White House eagerly highlights the departure of U.S. combat troops from Iraq

WASHINGTON As the White House eagerly highlights the departure of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, the small army of American diplomats left behind is embarking on a long and perilous path to keeping the volatile country from slipping back to the brink of civil war.Among the challenges are helping Iraq’s deeply divided politicians form a new government; refereeing long-simmering Arab-Kurd territorial disputes; advising on attracting foreign investment; pushing for improved government services; and fleshing out a blueprint for future U.S.-Iraqi relations.

President Barack Obama also is banking on the diplomats – about 300, protected by as many as 7,000 private security contractors – to assume the duties of the U.S. military. That includes protecting U.S. personnel from attack and managing the training of Iraqi police, starting in October 2011.The Iraq insurgency, which began shortly after U.S. troops toppled Baghdad in April 2003, is why the U.S. only now is entering the post-combat phase of stabilizing Iraq. Originally, the U.S. thought Iraq would be peaceful within months of the invasion, allowing for a short-lived occupation and the relatively quick emergence of a viable government.Although the insurgency has been reduced to what one analyst terms a “lethal nuisance,” it will complicate the State Department’s mission and test Iraq’s security forces.Much is at stake as the department negotiates with the Pentagon over acquiring enough Black Hawk helicopters, bomb-resistant vehicles and other heavy gear to outfit its own protection force in Iraq.

“Regardless of the reasons for going to war, everything now depends on a successful transition to an effective and unified Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces that can bring both security and stability to the average Iraqi,” says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In his view that transition will take five years to 10 years.

The question is whether progress will be interrupted or reversed once American combat power is gone.The U.S. will have 50,000 troops in Iraq when the combat mission officially ends Aug. 31; they are scheduled to draw down to zero by Dec. 31, 2011. Until then, they will advise and train Iraqi security forces, and provide security and transport for the diplomats.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he believes Iraq’s security forces have matured to the point where they will be ready to shoulder enough of the burden to permit the remaining 50,000 U.S. soldiers to go home at the end of next year.”My assessment today is they – they will be,” Odierno said, according to an excerpt of the interview released Saturday by CNN.”We continue to see development in planning, in their ability to conduct operations,” he added. “We continue to see political development, economic development and all of these combined together will start to create an atmosphere that creates better security.”

Once the U.S. troops are gone, the State Department will be responsible for the security of its personnel.Obama administration officials say the diplomats are well prepared for what the State Department expects to be a three to five-year transition to a “normal” U.S.-Iraqi relationship.”We are fully prepared to assume our responsibilities as we move through this transition from a military-led effort to a civilian-led effort,” department spokesman P.J. Crowley said.

Iraq watchers have their doubts.Kenneth M. Pollack, a frequent visitor to Iraq as director of Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution, says the administration is in danger of underestimating the difficulty it faces.”One of the biggest mistakes that most Americans are making is assuming that Iraq can’t slide back into civil war. It can,” Pollack said. “This thing can go bad very easily.”Pollack, who does not consider himself a pessimist on Iraq, said the historical record on civil wars around the globe shows that about half repeat themselves.

“So it is a huge mistake to assume it can’t” happen in Iraq, whose civil strife in 2005-07 was so violent that many Americans assumed the war was lost and believed U.S. troops should give up and go home.Pollack considers the State Department ill-suited for its new tasks – starting with the police training mission and including the complex developmental problems such as improving Iraq’s water system.”What the State Department is being asked to do isn’t in their DNA,” Pollack said.The department has been strongly criticized for its past work in Iraqi police training. An October 2007 report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen Jr., said the State Department had so badly managed a February 2004 contract for Iraqi police training that the department could not tell what it got for the $1.2 billion it spent.

In May 2004 President George W. Bush put the Pentagon in charge of all security force development.The newly departed U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, Christopher Hill, says he sees brighter days ahead for Iraq, but he also laments “woefully low” supplies of electricity and deeply ingrained tensions among the three main competitors for political power: Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.”There is a mountain of mistrust,” Hill said.The diplomats’ postwar task would have been much easier if, as the administration once hoped, Iraq had formed a new government by now, nearly six months after its March 7 national elections.Instead, the political stalemate   with no end in sight – has created another hurdle to the central U.S. goal in Iraq: translating hard-fought security gains into stability.Still, there is optimism in some quarters.

