The War Over the War

Readers joined Dan Serwer, vice president of the United States Institute of Peace's Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations, on Tuesday, Feb. 19 at 10 a.m. ET to discuss the debate in Washington among government, military and intelligence officials about what course to follow in Iraq.

The transcript follows.

More coverage of The War Over the War | War Over the War discussion transcripts

Serwer has worked on preventing interethnic and interreligious conflict in Iraq, and he has been deeply engaged in facilitating dialogue between Serbs and Albanians. He came to the Institute as a senior fellow working on Balkan regional security in 1998-1999. Before that, as State Department director of European and Canadian analysis in 1996-1997, he supervised the analysts who tracked Bosnia and Dayton implementation as well as the deterioration of the security situation in Albania and Kosovo.

____________________

Dan Serwer: Good morning! It is good to be here. I look forward to our chat.

_______________________

Hartford, Conn.: Hi Dan. I guess my question is, are we seeing the political/military improvement that is claimed? Can Iraq ever become a stable, somewhat free country? Is it worth it to keep 160,000 American lives there?

Dan Serwer: My sense is that we are beginning to see some political movement in the right direction. The recent passage of three important laws -- the budget, amnesty and provincial powers -- is the clearest sign of that. That said, political progress is likely to be slow and uneven. Staying likely means a long-term commitment, but with significantly fewer than 160,000 troops.

_______________________

San Clemente, Calif.: Good afternoon, Mr, Serwer -- thank you for taking questions today. The U.S. Congress has allocated a lot of money for the physical reconstruction of Iraq, as well as the billions we, uh ... "liberated" from the Iraqis at the start of our occupation. Much of this money -- well, perhaps most of it -- merely has passed through Iraq quickly on its way back to the U.S. (Blackwater), Kuwait (First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting) and Dubai (Halliburton).

Even early on, when the security situation was not so dire, the U.S. favored grandiose projects that only could be done by huge engineering firms. Smaller projects seem to have been handed to fly-by-night companies started mostly by Americans who had little expertise to offer beyond their excellent Republican political connections (Custer Battles).

Few idle Iraqis were employed, and now there is next to nothing in Iraq to show for all the effort (Dubai looks pretty good, though). The few things that have managed to be built in Iraq seem to be of dubious quality and or utility. Others, such as the new "Vatican-like" U.S. Embassy, are a major irritant to the average Iraqi's sense of sovereignty. How much has this poor planning and -- lets face it -- corporate greed run amok complicated our situation in Iraq?

Dan Serwer: The early mistake of too much money for bricks and mortar and too little for governing capacity and preventing sectarian conflict will haunt Iraq for a long time. I think we are still too attached to bricks-and-mortar projects -- the effort to complete them is swallowing a lot of resources to this day.

_______________________

Freising, Germany: A Newsweek article on Gen. Petraeus's group of advisors says British Army Maj. Gen. Paul Newton had been tasked with reaching out to tribal leaders, which was intended to help with reconstruction. Have you heard anything of Maj. Gen. Newton's efforts, or those of the Joint Strategic Assessment Team (JSAT)?

washingtonpost.com: Brainiac Brigade (Newsweek, Sept. 17, 2007)

Dan Serwer: Yes, I met with Gen. Newton while in Baghdad last month and was impressed with his efforts, and those of the American Foreign Service officers who worked with him. These folks finally are getting the political side of the equation into a shape that might be soluble, in particular by engaging with the Sunni "Awakenings" and creating the Concerned Local Citizens (now Sons of Iraq) groups. There are great risks here, but my sense is that the Awakenings are anxious to play a political role, which would be a good thing.

_______________________

The U.S. Homeland: I keep hearing Republicans slagging "pork-barrel Spending" for spending millions of dollars on projects. I don't understand how these same conservative Republicans aren't outraged by spending hundreds of billions of dollars to give to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel and Egypt, Not to mention that all of this money is borrowed from China! Why should the U.S. rebuild Iraq? Get U.S. troops out of Iraq and the resistance will go back to work rebuilding their nation.

Dan Serwer: I agree that the U.S. should not aim to "rebuild" Iraq, as what was there before is not something we would want to see again. In evaluating the option of quick withdrawal, however, we need consider what the consequences might be. The best guess is that Iraq would break down into chaos, and perhaps eventually into three separate states. This would not be in the U.S. interest.

