Muqtada Rebrands, and the "Status of Forces" agreement

This weekend saw two important events happen in Iraq, both of which make me optimistic about the political future of that country.

Firstly, PM Maliki has announced that the negotiations between Iraq and the United States for a new security agreement have reached an impasse. The Bush Administration has been promoting an agreement that would give American military personnel and contractors legal immunity from Iraqi courts, authority to conduct military operations without consulting the Iraqi government, control of Iraq's airspace and borders, and over 50 bases. The Iraqi's, conversely, are looking for an American guarantee to defend Iraq's borders from foreign invasion.

Many of these provisions are deeply unpopular in Iraq. Ayatollah Sistani has vocally opposed the deal, and had Maliki conceded to it he would have confirmed his critics accusations that he is merely an American puppet. The Bush administration has said that it "remains confident" that a deal will be reached by the end of July. Though this may be an optimistic estimate, some sort of deal will certainly be reached before the UN mandate for American forces runs out in December.

Secondly, Muqtada al-Sadr has announced that he is restructuring the Mahdi Army. The Mahdi army is already the largest distributor of humanitarian aid in Iraq. Much of the Mahdi rank-and-file will be turned into a civilian organisation focused on "religious, social and cultural affairs", increasing the organization's political strength. Meanwhile a smaller and more secretive group would continue attacks on, Coalition forces. "The weapons will be held exclusively by this new group, and they should be pointed exclusively at the occupier." Likely, the "new group" will be primarily made up of the Iranian trained Special Groups that have been so effective against both American and Iraqi forces. "We will not stop resisting the occupation until liberation or martyrdom," Sadr has said.

It may seem odd that these two events are signs of progress. Why is it good that the Iraqi government is repudiating the United States, and that a prominent politician is pledging to continue to kill American soldiers? Because both events hint that there will not be a cataclysmic civil war when we leave.

Both of the above mentioned events are proof of growing nationalism within Iraq, and a growing faith in the ability of the government to maintain stability. Maliki would not have stood up to the Bush administration over the Status of Forces agreement if he believed that the only thing holding him in power was American military might. And Sadr would not begin to demilitarize his militia at all if he did not see a route to power though democracy, or if he predicted a full scale civil war would break out soon. His only incentive to transform the Mahdi army into a civilian force is to expand his influence amongst the moderate Shiites.

Iraq is going to be messy. There are too many factions within the country that have an interest in a weak central government. Not just the Mahdi Army, but also the Sunnis and the Kurds, and above all the Iranians. But the Iraqi army is becoming increasingly capable of putting up a fight to the militia groups, and the country is unlikely to completely splinter apart the minute we leave.

Here are the facts; there is a finite amount of time that America can expect to maintain the current level of soldiers on active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Withdrawing from Iraq would would allow the American military to refocus its efforts on Afghanistan. Recent events there have certainly emphasized the need for more American boots on the ground in Kandahar and the rest of eastern Afghanistan.

The United States needs to drastically reduce its presence in Iraq, and soon. John McCain often says on the campaign trail that we should not leave Iraq until we have achieved "victory." But what does Victory entail? The vision of a Switzerland on the Euphrates just aint gona happen. A more realistic model may be India. India is also subjected to ethnic tensions and regular terrorism, but none the less has maintained a vibrant democracy. Perhaps if the United States began to move towards the door, we would be able to largely appease the Sadrists while still assisting the government.

What should be kept in mind, by both Mr. Bush in the waning days of his presidency and by both presidential candidates, is that their chief duty in Iraq is the stewardship of American power. Every action taken in Iraq by the United States must keep this in mind. When the NeoCons said that the post 9/11 world is a new and dangerous place for a superpower, they were not wrong. America cannot afford to dictate the next eight years of its foreign policy based on the "we broke it we bought it" theory.

What really is preventing us from declaring Victory? I am not talking about a gaudy speech on an aircraft carrier, but instead Bush and Petreus (or McCain and Petreus or Obama and Petreus) announcing that they believe that Iraqi can stand up on its own, and that America will withdraw, not as a defeated occupier, but as a friend and ally of the Iraqi people.