Transcript

Host: This is “On The Line,” and I’m Eric Felten.

President George W. Bush says that security in Iraq has improved with the addition of thirty thousand U-S troops and a new strategy for fighting terrorists and militias. He says the key to success in Iraq is stopping the violence:

President Bush: "The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security."

Host: Mr. Bush pointed to progress in Anbar province, which had been a haven for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Many local tribal leaders in Anbar have now turned against the terrorists. Mr. Bush says that success at the provincial level will bolster Iraq’s central government:

President Bush: "Iraq’s national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They’re sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They’re allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq’s military or receive government pensions. Local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics."

Host: Mr. Bush urged support for the effort, saying that “for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.”:

President Bush: "The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror, and that will make us safer here at home."

Host: How much support is there in the U-S for the coalition efforts in Iraq? How much support is there among Iraqis? Can the revised U-S strategy really succeed? I’ll ask my guests: Gerard Baker, U-S editor for the Times of London newspaper; Christian Lowe, managing editor of the Military.com website; and joining us by phone from Baghdad, Iraq, Tanya Gilly, a member of the foreign relations committee of the Iraqi national parliament. Welcome. Thanks for joining us today.

I’d like to go first to Baghdad, and, Tanya Gilly, are you there by phone?

Gilly: Yes, I can hear you.

Host: How was President Bush’s speech received in Iraq?

Gilly: Definitely, it was received well because having support from our allies to try and build a safe democratic country for our people is something we’re always looking for and, actually, it was somewhat of a relief knowing that America is in it for the long haul and it’s willing to support us in our struggle against Al Qaeda.

Host: Gerry Baker, you had not only President Bush’s speech but, in the week before the speech, you had testimony in front of the U-S Congress by General David Patraeus, the commander of coalition forces in Iraq, and then also Ryan Crocker, the U-S ambassador to Iraq. And this whole package of speeches and testimony -- how was that received in the U-S, and has it changed the debate at all?

Baker: There’s been, actually, a rather surprising convergence, actually -- a political convergence in Washington. If you looked at this a few months ago, people were saying September 15th, which was the deadline for General Patraeus to present his report and the President, actually, to present his report to Congress on the progress of the surge, the military operations in Iraq. People were saying this was a critical moment; this was going to be the moment when the Democrats, who have a majority in both houses of Congress, were going to come and say, “This is it. We’re not prepared to accept this any longer” and to really create a quick, rapid timetable for a drawdown of U-S troops. In the end, it turned out there was a surprising degree of convergence. On the one hand, Republicans, most of whom have supported the surge, want to continue it, but at the same time, they also want to see progress towards some reduction of U-S forces. And on the other side, Democrats, I think, have been rather outmaneuvered on this, and so they haven’t helped themselves by some of their own rhetoric or some of the rhetoric of their own supporters, which has been extremely hostile. And they, too, have accepted that they can’t do anything to change the policy. They don’t have enough votes in Congress, actually, to override a presidential veto. So they are going along, rather reluctantly, but nonetheless going along with the same kind of strategy. So, as I say, we have more consensus here in Washington that seemed likely a few months ago. We have the probability that the U-S will stay. Obviously, the U-S forces will stay in Iraq for some considerable time with some, at least initially, token reductions in U-S forces over the next few months. All, of course, in the end depends on political progress in Iraq.

Host: Well, Christian Lowe, a lot of people talked about when the surge began, and there was this notion that then there will be a report on the surge in September and decisions will be made based on the progress of the surge, that, in a way, this empowered the enemies of Iraq, the enemies of the coalition, that if they could cause enough trouble in that interim time, that then there was now a peg on which to hang getting out of Iraq. Why didn’t that added trouble happen in the last several months?

Lowe: Because the military finally had a coherent strategy which they could use to go after the enemy. Essentially what you’re saying was the argument was, “Well, the enemy’s just going to hunker down and wait it out until this report comes and then all the sudden come out with attacks and a Tet-like offensive to sort of show the world and the American public that the surge didn’t work. The problem is, for them, the surge was working. And the interesting thing is there was a parallel effort to the surge in western Anbar province, and we’re seeing it a little bit also south of Baghdad and a little bit northeast of Baghdad, to empower the tribal governments out there, essentially -- these tribal sheikhs -- and, basically, these guys said, “Look, we are sick of Al Qaeda and the Jaish al-Mahdi [Mahdi Army] telling us what to do. We’re going to take it into our own hands and defend ourselves.” A lot of critics of the surge strategy and of what Patraeus said last week said, “Well, you know, actually, this was happening despite the surge or not necessarily because of the surge,” and that may be true. I mean, I’ve talked with some sources over there in Iraq, sort of getting their feel for how things are going, and they said, “Well, you know, these tribal sheikhs uprising -- The Anbar awakening occurred without the surge.” But I think there’s also an element that the surge brings sort of a backstop to these guys. It gives them the confidence that they can go after Al Qaeda and the Jaish al-Mahdi, the Mahdi Army, with sort of the Americans sort of backstopping them, a foundation of support and strength for them. They couldn’t have been as effective without the surge.

