Diplomacy, Diplomacy, Diplomacy

With Iraq's cabinet passing a security agreement that will dictate the future of the US role in Iraq, and Parliament being poised to pass it as well, the question now is not at what pace US troops should remove themselves from Iraq, but how to do it in a responsible way that keeps a number of powder kegs from exploding.

The answer comes down to one word: Diplomacy.

Diplomacy is as important for keeping Iraq stable as it is for making sure that US troops are not targets of attacks by insurgents, or caught in the crossfire of an explosion of sectarian violence, as we begin to pull back. And, there is no doubt that there are a number of tensions that could explode, if the US and the next administration does not engage in intense diplomacy not just within the borders of Iraq, but with regional players, as well.

Everything from an oil revenue sharing plan, to the governing of Kirkuk, to Sunni concerns about their own role in the new Iraq, to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and everything else in between could be subject to a small spark that sets of a chain reaction of powder kegs.

Only constant diplomatic and political attention can keep each of those things from blowing up. Diplomacy becomes even more intensely needed when you consider that the security pact includes a timeline for all US troops to be out of cities and towns by June, 2009. That is an extremely ambitious timeline by any standard.

However, there is some hope that just the promise of diplomacy is already playing a role, and can succeed under the Obama administration, if the President-Elect keeps his promise to engage in talks. From today's New York Times:

Several political analysts suggested that Iranian opposition to the pact had softened because of the American presidential election victory of Senator Barack Obama. He has suggested a more diplomatic approach to Tehran and has described a withdrawal timetable from Iraq faster even than the one laid out in the security agreement, though recently he has qualified that stance.

"If George Bush's presidency were going to continue on through 2012, I think people would be a lot more concerned," said Karim Sadjadpour, a Middle East analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Having this administration really lightens the blow for the Iranians."

Iranians pulling back their opposition gave flexibility to Iraqi Shiite Cleric Ali al-Sistani to support the deal, which was key to it moving ahead. So, we can see what Barack Obama said during the campaign already showing promise.

Now, it will be up to President Obama to follow-up on the promise of diplomacy to get Iraqi and regional players to all work towards their mutual interest. This includes not just the Iranians, and Shiite leaders, but the Sunni minority and their allies in the Syrian government, which still opposes the deal, as well as the Kurds and Turkey, to settle their tensions, including the future of Kirkuk.

It's a tall order, even if we were talking about a President already in office. With less than six months after he takes office until US troops are expected to be removed from cities and towns in Iraq, President Obama will have absolutely no time to spare.

Crossposted at www.vetvoice.com

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

"With less than six months after he takes office until US troops are expected to be removed from cities and towns in Iraq, President Obama will have absolutely no time to spare."
Governing is quite different from making campaign speeches. Obama will find this out in a rather abrupt fashion in Jan.
Hence there is little to no chance that US forces will have a major withdrawal in 6 month.
Withdrawal is of course necessary. Just as important is the equvitable power shaing agreement.
Even more important is creating perception of orderly withdrawal rather than chaotic departure.

[gabbinjane]

Just a reminder from Clausewitz - diplomacy not backed by raw power is meaningless. Good intentions ain't going to hack it!

[MagisterLudi]

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

[robeson]

Great post, Chris Hedges expands on diplomacy and more at Truthdig.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081117_americas_wars_of_self_destruction/

[robeson]

JohnNagl analyst on PBS NewsHour, says we need to arm Iraq with M-1 tanks and F16 aircraft. Didn't we go in to disarm them?
Nagl,
"The Iraqis are currently negotiating with the United States to buy M-1 tanks, F-16 fighter planes. They need those. This is a dangerous neighborhood Iraq lives in. And it's going to need that kind of security apparatus for the future. But it's not going to have them in place and be able to maintain them and fly those planes themselves by 2011."

[dobberdoss]

Just get the hell out of a country that you had no right in invading in the first place! The "Diplomacy" is for the Iraqis to decide, not yours

[LizM]

Surely you don't want to see the Iraqis try to deal with this mess all alone with no support from anyone, do you? I mean, the Iraqis will determine their own political future but they will need a lot of help from their neighbors and a good chunk of the rest of the world, as any country would, given the circumstances of the last several years...wouldn't you agree?

[deminmo]

President-elect Obama understands that pulling the troops out
too fast would put them in a dangerous situation. And he knows
that bullying nations like Iran and N. Korea will not work. He also
knows that spending millions on staying in Iraq will drag the US
into even worse economic woes. Every nation has needs, and to
satisfy those needs to the degree it makes diplomacy possible,
I think he definately understands the process.

