Questions

In the last 2 days I asked the same question of 2 prominent voices on the War in Iraq. The first is by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, author of "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," a book that tells the story of the early days of the occupation in Iraq.

The second is by L Paul Bremer , the very man leading the early days of the occupation, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA.

These questions were asked on the discussion page at the Washington Post website.

Any thoughts?


Chicago: Who is a greater threat to the stability of the Iraqi government, al-Qaeda or the Shiite militias -- backed by the two of the most powerful parties in the Iraq Government, mainly SCIRI's and Sadr's blocs? Could al-Qaeda actually take over the country? Because most supporters of the War make it seem like the militias are a minor problem, when the generals on the ground repeatedly say the exact opposite. Isn't the stated goal of the "surge" to give the sides breathing space to make policital decisions? Where does al-Qaeda fit in the process? Is that just a tactic to confuse everyone?

Rajiv Chandrasekaran: Both entities are a threat to stability, and what makes finding compromise difficult is that both sides -- al Qaeda, in particular -- are so extremist that it's hard to envision a peaceful compromise. There is another common factor: Both sides are fractured and diverse. There's no single al Qaeda commander in Iraq to which every militant is loyal. Same goes for the militias, although there is far more command-and-control with the Badr organization. If there is to be peace in Iraq, extremists on both sides have to be offered a chance to put down their weapons and receive some sort of emolument -- a job, a payout, etc. Those who opt not to compromise will have to be targeted by the Iraqi government's security forces.

Chicago: Who is a greater threat to the stability of the Iraqi government, al-Qaeda or the Shiite militias -- backed by the two of the most powerful parties in the Iraq Government, mainly SCIRI's and Sadr's blocs? Could al-Qaeda actually take over the country? Because you and most supporters of the War make it seem like the militias are a minor problem, when the generals on the ground repeatedly say the exact opposite. Isn't the stated goal of the "surge" to give the sides breathing space to make policital decisions? Where does al-Qaeda fit in the political process?

L. Paul Bremer: It is a good question and requires a complicated answer. The threat in Iraq has three dimensions: the Al Qaeda terrorists, as you note; the killers from Saddam's former intelligence and security services; and the mllitia(essentially here the one that matters is Muqtada al Sadr's). The Shia militia became a problem after I left largely because Al Qaeda was able to carry out its threat to kill innocent Shia men women and children. When we could not protect them, the Shia turned to their militia. Now we must deal with all three threats. There are some signs that the surge is having a good effect on reducing some of the sectarian murders, by and of Shia. There will be no place for al Qaeda in the poltitical process--in Iraq or anywhere else--because they explicitly condemn democracy as "unislamic".