Bookman: Surge has worked, moving Iraq beyond our control

ATLANTA — While America's attention has understandably drawn inward with the presidential contest, events unfolding elsewhere are changing the landscape that will confront whoever takes office next January.

Some of the most profound changes have occurred in Iraq, where the surge has produced a real and unexpected success. And while it's important to note that change, it's also important to acknowledge the limits of what "success" in Iraq really means.

The surge has bought the Iraqis the time to create at least rudimentary institutions of power with which to control their country. It has created an opportunity for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq with honor within the foreseeable future. And it has helped to give Iraq hope of a tenuous stability where little had existed.

Those are not by any means minor accomplishments, not when you consider the bleak prospects in Iraq two years ago. Credit for that improvement goes to Gen. David Petraeus, who helped conceive and implement the U.S. military's counterinsurgency program; to Iraqis themselves, who helped pull their nation back from the abyss; and to President Bush, whose inherent stubbornness in this case led him to make a last-ditch gamble that paid off.

But as the surge ends, where does that leave us? With violence down, will democracy begin to take root in Iraq? Will the Iraqis become strong U.S. allies in the oil-rich region, allowing U.S. forces to remain to serve as a check on neighboring Iran?

Those were once the benchmarks of what advocates of the invasion would term victory, and the success of the surge has allowed some to cling to those goals still. But it ain't gonna happen.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is publicly insisting that by 2011 all foreign troops will be removed from Iraqi soil. While that deadline is unlikely to be met, al-Maliki's stance is a pretty strong indication of long-term trends.

It also indicates a newfound confidence among Iraqi officials in the ability of the Iraqi army to defend the nation, at least against internal enemies. And as the Iraqi army improves in both ability and confidence, U.S. military officials acknowledge now that it is no longer under American control.

While in one sense that is a great development, it means the Iraqi army is available for uses that contradict U.S. policy and interests, with little we can do about it.

As a result, it is becoming increasingly clear that within five years and perhaps sooner, Iraq will have abandoned democracy in all but form and reverted to some type of dictatorship, with Kurdistan effectively operating as a separate nation.

Already, provincial elections scheduled to be held in October have been canceled, with July now mentioned as the next earliest date. The initial elections almost four years ago had been boycotted by Sunni voters, who are now eager to make their voice heard. But the Shiites and Kurds who control the current government are in no hurry, understanding that new elections might weaken their grip on power and all the financial benefits that power brings.

In fact, al-Maliki is trying to consolidate his power not through the ballot box but at gunpoint, increasingly using the Iraqi army as a political weapon. He used it against Shiite rivals in southern Iraq, and is now turning it against the Sons of Iraq, the Sunni groups organized, armed and paid by the U.S. military to reduce terrorism.

"What it looks like we are getting is a Maliki government that won't behave itself and wants to crush the Sons of Iraq," Stephen Biddle, a defense expert and former adviser to Petraeus, told the Los Angeles Times.

Those trends suggest that Iraq is already reverting to form, with a strongman likely to emerge who uses democracy much like Vladimir Putin uses it in Russia, as a front to disguise his authoritarianism.

Al-Maliki is attempting to become that strongman, but if he doesn't succeed, somebody else likely will.

Jay Bookman writes for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.