Length:
7:18
LARGE (85.6 MB)
-----
SMALL (8.6 MB)
TOM FOREMAN: When general
David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker deliver
their report on Iraq three weeks from now, it is
virtually certain that questions will concentrate on
one man, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Will
he survive? Who could replace him? Or is Iraq's
democratic government so completely gridlocked that
the only solution is a classic Middle Eastern
strongman?
To help me as we continue our preview of the
September report, CNN's Michael Ware is in Baghdad.
And in New York, TIME magazine's new world editor,
Bobby Ghosh, up until this very recent promotion,
Bobby spent four years in Baghdad as the magazine's
bureau chief.
Bobby, you made it clear you think Maliki needs to go
because he has sided too much with the Shia, too much
against the Sunni. What kind of person should replace
him?
BOBBY GHOSH, WORLD EDITOR, TIME: Well, in an ideal
world what Iraq needs now is a statesman. They need
somebody who can represent all factions of Iraqi
population -- the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Kurds --
and somebody who is seen as being above sectarian
politics. Unfortunately, I haven't seen one in the
four years that I've been in Baghdad, and I'm willing
to bet Michael hasn't either.
FOREMAN: The support for Maliki seems to be very
shaky, Michael. Listen to what President Bush said
this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The
fundamental question is, will the government respond
to the demands of the people? And if the government
doesn't demand -- respond to the demands of the
people, they will replace the government.
Prime Minister Maliki is a good guy, a good man, with
a difficult job, and I support him.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
FOREMAN: A bit of whipsaw from the president there,
in one breath saying he may be thrown out, on the
second hand we'd like to support him. That's the
question that Bobby poses there, Michael. Who would
replace him? Do you see a statesman out there?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No. Bobby would be
winning his wager. There simply is no, to use the
Afghan example, a Hamid Karzai waiting in the wings,
one sole political figure who can unite this nation,
or even someone who can hold it within the iron grip
of a fist. That person at this stage simply doesn't
exist or hasn't emerged.
More or less, that person or that faction is going to
have to be fashioned. Now that's going to come from
one side or the other. You have Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki. Let's face reality here, folks. He is a
lame duck. He is a man with no power.
As one senior U.S. official here in Baghdad said, of
his 37 cabinet members -- cabinet ministers, he can
only count on three. And political power in this
country, within this government, is judged by the
number of militiamen and arms that you have. And
Maliki has none.
So he doesn't have the authority to deliver which is
driving some U.S. generals for the first time ever to
say openly on camera that perhaps democracy for now
is not the solution.
FOREMAN: You filed a report that said that this week,
Michael, let's take a quick listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WARE (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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: Bobby, are you astonished to hear military
people from the U.S. government saying something like
that on the ground in Iraq? Or do you think they have
no other choice?
GHOSH: I am certainly surprised to hear them say it
on record. But we have heard them say it off the
record for several months now. It reflects the level
of frustration that the military feels. They're
putting their boys' lives on the line here, and they
feel that the Iraqi political class is not delivering
on their side of the bargain.
FOREMAN: And yet, Nouri al-Maliki said some
astonishing things this week as well. Listen to this.
"The American administration is full of contrast and
petty politics. The government is legal -- Our
government is legal. The Iraqis choose it. And
Americans have no right to place timetables on it or
any other restrictions."
Michael, how can Maliki, a guy who's teetering on the
brink of chaos, say things like that about what has
been his largest protector?
WARE: Well, what he's doing is he is taking swipes at
phantoms in the dark. I mean, Prime Minister Maliki
is in an insidious position. He's between a rock and
a hard place. Now, yes, essentially the U.S. mission
is underwriting him.
But nonetheless, that's not where the true power in
this country lies. It still lies with the fundamental
building blocks of the political landscape here,
which are the militias. And according to U.S.
intelligence, most if not all of these militias have
links to or are supported by Iran.
So it's easy to argue that indeed Iran has greater
influence in this country with this government than
does Washington. Indeed we saw when Prime Minister
Maliki, just last week, visited Tehran, he described
Tehran's role as most helpful, which immediately
prompted a sharp rebuke from President Bush, who said
he's going to have to have a heart to heart with
Prime Minister Maliki because Iran's role certainly
is not helpful. We're really seeing great tectonic
plates clashing here in terms of the political
framework.
FOREMAN: Very shortly here, Bobby, if the question is
that we must have some kind of political progress for
all of our military expense -- the lives, the
suffering -- to be worth anything, would you stay or
go? Is there any sense that that political progress
can be made?
GHOSH: Well, political progress can't be made under
the system as it exists now. We have to understand
that the dynamics that produced Nouri al-Maliki as
prime minister would not change if you changed him.
He comes from a political class. He comes from a
political coalition. The next prime minister, if that
person is picked from the same coalition, will
deliver exactly the same thing that Maliki has.
So yes, it's worth remaining. But the political
system as it exists now has to be dismantled and then
reassembled in a different way. And that would
require enormous commitment from the United States. I
don't see any sense that the people up in Washington
are willing to make that kind of commitment.
FOREMAN: Michael, very quickly as well, you've made
it clear that you think the U.S. has to stay for any
hope of stability in that country. But what can be
done about the government there now?
WARE: Well, Bobby has really touched upon something
that's very present at the moment. I mean, you really
need to almost destroy this democracy to save it.
That's certainly the argument of some people. That
really, it's in such ruin, that it's so fatally
flawed, that there's no hope of going forward no
matter who's in charge of it.
