anchor of stability or a source of instability in the region. The U.S. needs a continued modest military presence in Iraq, and must “continue to unambiguously signal” its willingness to remain in Iraq if asked. However, Fontaine noted that the U.S. must be willing to accept the Iraqi response, however favorable or unfavorable. U.S. policy in Iraq will require “significant patience and creativity.” Moving forward, the State Department will play a key role, since now the biggest threat to progress is diplomatic decisions. Fontaine emphasized that the U.S. needs to keep the interests of the Iraqi people and country in mind, rather than the interests of specific leaders. Finally, he noted that now is not the time for the U.S. to waver in its commitment to Iraq, and President Obama must articulate the importance of this commitment.
Finally, Marisa Cochrane Sullivan testified that it is crucial to extend U.S. forces beyond 2011 and increase diplomatic engagement. Sullivan provided a brief review of why Iraq matters to the U.S. politically and economically, and then identified two key challenges. First, the divided and bloated Iraqi government has made “little meaningful progress” on economic and political reform. And second, Maliki’s centralization efforts threaten democracy building in Iraq. For example, Maliki has “unprecedented control” over security forces that have been used to suppress protesters and target opposition groups. As extensive negotiations and the U.S. position of waiting for a formal invitation will both decrease the likelihood of achieving a troop extension, Sullivan recommended that the U.S. “fulfill its leadership responsibility” by “guiding discussions” for troop extension. Finally, Sullivan noted that in the context of the Arab Spring, Iraq is an “important test of Obama’s stated commitment to support democratic transitions in the Middle East.”
During the question and answer, Rep. Chabot asked what alternatives the U.S. has to extended negotiations with the Government of Iraq. In response, Boot noted that the Iraqi government is under no obligation to get parliamentary approval for a troop extension; rather, a government-to-government agreement or an interim agreement could be established.
In response to Rep. Chabot’s question on what Congress could be doing, Sullivan said that Congress should encourage the U.S. to engage with a variety of power brokers who could provide political support for a troop extension, rather than focusing on Maliki.
Rep. Ackerman asked if preserving security in Iraq required a “sense of presence” rather than an actual U.S. presence. In response, Eisenstadt agreed that U.S. presence is of “symbolic importance,” representing the American commitment to stability and democracy in Iraq. However, he noted that it is in U.S. interest to encourage Iraqi leaders to request the continued U.S. presence rather than for U.S. figures to take the lead.
Boot expressed concerns over efforts by Iran and its proxies to increase Iranian presence in Iraq, and the safety of State Department officials and contractors. He cited these concerns as important reasons why U.S. forces must remain, and act in a “peacekeeping role.” And he emphasized that the U.S. should not invest too much in one political leader, but rather should work to build stronger institutions in Iraq. However, the U.S. military is the most stable institution, and will be for years to come.
Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY) expressed concern that the U.S. is “getting played” in the “continuing drama” in Iraq, and that a continued U.S. commitment “won’t change much.” In response, Fontaine argued that there has been significant political progress. While there are “continuing enduring problems” politically, there is also less of a need for U.S. military presence.
