Agreements

Why do I think that the Guardian’s headline, “U. S. Pressure Forces Move to Reconciliation”, guarded as it is, is too optimistic?

Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, and fellow leaders in the country have reached consensus on key areas of national reconciliation, under mounting US pressure to demonstrate political progress on the eve of a key report to Congress on the Baghdad security “surge”.

The Shia prime minister appeared on television flanked by Jalal Talabani, the country’s Kurdish president, and the Sunni vice-president, Tareq al-Hashemi, to announce a deal on easing restrictions on former members of the Ba’ath party joining the civil service and military.

Easing de-Ba’athification laws passed after the 2003 US invasion has long been seen as a vital step if disenchanted Sunnis, who formed the backbone of Saddam Hussein’s regime and, since its fall, of the insurgency, are to be persuaded to take part in Iraqi political life.

Agreement was also reported on holding provincial elections and releasing detainees held without charge across the country, two more of the “benchmarks” set by the Bush administration for political movement it hopes will stave off mounting congressional demands for a withdrawal from Iraq.

That there has been pressure, I have no doubt. That the Iraqi government is eager to appear to be making progress, I have no doubt. That the American government is eager for the Iraqi government to make progress, I have no doubt. That the Iraqi leadership is able to deliver actual progress, I have considerable doubt. Will real progress come from the top down in Iraq or from the bottom up? If the latter, it will be very, very slow—far outside the preferred calendars of American politicians.

I seem to remember another agreement:

How did that ever come out? Announcements of agreement are good but the ability to deliver is crucial.