[Mb-civic] A washingtonpost.com article from: swiggard@comcast.net

[swiggard at comcast.net]

You have been sent this message from swiggard at comcast.net as a courtesy of washingtonpost.com 
 
 Limestone Touchstone
 
 By Jim Hoagland
 
  American soldiers fight in Iraq to help secure a sovereign, democratic government there. But what happens when those aspirations come into conflict with short-term U.S. security needs that may affect the safety of those soldiers?
 
 That dilemma is at the center of a smoldering quarrel in Baghdad over a building coveted by both the U.S. military and the Iraqi National Assembly. The fate of the building -- now the physical embodiment of a larger, looming collision of U.S. and Iraqi national interests -- was bucked all the way up to President Bush's principal advisers at a recent White House strategy meeting.
 
 History suggests that tension between a receding occupying power and rising nationalist politicians eager to take control of their country is both inevitable and manageable -- if the two sides work to find common ground.
 
 For the Iraqis, that means showing pragmatism and patience, as well as determination, as they reclaim full sovereignty. For the Americans, that means yielding power to those politicians more rapidly than may be comfortable and more gracefully than is now the case.
 
 That is where the four-story limestone complex with 300 rooms -- built under Iraq's monarchy to house a national assembly -- enters the story of Iraq's continuing liberation.
 
 The building lies just outside Baghdad's Green Zone, where U.S. officials live and work and where they once ran an occupation authority that was formally disbanded last June. The authority designated the structure as the future home of the Ministry of Defense and refurbished it at a cost of at least $30 million -- all without consulting the interim Governing Council.
 
 Iraq's 1958 revolution prevented the building from being used by an elected assembly. But its historical purpose, as well as its politically untainted location and its abundant office space, attracted the attention of the 275-member National Assembly that was elected on Jan. 30.
 
 The assembly has been meeting in rented rooms at a convention center inside the Green Zone. A handful of incidents in which assembly members allege they were abused by U.S. troops who control access to the Green Zone has dramatized the assembly's urgent desire to find a new home -- a desire that has now been expressed in a resolution and a letter of eviction to the Defense Ministry.
 
 But this conflict is much larger than a dispute over prime real estate. It symbolizes the elected assembly's determination to establish control over Iraq's military and intelligence services, which have been formed by U.S. authorities from the ruins of the ousted regime.
 
 "The question really is who the Iraqi army and intelligence agency will show loyalty to: the United States or the Iraqi government the United States says is sovereign," one assembly member said by telephone from Baghdad.
 
 Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari's Shiite allies view the Iraqi military and espionage commands as riddled with spies, saboteurs and crooks who have fooled or co-opted their American sponsors. Only a housecleaning will give a new government the legitimacy it needs to defeat the insurgency, the Shiite camp asserts.
 
 In a surprise visit this month, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned the Iraqis in public and private against tampering with the existing intelligence and military commands. He voiced similar concerns in the recent meeting of the Principals Committee at the White House that considered the National Assembly's action.
 
 Moving the military operations center from the disputed limestone building would disrupt ongoing operations and expose U.S. soldiers to increased danger, military commanders argue to the Pentagon. "Any hopes of drawing down troops this year depend on moving ahead with our current efforts," a senior official told me.
 
 But Bush aides recognize that at the end of the day, Iraqi sovereignty must be accepted and recognized. They took no decision to fight the National Assembly over the building. Instead, a pragmatic compromise that would involve sharing the building is under discussion in Baghdad, according to Americans and Iraqis.
 
 Two years after the end of major combat operations in Iraq, a new political balance struggles to be born behind the shield of 140,000 American troops. The Kurds and Shiites, persecuted by Saddam Hussein and betrayed by past U.S. governments, have yet to find other grounds for mutual trust.
 
 The struggle in Iraq is no longer one pitting an evil dictator against helpless victims. It is now a struggle in which groups with just causes spar with each other -- and with Washington -- for advantage and over judgment calls about the future. That no doubt makes these differences more complex, but no less vital to resolve with common purpose.
 
 jimhoagland at washpost.com
 
 
 Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/emailafriend?contentId=AR2005042701878&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle
 
 

Visit washingtonpost.com today for the latest in:

News - http://www.washingtonpost.com/?referrer=emailarticle

Politics - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/?referrer=emailarticle

Sports - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/sports/?referrer=emailarticle

Entertainment - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artsandliving/entertainmentguide/?referrer=emailarticle

Travel - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/travel/?referrer=emailarticle

Technology - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/technology/?referrer=emailarticle




Want the latest news in your inbox? Check out washingtonpost.com's e-mail newsletters:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/email&referrer=emailarticle

Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
c/o E-mail Customer Care
1515 N. Courthouse Road
Arlington, VA 22201 

© 2004 The Washington Post Company