A top US general's comment about democracy in Iraq has exposed the US administration's disconnection from reality, writes Salah Nasrawi In a remarkable assessment of Iraq eight months after the US troop withdrawal by a senior American official, US General Martin Dempsey has hailed Iraq as "moving on a good path", adding that he expected the war-devastated nation to be a "democratic model" for the entire Middle East. Speaking to reporters after a visit to Baghdad last week, Dempsey also opined that Iraq's embattled Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki would turn out to be a "historic" leader in the region, which has been shaken by popular uprisings since early 2011. Al-Maliki heads a democratically elected government, and as such Iraq can become a leader in the region, Dempsey said. "If Iraq can help other nations in the region, I think Al-Maliki could be historic," he was quoted as saying by reporters who accompanied him on the trip. Dempsey, who made a six-hour stopover in Baghdad and was whisked by helicopter from the airport for his meeting with Al-Maliki in the capital's fortified Green Zone, also praised what he called the "normalcy" in Iraq, which had nevertheless witnessed one of its bloodiest months this year in August. Dempsey's remarks must have struck a chord with Al-Maliki, but they have certainly raised eyebrows among many of the prime minister's opponents and critics, who have accused him of acting like a dictator and blamed him for failures to restore stability to the country after the American withdrawal. US politicians and officials are known for their off-the-cuff rhetoric on the Middle East. Former US president Jimmy Carter toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world" immediately before the 1979 Iranian Revolution. At the climax of Egypt's uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak last year, US vice president Joe Biden called Mubarak "not a dictator" and described him as "an ally of ours in a number of things." Is Dempsey similarly out of touch on Iraq? It was not clear why Dempsey, the highest-ranking American to visit Iraq since the December 2011 pullout, traveled to Baghdad and what was on his agenda. Before his arrival, he said his talks with Al-Maliki would focus on Iraq's purchases of US weapons and the ongoing security operations. He stressed that Washington still had an important role to play in Iraq eight months after American troops had departed and that he had come to build a dialogue with Iraqi leaders and explore expanding military ties. Baghdad has signed an order for $12 billion worth of arms and training contracts with Washington, including the purchase of 36 F-16 fighter jets, but there have been rumblings in Baghdad about delays in the programme. Iraqi leaders are specifically concerned about the delivery of the first batch of the F-16 fighter jets, numbering 18, which has been postponed from March 2013 to September 2014. The Iraqi media has reported that the Pentagon is setting conditions on the sale, including demands to balance the sectarian and regional distribution of the Iraqi crews that will fly the jets. The unconfirmed media reports have suggested that Washington has had reservations about the number of Shia pilots proposed by the Al-Maliki government. The Iraqi Kurds and Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbours have opposed the deal and are reportedly making efforts to convince the Obama administration to delay the delivery of the jets for fear that they could be used aggressively. Dempsey made no mention of the controversy, but Al-Maliki said after the meeting that Iraq expected the delivery to be made next year. Members of the Iraqi parliament's defense and security committee have also accused Washington of setting hurdles on supplying the Iraqi army with the fighters. They said that among the conditions Washington has set for the planes' delivery has been US supervision of flying schedules, a ban on access by Iranians to the planes, a pledge that the jets won't be used against Israel, and taking out some of the jets' high-tech features. "These are illogical and unacceptable preconditions," committee member Iskandar Witwit told the Al-Hayat newspaper on Sunday. Iraqi officials have complained about the country's alleged inability adequately to defend its borders, waters or airspace, because the US troops dismantled radar systems after pulling out, leaving Iraq to defend its own airspace for the first time since the US-led invasion in 2003. The US's reluctance to provide Iraq with such a vital service prompted Al-Maliki to send acting Iraqi Defence Minister Sadoun Al-Dulaimi to Moscow this month in order to negotiate the purchase of air-surveillance equipment to help Iraq rebuild its military air defences. Last month, the US administration halted a $200 million programme to train Iraqi police because of what it called Baghdad's "lack of interest" in the project. The closure of the programme comes at a time when the Iraqi security forces are viewed as ineffective and lacking basic training. This is a damning list of challenges for US-Iraqi relations, which Dempsey seems to have chosen to ignore. However, Dempsey's talks in Baghdad also covered key political issues, such as Syria and Iran, which also involve major disagreements between Baghdad and Washington. While the United States has been imposing strict sanctions on doing business with Iran on the grounds that Tehran is carrying out a nuclear weapons programme, Iraq has been singled out by Washington as one of the key countries breaking the embargo by offering financial and logistical support to Tehran. Yet, in his remarks in Baghdad Dempsey rejected suggestions that Baghdad was now firmly within Tehran's orbit at the expense of the United States. As for Syria, while the Obama administration wants President Bashar Al-Assad gone and the sooner the better, Al-Maliki has opposed any foreign intervention in Syria and has rejected the idea of forcing Al-Assad to step down. Dempsey said that in his discussions with Al-Maliki he had found him to be deeply concerned about Syria possibly breaking up along ethnic or religious lines and the spillover of any breakup on Iraq. "At the same time, there's also the opportunity for Iraq to maybe be the dam against that flood," Dempsey said. Here again, the American chief of staff made another pronouncement that revealed him to be disconnected from reality. This could have been simply a verbal gaff by a four-star general, or it could have been a manifestation of the Obama administration's cluelessness. Because this is an election year in the US, Obama will be playing for time and trying to avoid foreign-policy initiatives. He will want Americans to believe his Iraq policy to be a success, even as Baghdad is turning its face in the opposite direction. Dempsey's rhetoric will be music to the president's ears, yet the noise of violence in Iraq and turmoil in neighbouring countries indicates that Obama's policy on Iraq will lead to more mayhem in the Middle East.