_______________________

Boston: How much are the U.S. taxpayers paying Iraqi Sunnis under the Sunni Awakening local security force initiative? Why aren't the Iraqis themselves paying for these local Iraqi security costs? We're cutting "reading is fundamental" book programs for young American kids because the U.S. budget is tight, but footing the bill for Iraqi security forces when they have Iraqi oil revenues to fund these Iraqis?

Dan Serwer: I agree entirely that the Iraqis should be paying these bills, but it was wise of the U.S. to step in to pay them temporarily while convincing the Iraqi government to take on the burden. The price is several hundred million dollars, but that would be justified readily if paying these costs led to as little as a month less deployment time for a substantial number of U.S. troops.

_______________________

Tehran, Iran: Hi. I'm a 30-year-old citizen of Iran. I think the U.S. should have cut the dragon's head instead of its tail. Until there is a less terrorism-supportive government in Iran, you can't find an effective solution for Iraq and Afghanistan. You eliminated two huge enemies of an Islamic Republic: Saddam and the Taliban. Can you explain that for me?

Dan Serwer: You are correct that the Iranian regime definitely has benefited from U.S. intervention in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is a much tougher case: a bigger country, and much better defended than either Iraq or Afghanistan. I think most Americans would prefer to see Iran put its own house in order.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Is it possible to get the sides in Iraq to agree to stop killing each other, or is that a hopeless cause? If it is possible, what will it take to get the most extreme violent groups to stop their violence?

Dan Serwer: Violence has dropped dramatically in Iraq, in particular inter-sectarian violence. We now are doing many of the right things: deploying troops into neighborhoods alongside Iraqi security forces, encouraging the cease-fire by Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and enabling Sunni and Shia tribesmen to guard their own communities. The big question is: what next? How do we withdraw from a situation that seems to depend heavily on our presence for stability?

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: Dan, you just cited the amnesty law as evidence of something good happening in Iraq. I'm confused, as my understanding of it was that all the Shia voted for it, while the Sunni didn't because they think it actually makes things harder on them. Given that the Baath it was supposed to help are Sunni, and the Sunni think the law stinks, I take it the Baath think the law stinks. How is this good, except as propaganda to an uninterested American populace?

Dan Serwer: I think you are confusing the general amnesty, to which I was referring, with the de-Baathification law, which had passed earlier. Even that earlier law had a mixed reaction among the Sunni, not a completely negative one. In any event, during my visit to Baghdad last month I found a very wide spectrum of people -- former insurgents, Sadrists, non-insurgent Sunni leaders -- all anxious to participate in the political process. They particularly are interested in provincial elections, which are slated before the end of this year.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: Is it true that one problem with bricks-and-mortar construction by Americans is that these projects then become target for terrorists? Yet, aren't there other things we could be helping the Iraqi population with where we seem to have fallen behind, such as providing basic services and training teachers, health care employees and public servants?

Dan Serwer: The short answer to this is "yes." We should have worried much less about building objects that could be attacked and much more about reconstructing a society that had been devastated by Saddam Hussein.

_______________________

Washington: Could you please explain who your agency is? Is it an independent non-profit/nongovernmental organization, or a U.S. government agency? If it is an agency, by definition isn't "post-conflict peace and stability operations" what the State Department is supposed to do?

Dan Serwer: We are an independent federal institution funded by the U.S. Congress and run by a bipartisan board -- equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate -- committed to preventing and resolving violent international conflict. We will spend about $35 million of your tax dollars this year and will try to make every penny count towards peace. We work closely with the State Department in many situations -- for example, we are preparing at the request of State a draft "doctrine" for civilian work in post-conflict situations that will avoid the mistakes made in Iraq. But we also do things the State Department cannot or won't do.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Do you see the Kurds, at some point in the future, following the Kosovo model by declaring independence from Iraq and forming their own independent country?

Dan Serwer: It might happen, but Kurdistan is different from Kosovo for a number of reasons. First, Kurds recognize that theirs is a very rough neighborhood, where the neighbors might not put up with independence. Second, the Kurds have a good deal within Iraq: 17 percent of the oil revenue distributed to the provinces goes to the Kurdistan Regional Government, Kurds hold the presidency, vice prime ministry, foreign ministry and several other ministries, and they have their own army as well as other trappings of statehood. Kosovo had none of this from Belgrade.

