Crunch time in Baghdad

Well into July and still no Baghdad decision on whether to ask the Americans to keep some troops in Iraq past the end of the year. Defense Secretary Panetta is making his displeasure known, even as the Iraqis postpone a decision for another couple of weeks.

CNN asked me yesterday about a drop dead date–presumably the date past which the Americans can no longer get out in time, or after which the drawdown is essentially irreversible. The answer of course depends on how quickly we want to move. Better to ask U.S. Forces Iraq rather than me, but certainly we are there by October 1. I see no sign that the 46,000 still in Iraq are starting to move right now, though preparations have presumably been made.

Everyone is expecting a request to the Americans to stay, though the numbers are still unclear. Both Prime Minister Maliki and his rival (and coalition partner) Ayad Allawi want it. But neither wants to take the responsibility of making the decision, since it is widely unpopular in Iraq and will therefore likely redound to the benefit of Shia firebrand Moqtada al Sadr, who has led a vigorous campaign against what he terms the American “occupation.” Allawi is trying to use his agreement to ask the Americans to stay as a bargaining chip to get Maliki to agree to name defense and interior ministers agreeable to Iraqiyya, Allawi’s coalition.

The issue of course is much larger than a few thousand U.S. troops, who would be happily welcomed home by most Americans. The real issue is Iraq’s international alignment, and in particular its relationship with Iran, which is pushing hard for the Americans to leave (and pumping in weapons and training to aid those who are trying to push them out). The Americans want Iraq to act as a counterweight to Iran in the region, limiting its influence and providing a bulwark against Iran’s efforts to establish itself as a leader of the Muslim world.

Iraqis will be hesitant to cast their own role in such grandiose terms. Even those highly suspicious of Tehran regard Iran as a fact of life, one that unquestionably will have substantial influence in the largely Shia south. But
most Iraqis, including those in the south, will want the country to be able to protect its territorial integrity, defend itself and export its oil freely.

There are many ways to achieve these objectives, in addition to maintaining a U.S. troop presence. The purchase of American F-16’s fighter jets, reported today by the Wall Street Journal to have been quietly revived, is another important dimension of Iraq’s future military capabilities. The Iraqi navy is important too.

In my view, another important contribution to Iraq’s future international alignment could come from its capability to export oil other than by loading it on ships and moving it through the Gulf and the strait of Hormuz. The Gulf export facilities are already a bottleneck, not to mention the risk that conflict there could disrupt Iraq’s exports.

But Iraq is geographically advantaged. It can export oil (and gas) to the north and west, reaching European markets more directly and cheaply than through the Gulf. My understanding is that even Iraq’s southern oil fields can export more economically to the north and west, provided the “strategic pipeline” that once linked them to northern Iraq is repaired and enlarged.

If the Americans really want an Iraq that will see its interests more aligned with the West, oil and gas pipelines to the north and west are likely to be at least as important as F-16’s and American troops in the long run. There is no time like the present to get busy making the long run happen.