Iraq reality check: Future of the fledgling democracy

From Joshua Levs
CNN

Adjust font size:

Editor's note: Iraq's violence and politics are generating a new war of words in the United States in the run-up to critical congressional elections. In this three-part series, CNN looks at the facts, myths, predictions, and differing ideologies shaping the Iraq issue today.

• The cost in lives lost
• Fighting the insurgency

(CNN) -- President Bush recently cited "important political developments," noting that the Iraqi legislature compromised on a process to address issues of constitutional reform. He also said last month, "I'm optimistic that this government will succeed."

But the development of constitutional processes and expressions of optimism have given little solace to Iraqis throughout the country looking for basic services and work to feed their families.

Most people in Baghdad depend on generators for electricity, and where power lines work, they often provide only two hours of electricity followed by three hours without it.

Water sometimes becomes unavailable for a day or two. In many parts of the country, garbage sits in the streets for days.

Sen. John Warner -- the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- said of his recent trip to Iraq, "The situation is simply drifting sideways. ... [The Iraqi government is] simply not living up or not able to meet just the fundamental responsibilities of a government operating through agencies."

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari countered last week, "This has been slow, but we have been moving steadily forward, actually. We are not stalled or stopped. ... The situation is not as desperate as people think."

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy assistant secretary of defense, told CNN, "We are seeing tremendous amounts of progress."

Citing "progress areas," he pointed to "reconciliation among the groups, disarmament of the militias, economic restoration and infrastructure repair. That is being done, it is being done slowly, gradually, progressively."

And Sen. Jim Talent, R-Missouri, told NBC's "Meet the Press" last week, "Look what Iraq is not doing, OK? They're not competing with Iran to sponsor terror in the region. They're not threatening Kuwait. We don't have to station troops in Saudi Arabia. They're not trying to restart the nuclear weapon program. All that would be happening under Saddam."

The United States has about 140,000 troops in Iraq. Many have had their tours of duty extended and have been called back for multiple rotations. Army chief of staff Peter Schoomaker said last week the Army is planning for the possibility that those levels will remain the same through 2010, although he said that is only prudent contingency planning.

With more than $300 billion spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the majority of that in Iraq, where the Pentagon spends more than $1 billion a week -- the White House insists that it has been worth the cost.

In Iraq, open calls for the United States to pull out have increased -- in public forums, in interviews on the street, and in polls. Yet many Iraqis also recognize that the presence of U.S. troops could be the only glue left preventing the society from falling into complete chaos.

"We are a force for stability that can ... help to provide an atmosphere under which they can all come to a resolution of their political differences," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last week, adding, "You're not hearing from almost anybody in the political leadership any longer that they want us to leave."

But U.S. lawmakers and candidates who support near-term steps toward a phased withdrawal are gaining popularity. Among them is Clair McCaskill, Democratic senatorial candidate in Missouri.

"We need to give them notice," she told "Meet the Press" last week. "We need to tell the Iraqi government that we're not going to build democracy at the barrel of a gun. It's time for them to stand up and begin taking responsibility for their country."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told CNN, "Obviously, we want the Iraqis to deal with their political problems, to quell the sectarian violence and to establish peace so we can bring our troops home as soon as possible. But it won't happen by dictating to the Iraqis how they should run their affairs. It won't happen if we set arbitrary timetables for bringing our troops home that will only embolden those who right now seem to have the upper hand."

Putting all these assertions into context is a U.S. soldier's letter to friends and family, published this month in Time magazine [like CNN, a division of Time Warner].

In it, the soldier describes daily horrors -- and names "high-profile visitors" as the biggest hassle. He writes, "Our briefs and commentary seem to have no effect on their preconceived notions of what's going on in Iraq."

Tools:
Save |
Print |
E-mail |
Most Popular |

Next story in World

World

What are E-mail Alerts? | Manage Alerts | Create Your Own

Get up-to-the minute news from CNN

CNN.com gives you the latest stories and video from the around the world, with in-depth coverage of U.S. news, politics, entertainment, health, crime, tech and more.