Iraq: Debating Election-Based Foreign Policy, Prescribing Future Approaches

While many observers in recent weeks feared that a destabilizing election in Iraq could demand a reformulation of U.S. policy — particularly with regard to this summer’s forthcoming troop withdrawal — Marina Ottoway takes to the Washington Post to question the conventional wisdom of “foreign policy by election.” She argues that although elections are seen as simple and appealing remedies for fledgling democracies, “they are not defining moments, but only a small part of much larger and more complicated stories, and they can even, at times, keep democracy from taking root.”

Using a slightly different lens, Robert Fisk identifies what he believes is a much more serious problem with Western policies toward Iraq: “while we think that election results – however fraudulent or however complex (Iraq’s next government may take months to form) – are an improvement, we do not stop to ask who really wins these elections.” Claiming that the U.S. and other Western nations have a poor record facilitating successful elections as an occupying power, he worries that “[Iraq's] election is more likely – under our benevolent eye – to enshrine the very sectarianism which Saddam once used so ruthlessly to enslave his people.”

Nonetheless, the prospect of renewed sectarianism doesn’t concern Patrick Barry as much as the “higher profile U.S. involvement” it may inevitably induce. “The U.S. has a role in assisting Iraq as it confronts such challenges,” he says, “but it is best played quietly, against a backdrop of decreasing military presence.” Meghan O’Sullivan isn’t quite as cautious about leveraging residual U.S. power, however, and uses her op-ed in the Washington Post to argue that the U.S. retains enough respect to play a critical role should a “crisis or deadlock” occur.

But Gregg Carlstrom doesn’t see the value in reassuming an overbearing U.S. posture. “I think [Obama's] sort of ‘hands-off engagement’ — taking a strong interest in Iraq, but recognizing the limits of U.S. power — is generally the right policy,” he says. “And it remains the right policy in post-election Iraq.” Agreeing with this prescription, Marc Lynch explains that a scaled-back approach “doesn’t mean ignoring Iraq,” but rather “moving to develop a normal, constructive strategic relationship with the new Iraqi government, with the main point of contact the Embassy and the private sector rather than the military, and adhering in every way possible to the SOFA and to the drawdown timeline.”

Charles Dunne penned a thorough analysis as well, elucidating how U.S. officials should craft policy for a post-election Iraqi environment — you can find his piece in PDF here.