Marking Milestones
By Dr. Jackson Janes

Zukunft ist Herkunft
When you get to a milestone, you can look back and see how far you have come or look forward and evaluate how far you have to go. Or as the Germans say, "Zukunft ist Herkunft." Where you are going is where you are coming from.

This weekend will mark the third anniversary of the decision in Washington to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad. That milestone comes at a time when the situation in Iraq is on the brink of civil war. The debate in the U.S. over the President's decision in March of 2003 is going to play a key role in the November congressional elections and it may result in the loss of the Republican majority in the House or the Senate, or even in both chambers. The global debate over that decision has resulted in serious damage to the image of the United States, particularly in the Muslim world. One need not only look at the impact of the Abu Ghraib scandal. The disenchantment with the war in America is matched by widespread negative attitudes toward U.S. policies and the President. At home, Bush's poll ratings are at the lowest in his presidency and most Americans think Iraq is going poorly or worse.

What Have We Learned?
Standing at this milestone, the questions are: how far have we come, where are we going and what have we learned along the way? Answers to the third question include bad intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, misjudgments concerning what it would take to secure the situation after the invasion, and underestimates about what that would cost in lives and money.

We also learned about the high price Iraqis had paid for years of dictatorship and the courageous willingness of millions to make an effort at rebuilding their state by going to the polls, despite the continuing dangers of violence.

The administration in Washington looks back and says there much has been accomplished in three years. A cancerous growth has been lanced and removed in the Middle East in the hope that the patient will recover and be a healthy partner for its neighbors and partners. Yet how long will that take? There is always the danger of infection or a relapse. Long-term care will be required and it is very expensive.

If Iraq implodes into civil war, we will revisit the situation faced for years in Lebanon. During the early 1980s, U.S. troops, sent by President Reagan to help secure peace in that civil war, were caught up in the violence. In October of 1983, 240 Marines lost their lives when they were attacked in Beirut. Shortly afterwards, the American presence was withdrawn and the fighting went on for years.

Avoiding that fate will be difficult for Iraq unless it has the leadership it desperately needs to restore unity and confidence in the future. That will not happen unless it has the support of its neighbors and from those other countries that have a stake in the stability and security not only of Iraq but the entire region. In fact, the stake is a global one, given its strategic importance.

In light of these challenges, the U.S. will be forced to keep its presence in Iraq for years to come, even if there are gradual reductions of troops due to domestic political pressure on Washington, from both sides of the aisle. The fragility of both the fledgling government and the Iraqi army remains a dangerous vulnerability for Iraq. Yet Iraq also needs to rebuild the infrastructure of the country as quickly as possible and provide evidence that the government can deliver basic services to its citizens. Just how successful the White House will be in persuading the country that this is a generational challenge remains to be seen.

Changes in the National Security Strategy?
This week the White House issued its National Security Strategy paper, an update of the paper first presented in the fall of 2002. While not significantly different in its emphases in strategy and tactics, the new version stresses the need for cooperation with the world's powerful nations. With regard to Europe, the paper argues that there needs to be a stronger relationship between the chief channel of transatlantic relations, NATO, and the European Union. In fact, both organizations are the basis for acting well beyond the borders of both memberships.    

Given the critical point Iraq is facing, and also given the growing threat emerging in Iran with its nuclear initiatives, the question is whether both Iran and Iraq will be the opportunity to demonstrate how NATO and the EU can combine their respective resources to meet both challenges. In the case if negotiating with Iran, the U.S. and the EU Three (Germany, France and Great Britain) have been coordinating their efforts to explore ways of avoiding a military showdown with Tehran. That may or may not work down the road, but it has demonstrated that transatlantic teamwork can be managed to deal with a shared threat. Despite the clash over the decision to invade Iraq three years ago, sustaining the current Iraqi effort to emerge from this war represents another shared stake in the future. Both instances offer a platform to redefine the methods and the missions of these two key institutions shaping the transatlantic dialogue. It is a complicated equation no doubt, but one that is worthwhile pursuing. However, it will require some substantial adjustments on both sides of the Atlantic. One of them will be to enable a stronger EU presence within NATO, provided that it can muster the necessary resources and define its security strategy and burdens more clearly. Another will be to use the forum of NATO to engage on political issues, not only military decisions.

It is not clear from the National Security Strategy paper released this week which lessons were learned during the past three years that would open the door to these adjustments. Yet it is obvious from the current debates and discussions, and those which will dominate the agenda during the next few months before the Congressional elections, that there is a need to focus on those lessons and draw consequences from them.

Where Are We Going?
When we pass this milestone in Iraq on March 20 and pass into the fourth year of war there, in addition to continuing engagement in Afghanistan, we need to recall where we have come from while we plot where we are going. That will require a candid assessment of the mistakes we have made along with the accomplishments.

It will also require that we recognize how much joining forces, political, economic and military, across the Atlantic can yield in the way of confronting our threats and opportunities. It also should remind us that we don't have a realistic choice. There is too much at stake in real terms for real people, too much to handle and too much to lose if we don't take these very concrete and immediate challenges very seriously.

..........................................................................................................

This essay appeared in the March 17, 2006 AICGS Advisor.

Please direct comments to: jjanes@aicgs.org

..........................................................................................................
Want to know more?  Check out these links:

"The National Security Strategy of the United States." The White House online.