| Ander Nieuws week 12 / Midden-Oosten 2011 |
The New York Times
March 15, 2011
Jack Healy and Michael S. Schmidt
Iraq's long delay in finalizing its government has complicated the Obama administration's drive to set up a small army of diplomats and contractors here after the end of the year, when the last American troops are supposed to leave.
The lack of permanent security ministers has also slowed negotiations on some critical issues, like plans to continue training the Iraqi police and to establish an office that would sell military equipment to the Iraqis.
The delay, ahead of the year-end withdrawal deadline, comes at a critical point nearly eight years after the American invasion. Although Iraqi and American leaders have pledged to end the United States military presence, the year-end deadline remains contentious.
Military analysts and some politicians in both countries argue that a complete withdrawal could threaten Iraq's tenuous stability and squander the costs paid by the United States, both in the deaths of thousands of service members and in the billions of dollars spent.
A withdrawal has also amplified concerns about whether the State Department would be able to take on critical tasks now handled by the military, like responding to rocket attacks on diplomatic posts and tamping down tensions in the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk.
It has been more than three months since Iraq's leaders forged an awkward but inclusive government, and despite his public promises and prodding from American officials, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has stalled on appointing ministers to oversee Iraq's police and military, two of the last positions to be filled.
"It's a setback," said Maj. Gen. Edward C. Cardon, who is helping to coordinate the closing of 75 remaining American bases and the drawdown of the last 50,000 troops.
"Working with the Iraqis, it's sometimes hard for them to make a decision without making sure they have top cover," he said. "They don't know who the minister is, so there's reluctance to enter into agreements that may or may not be accepted when the new minister comes, and they don't want to put themselves out that far. So you have kind of seen this slowdown on this side."
The picture has been muddied further by uncertainties about how much money a Congress bent on cutting spending will provide to finance operations in Iraq, and about whether Iraq's government will make a last-minute request that the American military remain.
President Obama, Mr. Maliki and top American officials have consistently said that all American soldiers will be out of Iraq by the end of the year, a departure specified in a security agreement signed by both countries in 2008.
So far, Iraq's government has not asked to change the agreement. Altering it could be politically perilous for Mr. Maliki, who forged a governing coalition with the support of the Sadrists, a Shiite bloc opposed to any United States troops in Iraq.
But American officials have said some Iraqi leaders are willing to renegotiate the agreement to allow some troops to remain. Some Iraqi officials say privately that their country still needs the United States to continue training Iraqi forces and to help secure its borders and airspace.
Although American officials here are uncertain about what type of presence the United States will have on Jan. 1, 2012, they are becoming increasingly convinced that the American military will need to play some role.
In addition to making plans for no military presence, American officials are also looking into a contingency for a residual force of as many as 10,000 troops, according to two people briefed on the plans. The American ambassador to Iraq, James F. Jeffrey, and the top military commander here, Gen. Lloyd Austin, have been soliciting advice on creative ways the United States could keep soldiers in Iraq, one of the people said.
One of the main issues with a continued American force would be legal immunities, the other person said. Both people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to sensitive information.
American diplomats in Baghdad say they are working to put together a civilian presence that includes consulates in the south and in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, as well as embassy offices in Kirkuk and the restive northern city of Mosul. The State Department is also expanding its presence here to 17,000 people - most of them civilian contractors.
Despite the obstacles posed by the Iraqi government's delays, State Department officials have insisted that they will be ready to pick up for the military by January, including in Kirkuk and Mosul. "We're going to hit all of our marks," a senior diplomat said, speaking anonymously according to protocol.
General Cardon said that the plans for the embassy branch offices were behind because of financing issues. The State Department has asked for an extra $2.5 billion for its increased presence, but a budget bill passed by the House significantly cut the department's financing. "They don't have their funds for Kirkuk and Mosul," General Cardon said. "If they don't have their funds, there is no way to build it, so I would say that's behind."
Many in Washington question the State Department's ability to supplant the military's role in a still-dangerous Iraq. "It's a serious question mark," said Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican who is the chairman of the House oversight committee's national security subcommittee. "You hope they're as close to 100 percent as possible. But there are clearly going to be some things that they're just not ready to do."
Tim Arango contributed reporting.
© 2011 The New York Times Company
Original link
| Ander Nieuws week 12 / Midden-Oosten 2011 |