Length: 4:14
LARGE (49.6 MB)
-----
SMALL (4.9 MB)
LISA SYLVESTER: U.S.
military commanders in Iraq are expressing rising
concern about the weakness of the Iraqi government.
The government of Prime Minister al-Maliki is on the
brink of collapse, and many believe Iraq is a failing
state. Some U.S. generals are now asking whether
democracy is the best way forward for Iraq.
Michael Ware in Baghdad has a special report --
Michael.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lisa, for President
Bush, victory in Iraq means a successful democracy
and nothing less. But, with the government in Baghdad
ailing, the realities on the ground are forcing his
diplomats and commanders to soften expectations of
just what this democracy might look like, with some
generals even warning that, for now, it may not even
be the solution at all.
(voice-over): Two years after the euphoria of
historic elections, America's plan to bring democracy
to Iraq is in crisis. For the first time, exasperated
front-line U.S. generals talk openly of non-
democratic alternatives.
BRIG. GEN. JOHN BEDNAREK, U.S. ARMY: The democratic
institutions is not necessarily the way ahead in the
long-term future.
WARE: Iraq's institutions are simply not working.
It's hard to dispute that Iraq is a failing state; 17
of the 37 Iraqi cabinet ministers either boycott the
government or don't attend cabinet meetings. The
government is unable to supply regular electricity
and at times not even providing running water in the
capital.
And thousands of innocents are dying every month. The
government failures are forcing the Bush
administration to curb its vision for a democratic
model for the region, the cornerstone of its
rationale for the war.
U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and commanding General
David Petraeus declined to be interviewed, but issued
a joint statement to CNN.
In it, they reiterate "Iraq's fundamental democratic
framework is in place" and "development of democratic
institutions" is being encouraged. But Crocker and
Petraeus concede they "are now engaged in pursuing
less lofty and ambitious goals than was the case at
the outset."
And now in the war's fifth year, democracy no longer
features in some U.S. commanders' definition of
American victory.
GENERAL BENJAMIN MIXON, U.S. REGION COMMANDER IN
IRAQ: I would describe it as leaving an effective
government behind that can provide services to its
people and security. There needs to be a functioning
and effective government that is really a partner
with the United States of America and the rest of the
world in this fight against these terrorists.
WARE: This two-star general is not perturbed if those
goals are reached without democracy.
MIXON: We see that all over the Middle East.
WARE: Democracy, he says, is an option, the Iraqis
free to choose it or reject it.
MIXON: But that is the $50,000 question is, what will
this government look like? Will it be a democracy?
Will it not?
WARE: But Iraqi government officials say, the
democratic government could work better if it was
actually allowed to run things.
"We don't have sovereignty over our troops. We don't
have sovereignty over our provinces. We admit it,"
says the head of the Iraqi parliament's military
oversight committee. "We don't say we have full
sovereignty."
For example, while the Iraqi government commands
these army troops, it cannot even send them into
battle without U.S. agreement.
"We think sovereignty means the ability of a
government to be elected and make its own decisions."
He may not be wrong, but a senior U.S. official in
Baghdad told CNN, any country with 160,000 foreigners
fighting for it sacrifices some sovereignty.
The U.S. has long cautioned a fully-functioning
democracy would be slow to emerge. But, with U.S.
senators calling for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's
ouster, some senior U.S. officers suggest the entire
Iraqi government must be removed, by constitutional
or nonconstitutional means, and they're not sure a
democracy need replace it.
Michael Ware, CNN, Baghdad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)