_______________________

Peaks Island, Maine: Re: The question is whether Iraq ever will become a stable, somewhat free country and your seeing political movement? What progress do you see toward resolving the problem in toto created by a combination of such factors as 4 million Iraqis displaced from their homes, ethnic separation in Baghdad, a lack of religious tolerance and Shiite vs. Shiite conflict in the South -- where U.S. troops seem not to be -- 80,000 Sunnis armed by the U.S. against the wishes of the Maliki government, al-Qaeda-generated instability in the North, tens of thousands of prisoners (many innocent) who may have been radicalized as a result of the confinement, Kirkuk, Kurds who don't consider themselves part of Iraq, the inability to reach agreement on an oil law, corruption, a broken-down infrastructure, etc?

Dan Serwer: Your question is a very nice compilation of the daunting problems Iraq faces. Iraq may not succeed in overcoming them -- but that would not be good for the U.S. We need a single Iraq that is not a haven for international terrorists, one that is not under Iranian control in whole or in part. We also need our Army and Marine Corps back so that they can be recapitalized and ready for deployment elsewhere. Balancing those requirements is not going to be easy.

_______________________

Boston: What do you think is an appropriate U.S. troop level at the end of this year? What should be the mission of those U.S. troops still in Iraq?

Dan Serwer: Whatever happens, we are likely to have 100,000-130,000 troops in Iraq at the end of this year (it seems at the moment toward the higher end of that range). The big question is what the next president will do come January 2009. It is my hope that all the candidates will have reserved themselves enough space to have a fresh look at the situation then and decide what is in America's best interests.

_______________________

Asheville, N.C.: In your experience, can a calm imposed by a foreign power then be transformed and viewed as a prerequisite for a settlement among domestic competitors? Are we supposed to take this as a given, as the administration wants to? What kind of "settlement" does it lead to, typically?

Dan Serwer: Sure, there are lots of situations in which a calm imposed by a foreign power has allowed enough space for politics to replace violence as a means of determining who gets power. We have been relatively successful at that in Bosnia, to cite just one recent example. There, and in many other "post-conflict" situations, the solution is power-sharing -- that is, a system that allows representation of a number of former warring parties and ensures them at least a partial hold on power. In my view, power-sharing is not necessarily a democratic outcome, as it often limits the victory of the majority, but it is often a good transitional arrangement until institutions can be consolidated.

_______________________

jameschirico: Countries America attacks have a good track record today even when we lose (Vietnam). I don't think an immediate pullout now is wise when Iraqis appear to be moving toward peace. The people want it -- it's the politicians who are slow to compromise. We and Iraq hemorrhage servicemen and civilians in the meantime to have some semblance of order. Without peace between the sectarian leaders this will never end. We and they should listen to the will of most of the Iraqi people and get the different factions talking peace.

Dan Serwer: I agree, and to some degree it is happening. Many of the Iraqi political leaders I spoke with in Baghdad last month said that they are hearing loud and clear from the people that they are fed up with sectarian violence. As violence declines, we can hope that voice will become even louder.

_______________________

New York: You state earlier there was "nothing" in pre-war Iraq we'd want to rebuild. How about a secular notion of women's rights?

Dan Serwer: I haven't met many women in Iraq who long for Saddam Hussein's notion of women's rights, but I have met many who would long for what you term "a secular notion of women's rights."

_______________________

Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.: Remember when one of Bush's reconstruction officials said rebuilding Iraq only would cost American taxpayers 1.7 billion? What's equally priceless was the effort -- implemented by that same official's agency -- to solicit donations to help rebuild Iraq -- while we still were bombing the place. Sometimes you have to just stop and marvel at the wonder.

Dan Serwer: Yes, indeed. I hope America never again will be as ill-prepared for a "post-war" period as it was in Iraq -- but efforts in Congress to create a Civilian Reserve Corps for this purpose are stalled. We lapse quickly into the hope that we never again will have to rebuild a state destroyed by war -- then along comes another one. I'd prefer that we be better prepared.

_______________________

Dan Serwer: Having tired out the questioners faster than they tired me out, I am going to sign off a bit early. It was a pleasure to meet you all -- great questions that will be with us, I am afraid, for some time to come.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.