Editorial: Urgent need for a new plan

Sunday, March 19, 2006 | 7:25 a.m.

Sadly missing from any assessment of Iraq on the third anniversary of the United States' invasion is any prolonged talk of democracy. Sadly, because creating the conditions for the Iraqi people to draft a constitution, elect a parliament and begin governing themselves became the U.S. mission once no weapons of mass destruction were found.

A constitution was indeed drafted and ratified by the people in October, but it was not signed by any representative of Sunni Muslims, a signal blow to unity right from the start. A Parliament was indeed elected, but when it was sworn in last week, it quickly adjourned without appointing a prime minister, president or cabinet positions. It is impossible to predict when or even if this Parliament - with the majority Shiites and minority Sunnis deeply mistrusting each other - will form a government, ratify and amend the constitution and finally put an end to the power vacuum in Baghdad.

Parliament's only tangible accomplishment Thursday was to announce a temporary speaker, Adnan Pachachi, and he talked of civil war, not democracy. "We have to prove to the whole world that there will not be civil war between the people of this country," he said. "The danger is still there, and our enemies are watching us."

It is civil war, not democracy, that is preoccupying the minds of American and Iraqi leaders, despite America's investment of more than $300 billion. While the vast majority of our troops have performed admirably - more than 2,310 have been killed and at least 13,000 have been injured - the battle strategy prepared in the Pentagon for them to follow has created the insurgency and sectarian fighting that has led to this preoccupation.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who inherited the task of planning the invasion after President Bush ordered it, addressed the Senate Appropriations Committee March 9. "The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur ... to have the Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they're able to," he said.

The No. 2 American military commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, speaking with reporters Friday, said he did not think civil war would break out, but added, "The possibility of civil war may be higher today than it has been in the last three years." Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the Los Angeles Times last week that civil war might break out if U.S. troops were to leave Iraq.

That so many people are talking of civil war instead of reflecting on an emerging democracy is an indictment of the Pentagon's planning. And the talk is not without context. Daily, the news from Iraq is of more lethal explosions, multiple executions, insurgent attacks against U.S. forces, militants and arms entering from the Syrian and Iranian borders and grief-stricken Iraqis anguishing about the death of family members, tens of thousands of whom have been killed.

USA Today reported Thursday that the U.S. military controls so little ground in Iraq that it has taken to ferrying troops and supplies by air, to avoid attacks on truck convoys. The Associated Press reported last week that electricity output in Iraq - notoriously weak anyway since the first Gulf War - has dipped to its lowest point in three years, with the consequence that Iraq may have to turn to the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran for help with its energy crisis.

President Bush, at least on record, remains optimistic about America's involvement in Iraq. In that sense, he is in the minority. Polls show the majority of Americans believe the U.S. made a mistake. Even Republicans who strongly supported the war are now expressing misgivings. If Bush is to salvage the situation in Iraq, he needs to change, not stay, the course. A new plan is urgently needed - before Iraq really does collapse into civil war.