According to a report issued by the White House, the Iraqi government is showing satisfactory progress on most of the political benchmarks it needs to.
Iraq’s political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it’s done so has been achingly slow.
The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq’s efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are “satisfactory”–almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks–enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues–are unsatisfactory.
In the past 12 months, since the White House released its first formal assessment of Iraq’s military and political progress, Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions.
(via memeorandum)
I’m not sure if liquor sales are one of the benchmarks.
Saif, who asked that his last name not be used to protect his safety, represents an unusual resurgence. Iraq is a deeply Muslim nation that allows its citizens the right to consume alcohol. During the era of the late dictator Saddam Hussein, drinking was common. After the U.S.-led invasion, however, violence and Islamic extremists forced most liquor shops to close for a while.
Today, Saif’s family stores are running full tilt after years of off and on business. Self-service, it isn’t. To buy a bottle of Scotch, a customer confronts an iron gate that keeps him 3 feet away from Saif. By vaulting two steps back, Saif can hide behind the wall where he displays bottles of liquor.
(h/t Instapundit)
And at the Socialist International meeting in Greece (is that a sign of Iraqi progress?) Iraqi President Jalal Talabani met with Israeli Defense MInister Ehud Barak.
(h/t Daled Amos)
I’m still waiting for a formal declaration from the Iraqi government that it will establish a diplomatic mission in Israel. That’s a way off still from Caroline Glick’s hopeful diagnosis.
But what is clear enough is that today Iraq shares vital interests with Israel. It has common enemies. It has common challenges as a democracy. And it doesn’t hurt that Palestinians are nearly universally reviled by Iraqis who view them as Saddam Hussein’s most stalwart henchmen.
An Israeli-Iraqi alliance would help secure Jordan. It would frighten Syria and perhaps force Damascus to reconsider its alliance with Teheran. It would provide Israel with a new source of natural gas and so end its dependence on fickle Egypt. It would mitigate Israel’s political isolation in the region. It would provide Iraq with a safe port in the Mediterranean for its oil exports in the event that the Shaat al-Arab is closed by Iran in a future war. Iraqi Shi’ite leaders could help draw Lebanese Shi’ites away from Iran’s Lebanese proxy Hizbullah. Indeed, the potential of an Israeli-Iraqi alliance is seemingly endless.
A basic political fact of life stands at the heart of this theoretical Iraqi-Israeli alliance. Peace is possible for the first time between Israel and Iraq because, for the first time, Iraq perceives its interests as aligned with Israel. That is, peace is possible because at a very basic level, Iraqis today – whether they admit or not – are Israel’s friends. And they know it.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Iraq risks an even worse diplomatic isolation in the region than it has already if it makes peace with Israel, let alone an alliance. It seems quite likely to me that there will be informal and clandestine cooperation between the countries, at best, for a long time to come, not not formal or public cooperation. A peace treaty may come later. An open alliance? Not even Jordan has dared that, and Jordan is more or less a potential prey object for every other Arab state plus Iran.