Host: Tanya Gilly, talking about the sheikhs in Anbar province and the Sunnis there and their relationship with the government in Baghdad, what’s going on with that at this point? Is there an effort by the national government to try to reach out to the provincial leaders who have sort of turned around against Al Qaeda?

Gilly: With the central government, it actually is looking to support these kinds of efforts. Now, for example, it’s not just happening in Anbar. There are other provinces as well in Iraq that are starting a similar campaign, like what you have in Diyala and now there’s talk of starting a similar campaign, like an uprising, in Ninawa against Al Qaeda, which is another place where Al Qaeda is present. But, I mean, definitely, as the central government, we would support any kind of effort, and on many occasions, the Prime Minister met with these tribal sheikhs, and they have come to Baghdad and held conferences and so on. So, it is time that we have the people of Iraq, or the people themselves, rise up and say, “Enough” to Al Qaeda, because that was one of the problems that we had before, where some of these neighborhoods or these towns were harboring these terrorists, and they were not speaking against them, which actually made our jobs much more difficult. But now with the people saying, “Enough” and “Let’s go after them ourselves,” it definitely is giving a good impression, and like one of your guests said, it is definitely giving confidence to the people in knowing that, yes, they can take matters into their own hands and make a change in the country.

Host: Gerard Baker, we were talking about the testimony that David Patraeus gave. Let’s listen to a little bit of what he said, in particular about troop levels:

General Patraeus: "The military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met. Though the improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in eight of the past twelve weeks. I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level of brigade combat teams by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains that we have fought so hard to achieve."

Host: Gerry Baker, how realistic is the notion of reducing troops? How many troops can there be brought out, and how does it play politically, both in the U-S and in Iraq?

Baker: There is actually an inevitable process in place, actually. Because of the tours of duty that are being served by the U-S military in Iraq, the surge that started to be built up earlier this year reached its peak over the summer. And by the sort of late spring of next year, because of rotations, many of those soldiers will have to come out anyway, so to some extent, what General Patraeus is saying is simply a statement of the reality of the military positioning of the U-S there.

Host: In other words, that there aren’t enough troops sort of in the U-S rotation of troops to maintain it?

Baker: There are things you could do that would actually -- You could increase the length of tours of duty and reduce the lengths of stay back stateside. But nobody particularly wants to do that. Yeah, there’s a limited number. And so the numbers that we would be talking about would be the numbers, essentially, that have been -- The increase in forces was about twenty-five to thirty thousand [troops]. We could be back down from the current -- I think it’s one hundred seventy thousand -- back down to sort of one hundred forty thousand next spring and summer. And so I think that is pretty well set in stone, barring something extraordinary happening between now and then. I do think the bigger question of the longer term is the extent to which here in Washington this sort of uneasy truce at the moment between Democrats and Republicans lasts. We’re going into an election year. Exactly as Christian said and as Tanya said, there’s been real progress in Iraq in the last six months -- military progress. The next phase really does have to be real political progress in Iraq, and I do think the patience of politicians in this country with the Iraqis is going to wear pretty thin as we enter a U-S election, and if we don’t see real political progress towards the kind of reconciliation and the kind of nation building that needs to go on, then I think there’s going to be a completely different political environment in Washington sometime, probably around the middle of next year.

Host: Christian Lowe, we’ve talked about the fight against Al Qaeda and its focus in Anbar province, but at the same time, there’s still ongoing violence in southern Iraq, and President Bush has talked about the destructive influence of Iran, as he put it. How is that going to play out, and is that a wild card at this point in what happens in Iraq in the next six months or a year?

Lowe: That is really the wild card going on right now. You got a sense, not necessarily from the testimony but from some interviews that General Patraeus had subsequent with his testimony, that he is anxious to really get at the Iranian problem. Sort of the undercurrent of his comments were, “Look, I’ve asked for options about taking out some of these camps and interdicting some of this cross-border weapons and personnel traffic from Iran by maybe going a little bit into the country of Iran and have been pushed back.” I think that the commanders on the ground are so frustrated with the Iranian influence, with the deadly weapons, with the training. They have so much evidence of this going on. Patraeus said something very interesting in one of his interviews. He said the insurgent fighters that are trained by Iran keep meticulous records of everything they do -- every attack, the effect of that attack, to justify funding for increased supplies and training from Iran. So, they’ve captured these guys, taken the information with them -- the Americans have -- and basically uncovered this entire network. In terms of your question about the Shi’ite factions battling each other in southern Iraq, again, I think that’s a wild card, too. There was a couple news stories today that said, “Look, the administration, the Pentagon, is not going to send U-S troops down there to break up these fights,” but there are some undercurrents also with commanders on the ground there that say, “Look, man, we may have to go in there and clean up this mess that the British have left us in southern Iraq.” I don’t know how that’s going to affect things.

