Examining the scorecard in Iraq: Where do we stand?

The 20th of this month will be the one-year anniversary of the start of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. This month also marks the one-year anniversary of this column, which began as commentary on the war and related military issues and then “morphed” to encompass a wider global beat--although about half of my articles have been about Iraq in some way.

And so, it seems fitting to spend some ink this month going over current events in Iraq, looking forward to key developments, and looking back to see where this particular writer has gotten things wrong and right. For the next few columns, then, I’ll be examining the scorecard.

First, let me refer to a list of indicators that I outlined in these pages on December 19, just after Saddam’s capture. In that article, I described several interrelated factors as a set of “slider controls” that would determine success or failure in Iraq. It’s time to check up on these parameters, to see where things stand. First the good news:

Economic progress. The recovery of Iraq is gaining momentum. At the street level, shops and businesses are busy and most people have hope for the future--even in dangerous areas. Confidence and wages are up. Unemployment is down. At the macro level, electrical capacity now exceeds pre-war levels, the oil industry is almost there, a national phone system is being installed, and much of Iraq’s debt has been forgiven.

Interim constitution adopted. This week the Governing Council adopted an interim constitution, a big step towards elections and democracy. They missed the 29 February deadline by a couple of days, and there are still sticky details to work out, but the document lays out fundamental principles such as free speech, religious expression, free assembly and due process, a political role for women, and continued autonomy for the Kurds. Most importantly, Islam is the recognized state religion but is not to dictate Iraq’s laws. It’s not the end of the process, but it is a good start.

Shiites pushing, but not rebelling. For a while it looked like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani and his Shiite followers might violently demand an early general election before July, which could have unraveled plans for a peacful turnover of power. Sistani, however, is now going along with a U.N. recommendation (see, they’re good for something) that elections shouldn’t be held until early 2005. Sistani and other clerics are now pressing for elections by the end of 2004, but that’s a much more reasonable time table. This means a huge confrontation has been averted--at least for now.

Smart U.S. tactics. One of my worries in December was that beleaguered and combat-stressed U.S. soldiers might be too heavy-handed in their efforts to quash the insurgency. That remains a concern, but through good discipline, smart tactics and policies, and greater reliance on Iraqi police and security forces, Iraqi civilians’ aggravation with U.S. troops seems to have receded.

No new Ba’athist strongman. I saw the danger of a new Iraqi insurgent leader--such as Ibrahim al-Douri--emerging to be a more dangerous and dynamic foe than Saddam. True, al-Douri is still at large, but it appears now that the capture of Saddam, along with many of the regime loyalists that were hiding him, has broken the back of the die-hard Ba’athist insurgency.

Now for the bad news:

Threat from al-Qaida & Zarqawi. The threat from former Saddam loyalists has receded, but in its place is the danger from the so-called “foreign fighters”, such as Abu al-Zarqawi and other al-Qaida operatives and allies. As I write this piece, reports are coming in of more deadly bombings in Baghdad and Karbala--killing well over 100 Shiite men, women and children.

Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. Another indicator I fixed on was the rash of vicious back-alley “vengeance killings” going on throughout Iraq. Thanks to Zarqawi’s mainstreet terror campaign, though, back-alley violence (mainly targetted assassinations of former regime loyalists) looks like a puny problem. The greater danger is mass communal violence, Shiite against Sunni or ethnic Arabs against Kurds. This is exactly the aim of Zarqawi, as he described in his now infamous letter.

There is clearly progress being made in Iraq, but it is coming one step at a time (sometimes with two back) and they have often been painful steps. The challenge for all concerned, the United States, the U.N., the Governing Council, and the Iraqi people, is to keep putting one foot in front of the other.

Next week: the WMD mess.