Keeping Faith in Iraq

Seeking to reduce the risk of what one top U.S. official calls a "High Noon shootout" among Iraqi groups that want peace but fear their rivals may shoot first, the Bush administration is debating some delicate policy moves that it hopes will stabilize the situation.

"There's a lot of anxiety and fear" among the country's three main factions -- the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds -- the official explains. The best way to reduce the tension, he says, may be to "internationalize" the occupation through a new U.N. resolution while also making clear to Iraqis that U.S. troops won't be leaving anytime soon.

CIA officials are said to be worried that civil war is a growing possibility. Pentagon officials agree the situation is volatile, but they express confidence that U.S. policies are working -- and they counsel patience.

Deep divisions in Iraq have emerged on a range of issues, including Kurdish autonomy, the role of Islam and the timetable for elections. Even the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council is sharply divided over these questions.

The Kurds' hunger for self-rule increased after this month's twin suicide bombings in Irbil. The grisly attacks killed more than 100 people and convinced many Kurds that they should detach themselves from the carnage of postwar Iraq.

Jalal Talabani, the leader of one of the two main Kurdish political parties, is said to have harangued his colleagues on the Governing Council this week, accusing them of betraying earlier promises that the Kurds could run their own affairs in a new, federalist Iraq.

The Kurdish issue could explode soon in Kirkuk, an oil-rich city that is home to a volatile mix of Kurds, Turkmen and Sunni Arabs. The Kurds want to ensure that the population of Kirkuk has a Kurdish majority -- in hopes of adding the city to any Kurdish zone of autonomy. They want to move out Sunnis who were forcibly settled there by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s in an attempt to "Arabize" the region.

This Kirkuk relocation scheme is backed by senior Pentagon officials, who think it would defuse tensions. But L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. occupation chief, is said to be wary, arguing that Kirkuk is too risky a place to begin any nationwide policy of relocation.

Tension is also rising over Islam's role in the new Iraq. In a draft of the "fundamental law" that will guide Iraq during its transition, some members of the Governing Council have proposed a mild formula that describes Islam as the country's official religion but doesn't impose sharia, or Islamic law. But the council's current president, Mohsen Abdul Hamid, a Sunni fundamentalist, this week demanded a broad adoption of Islamic law.

The election issue remains the most contentious of all. Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has demanded that the new Iraqi government be chosen through direct elections, which would lock in the power of the Shiite majority. About half the Shiite members of the Governing Council have endorsed Sistani's call, but all the non-Shiite members are said to prefer Bremer's plan for provincial caucuses.

Some U.S. officials speculate that Sistani may be demanding an unrealistic election timetable because he really doesn't want U.S. troops to leave. But Arabs who know Sistani argue that his tough line is instead an effort to position the Shiites as the group that defied the United States and liberated Iraq from occupation.

Hopes remain for a U.N.-brokered deal on the elections issue. A team of experts headed by Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi has been in Baghdad this week, exploring whether early elections are possible. After meeting with Sistani yesterday in Najaf, Brahami said the United Nations was "100 percent" behind Sistani's demand for elections but did not say when they should take place.

So how can the Bush administration soothe an Iraq that is frazzled by almost daily suicide bombings? The best option, officials say, is maintaining the strong U.S. military presence, which polls show most Iraqis actually want.

To make this stay-the-course strategy more palatable, administration officials are debating whether to propose a new U.N. resolution. It would provide a continuing role for a multinational force in Iraq, under U.S. command. To appease both Sistani and his critics, the resolution might endorse the July 1 date for transfer of sovereignty and also set a specific date later for elections.

Boil it down and the dilemma is painfully obvious: What do you do when failure isn't an option and yet your policy is in danger of failing? The administration's answer is to tough it out, keep the faith -- and train Iraqi soldiers and police as fast as it can. To critics who argue this is more a hope than a strategy, the administration might reasonably ask: You got a better idea?

davidignatius@washpost.com