Host: Tanya Gilly, what’s the sense with the government in Baghdad of the current threat from Iranian-backed militias?

Gilly: Let me be frank with you, and I’ll actually give you my own personal perspective on the government’s line. I mean, definitely, I do believe that Iran is a threat to us, and their constant involvement and their constant stirring of trouble in our country -- Definitely, it’s something that is a nuisance to us. However, it is a little bit hard to deal with Iran being a neighboring country, and, you know, they’re playing this cat-and-mouse game with us where here they’re giving weapons to some of these militias, but at the same time, for example, they gave the prime minister a plane as a gift. So, it is somewhat unfortunate that they have had a negative role in our country, but at the same time, we have to try and solve it diplomatically just because even after the coalition forces leave, Iran will always be there, and we have to figure out a way in dealing with them and making sure that they are not meddling in our internal affairs.

Host: Gerry Baker, Iran has said a lot of things to suggest they feel empowered at the moment. President Ahmadinejad talking about when the U-S coalition leaves, they’ll be ready to step into what he calls the power vacuum. What options are there at this point for the coalition and for Iraq itself in dealing with Iran?

Baker: There are some military options, in terms of, actually, just exactly what Christian was talking about in terms, perhaps, of a more aggressive stance towards the Iranians, who are unquestionably fighting a proxy war in Iraq at the moment. There’s no question about that. They’re arming many of these Shi’a militias. The problem, of course, though -- and this is where it comes back to the political settlement that’s necessary in Iraq -- is that, again, as Tanya kind of hinted at there with the story of the plane from the Iranians to the prime minister -- there are strong suspicions in Iraq and certainly in this country and also in the region -- I know in other countries in the region. The current government, the government of Prime Minister Maliki, is essentially not only not particularly troubled by Iranian influence but is actually happily, essentially, going along with it and looking forward to a day when the Americans have gone and Iraq’s government will be, in effect, a kind of solid ally of Iran. That’s a really worrying situation, and that’s what people are really frustrated about with this government in Iraq. They think that this is not just a question of an inability to knock people’s heads together but a suspicion, quite frankly, that the government of Mr. Maliki is far too close to the Iranians and is going to get a lot closer to the Iranians if the Americans leave, so that’s why it’s terribly important that the U-S -- That we’re able to, whatever we can do diplomatically and politically -- the U-S and its allies -- are able to create different political condition on the ground, ‘cause at the moment, the political conditions on the ground are going the way that are going to help Iran, and that is why it would be disastrous if the U-S were to leave prematurely.

Host: Gerard Baker talks about the political situation with Iran. Christian Lowe, what about military possibilities with Iran?

Lowe: Like I said earlier, I think there is a strong desire among local commanders there -- lower-level generals who are in charge of divisional sort of deployments there -- They’re very frustrated with this inflow, seemingly unstoppable inflow, of weaponry, and I think they know, based on intelligence, from captured fighters there, where these weapons are coming from, where the training camps are, and they want to go after them, but Gerry’s right. I just don’t see the political backing for this, and I think the higher-level commanders like Patraeus and diplomats like Crocker realize that. They can’t do anything.

Host: Tanya Gilly, we only have a couple of minutes left and wanted to touch on the issue of political progress in Iraq. Much of the reports that Patraeus and Crocker were giving were about the military-security progress, but the issue is also there of whether the Iraqi government had met a number of benchmarks. Is there any sense of, over the last couple months, what direction the Iraqi government needs to go to achieve stability in Iraq?

Gilly: Let me just go back and say we have had progress. It may be slow and we may have not met those points that the American Congress would like to hear, but, however, we’re definitely working on it, and we are trying to reach a consensus on these issues and on these laws. But also, I mean, we have to remember that the security in this country is definitely one of the excuses that some of the politicians or some of the political parties in Iraq are using in order not to get along. For example, in the Baghdad security plan, this week there was a report from our Ministry of Health saying that there has been a lot less bodies in the morgues in Baghdad. There has been a lot less crowdedness in the hospitals from people coming in from explosions and so on or terrorist activity. So, definitely, we are moving forward, and it may be slower than what the Western world would like to see, but this is just the situation in Iraq. Everything in the Middle East is a little bit slower, number one. Number two, there are so many different sides or different parties that are involved in the political process. It takes a little bit longer in order to get consensus among all of them.

Host: I’m afraid that’s going to have to be the last word for today. We’re out of time. But I’d like to thank my guests -- Gerard Baker of The Times of London newspaper; Christian Lowe of the Military.com website; and joining us by phone from Baghdad, Iraq, Tanya Gilly of the Iraqi National Parliament. Before we go, I’d like to invite you to send us your questions or comments. You can reach us through our website at www.voanews.com/ontheline. For “On The Line,” I’m Eric Felten.