Indeed, we heard from the U.S. embassy and from
General Petraeus himself this week in a statement to
CNN, that even they have downgraded their vision of
what kind of democracy could emerge. So it's clear
that real changes need to be made. And America, it
can start pulling troops out tomorrow, as long as
it's willing to pay the awful price.
FOREMAN: All right. Thanks so much, Bobby Ghosh.
Michael, stay just where you are if you would,
please. We'll be back to look at what's left of the
insurgency with you in just a moment.
Length: 5:45
LARGE (67.5 MB)
-----
SMALL (6.7 MB)
TOM FOREMAN: The update
of the National Intelligence Estimate that appeared
on Thursday said that, "Iraq's security will continue
to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months,
but levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will
remain high." The question is, how high? What's left
after Sunni defections and massive coalition
operations? To help answer this, Seth Jones, a
terrorism analyst at the Rand Corporation. And once
again, Michael Ware is in Baghdad.
Seth, what about the enemy in this case, particularly
the insurgents, al Qaeda in that country? Are they
wounded, are they weak, are they invigorated, what
are they?
SETH JONES, RAND CORPORATION: Well, the answer really
depends on what insurgents you're talking about.
Probably the most interesting case over the last
several months has been what has happened in Anbar
province where you've had a variety of sheikhs and
tribal elements that have targeted, conducted their
own counterinsurgency effort against al Qaeda in
Iraq, largely without U.S. -- major U.S. assistance.
They've done it with some U.S. protection. But this
-- it's -- and what you have is in cities like
Ramadi, you have insurgents that are now taking the
position of Iraqi police officers. So you've had a
very significant change in who even the insurgents
are in Anbar.
FOREMAN: So it wasn't a matter of beating them as
much as a change in their temperament, in who they
wanted to attack because they were tired of al Qaeda.
JONES: That's correct, and al Qaeda tried to overstep
its bounds and essentially to co-opt the entire Sunni
insurgency and to use very brutal tactics against the
population there. It was not well-received by the
tribes.
FOREMAN: That's one part of the country. That's one
part of the insurgency. Michael, when we look at the
militias on the Shia side, what do we see? Are they
any closer to saying, let's give up, let's lay down
our arms?
MICHAEL WARE: Oh no, you'd have to be joking. Why on
earth would they? Everything is going in their favor.
They own the government. Tehran is bankrolling them
faster and heavier than ever before. Their weapons
are improving.
Indeed, according to the second-highest general here
in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, they're now
the ones killing more U.S. troops every month than
the Sunni insurgency or al Qaeda.
Now what the Sunnis are doing in Anbar and elsewhere
is carrying out a promise, an offer they made four
years ago. In 2003, the dismantled apparatus of
Saddam's military and intelligence communities
approached the Americans and said, "we are your
allies, we're opposed to Iran, we're opposed to al
Qaeda, we're willing to host U.S. bases, but you've
brought in a bunch of Iranian agents. We're willing
to work with you."
Their aim from the beginning has been to wear down
American will, until America was ready to deal with
them. And after four years, America has been battered
into a position where they're willing to cut them a
deal, put them in power locally, put them in police
uniforms, and use them as a counterbalance against
the very government America created.
FOREMAN: So Seth, who is our biggest enemy now, and
what state are they in?
JONES: Well, I think there are multiple enemies.
There is one concern that we haven't talked about,
which is a concern up in the north. The Turks are
particularly concerned about the PKK and other
Kurdish groups operating in northern Iraq.
There has been concern, it has come out in the
National Intelligence Estimate, about a Turkish
invasion of -- or at least Turkish incursions in the
north of Iraq and having actually violence spread.
This is in addition to Shia that we've just talked
about. It's in addition to efforts among Sunnis to
counterbalance al Qaeda in Iraq. This would then be
an expansion of the violence up to the north, in
response to Turkish soldiers in northern Iraq.
FOREMAN: For all of the money and all of the weapons,
though, Seth, and all of the lives we've spent, has
no one over there felt the heat? Are none of our
enemies over there saying, these guys are just too
tough?
JONES: No. I think to some degree there has been some
heat that has been placed on certain organizations,
but let's be honest, U.S. soldiers have been on a per
capita level very small, very small compared to the
U.S. levels in Germany.
There were over 101 soldiers per 1,000 Germans after
World War II. There are roughly, depending on how you
count it, about six or seven U.S. soldiers for every
1,000 Iraqis. There just aren't enough U.S. soldiers
in Iraq to have that kind of impact.
FOREMAN: So, Michael, it seems in some ways like the
problem has been that all along, American forces have
been fighting for the idea of a unified national
Iraq. And our enemies have been fighting for their
neighborhoods.
WARE: That's absolutely right. And I mean, one of the
major problems here is that America has never really
fought this war. They fought it with one arm tied
behind their back, as Seth points out. Frankly, no
one is really intimidated by the U.S. military,
certainly not the regional players.
And the longer this war plays out, the less that
America is feared or revered in this region by its
rivals or elsewhere. So is there really a national
spirit here? Yes. There is a true sense of Iraqi
nationalism. But right now that has been wrenched
apart. And the preconditions for Iraqi national unity
right do not exist. Why? It's because the extremists,
both politically and militarily on both sides, have
the momentum and America abandoned middle Iraq.
America abandoned the secularists, the moderates, the
democrats, whilst someone like Iran has capitalized.
Indeed, one of the most senior U.S. officials in this
country said to me, the real winner of the past six
years has indeed been Iran and al Qaeda.
FOREMAN: Michael, Seth, thank you both very
much.