“While there are no guarantees, the prospects for Iraq’s security and stability beyond 2011 look as good or better than they have at any time in the recent past,” John Negroponte, who was U.S. ambassador to Iraq in 2004-05, wrote Thursday in a ForeignPolicy.com blog.Another complication is the shake up of key U.S. players in Baghdad.Odierno leaves Baghdad on Sept. 1 for a new assignment in the U.S., and Gen. David Petraeus, who was Odierno’s boss as head of Central Command, switched last month to take command in Afghanistan. Hill was replaced in Baghdad this past week by James Jeffrey, who was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey.(AP)

Hillary Clinton flies to Latin America on Sunday, working to buff a lackluster U.S. image in a region where Brazil is emerging as a regional power with global aspirations

WASHINGTON  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flies to Latin America on Sunday, working to buff a lackluster U.S. image in a region where Brazil is emerging as a regional power with global aspirations.The trip, featuring Clinton’s first stops in South America as secretary of state, includes a visit to Chile on Tuesday, although officials said they were assessing the situation after Saturday’s 8.8 magnitude earthquake rocked the country.Brazil is the centerpiece of Clinton’s five-day visit and she will use her March 3 stop there to seek support for the drive on the U.N. Security Council to put new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.Brazil  a non-permanent member of the council  has been reluctant to get tough on Iran and analysts say Clinton faces a diplomatic test as she seeks to bring President Inacio Lula da Silva on board in the final weeks before U.N. diplomats unveil the sanctions strategy in New York.But the trip also marks a fresh U.S. start in Latin America, which saw early hopes for better ties with the Obama administration fade amid disputes over last year’s Honduras coup and the continued U.S. embargo on communist-ruled Cuba.That disappointment was underscored this week when the “Rio Group” including Mexico and Brazil agreed to form a new regional bloc that explicitly leaves out the United States  a thumbed nose at a power many feel is still too cavalier in its dealings with its southern neighbors.”Their early expectations were very large, and probably impossible to meet,” said Peter DeShazo, director of the Americas program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“There has been a lot more continuity in policy than people expected.”Latin America-watchers say Clinton’s itinerary speaks volumes. The first two stops on the trip, Uruguay and Chile, have both recently held smooth elections and are regarded as models of moderate, market-oriented economies.She winds up with stops in Costa Rica, another stable longtime U.S. ally, and Guatemala, which has seen its strategic importance skyrocket as a major new front in the battle against international drug traffickers.”She is making the right stops,” said Roberto Izurieta, head of the Latin America Department at The George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.”She is supporting moderate economic policies and democratic principles. It is the right message.”

TOUGH SELL ON IRAN

Despite the Latin America focus, Iran will top the agenda as the United States and other veto-wielding permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, along with Germany, seek to agree on a resolution calling for new sanctions on Tehran.Russia has sounded more positive about possible sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes but which western powers fear is a cover for building atomic weapons.But China has called for more talks, and Brazil which hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in November is also reluctant, a position Clinton may not be able to change.

Julia Sweig, director of the Latin American program at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Brazil’s own experience with both nuclear energy and democratic transformation made it leery of U.S. saber-rattling over Iran’s current crisis.”They see themselves as having had an experience both in shifting toward a peaceful nuclear program and in shifting to democracy that Iran might have the potential to undergo right now,” Sweig said.

“They are still insisting on not isolating Iran, though I don’t know how long they will be able to play that out.”Brazil has also pushed for a change in U.S. isolation of Cuba Lula payed an “emotional” visit to the island last week and those calls are likely to be repeated during Clinton’s two stops in Central America.While the Obama administration resumed migration talks with Cuba that had been suspended by former President George W. Bush in 2004, it has been cautious on any broader policy change despite repeated prodding by its Latin American neighbors.

Clinton is also likely to be pressed on Honduras, which is struggling to return to stability and legitimacy after a coup last year toppled President Manuel Zelaya.The United States helped to broker new democratic elections in November that brought President Porfirio Lobo to power. But Washington was widely accused of failing to take a strong enough line on Zelaya’s ouster  raising bitter memories of U.S. support for past military coups in the region.”She’s got to make up for lost time, especially over Honduras,” Sweig said. “American credibility has really taken a hit.”(Reuters)