Length: 5:44
LARGE (67.3 MB)
-----
SMALL (6.6 MB)
WOLF BLITZER: Let's get
back to the other top story we're following.
President Bush saying Vietnam offers grave warnings
about pulling out of Iraq too quickly. But might the
U.S. plan for democracy in Iraq actually fail? The
price of that grand plan can be measured in huge sums
of money and most importantly, of course, lives.
And yet the payoff for this tremendous sacrifice may
not be what the United States had hoped for. CNN's
Michael Ware is in Baghdad -- Michael.
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, 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 that democracy might look like, with some
generals suggesting it may not be the solution at
all.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
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
frontline U.S. generals talk openly of non-democratic
alternatives.
BRIG. GEN JOHN BEDNAREK, U.S. ARMY: The democratic
institutions are 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.
Seventeen 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.
The health care system is run by one Iranian-backed
militia. The police, dominated by another. Death
squads terrorize Sunni neighborhoods. Sectarian
cleansing pushes people into segregated enclaves,
protected by Shia or U.S.-backed Sunni militias.
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' definitions 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: Security, he says, is what the U.S. soldiers
are fighting for.
MIXON: Core to my mission is security for Iraq's
people to establish a functioning government and to
enhance their security forces and to defeat this
enemy.
WARE: A functioning government, not necessarily a
democratic one. 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.
And these Iraqi special forces troops do not answer
to the Iraqi government at all, only to U.S.
officers. And because of the very real prospect of
Iranian infiltration, the Iraqi government doesn't
fund or control its own intelligence service.
Instead, it's paid for and run by the CIA.
"So is it reasonable for a country given sovereignty
by the international community to have a chief of
intelligence appointed by another country?" asks the
head of Iraq's parliamentary watchdog committee. "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
non-constitutional means, and they're not sure a
democracy need replace it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WARE: Either way, if a successful democracy does
manage to emerge in Iraq, it's not going to be the
one that President Bush originally had in mind --
Wolf.
BLITZER: Michael Ware, doing some excellent reporting
for us from the scene. Michael, thank you very
much.