[LizM]

The media and blogosphere - present company excepted, of course - have apparently concluded that the Iraq debate should be exclusively about withdrawal...when it should start, how long it should take and whether it should be conditions-based. This incompetence and ineptitude has given whole new meaning to missing the point!

You have basically described the Biden Iraq Exit Strategy - formerly known as the Biden-Gelb plan but Les Gelb has been pretty much missing in action, so to speak, when it comes to promoting this strategy and, more than that, Joe Biden has fine-tuned the details of the plan since this initial collaboration, anyway. So, the Biden strategy it is.

Vice President-elect Biden has been advocating this strategy for the better part of three years and it remains the ONLY viable and comprehensive plan for a muscular diplomatic offensive to promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement between, and among, the many warring Iraqi factions. What Biden is proposing, in a nutshell, is a UN-led mechanism and process to bring the factions together to hammer out a political future that they can all live with, literally. The regional and major powers would be involved in an effort to support and secure whatever power-sharing arrangement the Iraqis are able to achieve.

...continued...

[LizM]

...continued...

Unfortunately, most of the media and blogosphere have demonstrated that they are not at all capable of understanding what will be required to withdraw US forces without leaving sectarian chaos behind, much less a very unpredictable regional conflagration. They also remain oblivious to the Biden strategy. When they report on it at all, they so misrepresent the fundamental elements as to render it wholly unrecognizable. The Bush administration has also done a pretty good job of that and what officials at the US Embassy in Baghdad, who knew better, did to discredit the Biden strategy can only be described as a thinly veiled act of sabotage.

...continued...

[LizM]

...continued...

Fortunately, the President-elect understands what a responsible withdrawal means and he must also know who has developed and honed a diplomatic strategy that offers the only hope there is for such a withdrawal and for a stable and united Iraq.

As far as I"m concerned, having a viable and comprehensive strategy to promote and facilitate a political solution in Iraq ought to be a glaring prerequisite for assuming the office of the Secretary of State. Oh, right...well...I"m still hopeful that there is nothing in the constitution that would preclude the VP-elect from also becoming the next SoS. After all, he is the most qualified person for the job, based on Iraq alone...bar none!

And, I would strongly agree with Jim's first comment here that Jon Soltz in a leadership and advisory role at the State Department would be an invaluable component to the new administration's effort to reverse US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Sundialsvc4]

You, like so many of your "brothers and sisters in arms," have been forced to endure an example of just how much damage a rogue Commander-in-Chief can do if he is a criminal surrounded by other criminals.

Only time will tell if this country has the courage to prosecute ... to court-martial and then some ... for just what has been done to you and to the people of Iraq.

We need to show the rest of the world that "the United States of America," herself, "is not a crook after all." Even though the "civil officers" of this government have managed to swindle everybody ("including Iceland..."), and even though it does not seem likely that "impeachment will ever get OFF the table," maybe we can still show the people of Iraq that we are more than thieves.

I just don't know. ("Oh my god, what do you mean 'I just don't know?' Where did you say that you lived?" "I know... I know... it wasn't me...")

But it wasn't your fault, Jon. It wasn't any of your 4-star Generals' fault either. We know that. We are all victims here.

Maybe the Iraqis know that, too?

[CateManhattan]

Excellent points and analysis. Thank you. I think the real victory in Iraq would be to establish a peace that is sustainable long after our troops leave. We want our troops safe as they go, and the Iraqis safe on their own afterward.

[Fein]

The withdrawal date is said to be irrespective of 'conditions on the ground'. If so, it's not much more
than an eviction.

Additionally, the agreement gives Iraq legal authority over U.S. troops under certain conditions.

It will be difficult for to spin this as a 'withdrawal with honor.'

[jimpwhite]

Jon Soltz's article Diplomacy cubed is at the for-front of many conversations I have daily. Our Troops have continued to perform at their highest levels and are the backbone of any Diplomacy package.

The basic needs of the people in Iraq must include thinking around Health-Care, Education for all, and safe-streets from war-lords. Has anyone ever signed a "treaty with a "War-Lord"? And waring within War-lords groups? Diplomacy is required at all levels of the withdraw of our international brothers & sisters in the zone with us. We Went in together, we must share the diplomacy together.

Great article Jon with stong insight. I hope your considering a post at "State". America still needs its Veterans in leadership roles!