Conversations: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker

You don't have to be an Iraq war supporter, or an I'm-not-going-to-cut-and-run guy like George Bush, to be very concerned about a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq. As Colin Powell said, You break it, you own it.

As the Republican presidential candidates were debating Iraq and other issues Thursday night, I was asking U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker about whether the momentum for a withdrawal was undercutting American influence with the key Iraqi players. In short, Crocker (seen here giving a television interview at the Iraq conference in Sharm el Sheikh), is worried about it.

As I mentioned in a previous blog item, I've known Crocker for 25 years or so and consider him, as do his colleagues in the State Department, to be one of the finest diplomats in the American foreign service. Crocker knew my question wasn't partisan and that I wasn't trying to drag him into the domestic political wrangle over Iraq. Nevertheless, he started out cautiously by underlining this, saying, "First, I want to separate this completely from the U.S. political system and debate."

Crocker went into what has become a stock U.S. answer, that the debate is helpful in the sense that it concentrates Iraqi minds on the need to take advantage of U.S. security support (to "buy time" for national reconciliation, for example) while it lasts.

"To an extent, I think the debate is helpful because it makes it clear to Iraqis in and out of the government that there IS a problem here. That an administration that has put so much into the effort is under fire back home, and therefore, if you want us to be able to continue on in this effort, you gotta help by showing that the effort is registering some success."

Then, Crocker spoke about a darker flip side of the effect that the U.S. domestic pressure for withdrawal could have in Iraq:

"The concern I've got is that at a certain point the Iraqis may start to make different calculations. They know they are Iraqis. They're going to be there no matter what. And Iraq is going to be there no matter what. If they come to the conclusion that the United States involvement is definitely a finite affair, and maybe much sooner rather than later, then my concern is that they start making calculations based on where they need to be to protect their vital interests, like their lives, the day after we're gone. Because they are still going to be there. If they start calculating that way, I think it makes it even harder to get meaningful compromise and reconciliation. I have no evidence to suggest that is currently the case, but it is one of the things that worries me as I watch this go through."

One of the main components of national reconciliation is a dismantling of the Iraqi sectarian militias. I asked Crocker if the withdrawal talk didn't feed the militia mentality, the notion that you need an armed group made up of your own kind because you can't trust the national army to protect you. As Lebanon and other countries have learned, once you have entrenched militias and a weak central authority, you have a civil war that is hard to end.

"I'm afraid it does, yeah," Crocker replied.

The point is that whatever the merits of the invasion and occupation, it makes an enormous difference to the future of Iraq how the U.S. handles its exit. The risk is that bad American decisions will be made on the basis of inflamed domestic politics rather than on what is in the best, calculated interests of Iraq as well as the U.S. You can argue that Bush should not have let it come this far. Now it's important not only to examine the past mistakes but pursue a constructive way forward.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo