Opinion: Seven Years Later, Iraq War Bearing Fruit

(March 19) -- Less than two weeks ago, 12 million Iraqis went to the polls to vote for a new parliament. The results are still trickling in, and the process of choosing a new president, prime minister and cabinet may well take months. In haste to report on a slowly developing story and befuddled by the chaos that is Iraqracy, some observers are rushing to declare the vote a potentially fatal blow to hopes for success in Iraq.

There is no doubt that progress in Iraq remains, as Gen. David Petraeus constantly points out, fragile and reversible. Bad outcomes from this election that could unravel that progress are possible. But we are, for the moment, much encouraged by this vote and the opportunities it offers for enduring success.

America and Iraq now have a chance to solidify a peaceful, democratic, multi-ethnic and cross-sectarian state at the heart of the Arab world. It's also a chance to replace more than 30 years of Saddam Hussein's vicious oppression and regional destabilization with a prosperous, free and stable Iraq. We have that chance because of the courage and resilience of the Iraqi people and the talents and sacrifices of America's soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen and civilians.

It's worth remembering that the last Iraqi parliament was chosen in December 2005 as violence was steadily rising but before the explosion of sectarian warfare that followed the destruction of the Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006. Sunni Arabs, who had boycotted earlier provincial elections, voted in the parliamentary elections but sent to Baghdad a slate of extremist leaders, some with clear ties to the insurgency, others with sympathy for it.

Opposing View: Drawing the Right Lessons From Iraq

Shi'a Arabs voted for a unified slate of Shi'a candidates blessed by the Shi'a religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani. The Kurds voted for a single slate of Kurdish candidates. The ballot lists were "closed" -- that is, voters did not know the names of any of the candidates; they simply had to choose a party. The premiership was decided by negotiations among the Shi'a parties within the single Shi'a bloc.

This year, Iraqi voters had a different set of choices. The lists were open, and Iraqis got to vote for individual candidates. There was not a single Shi'a list, and the most explicitly secular parties, especially former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's coalition, did the best. Sunni Arabs also voted in very large numbers, but the leading Sunni candidates divided themselves among several different lists. Even the usually united Kurds split their votes among several lists, including a new and successful party that emerged last year.

As a result, no party will have a majority in the next parliament. In all likelihood, at least two major blocs will have to come to agreement, or else the blocs will have to split and form new configurations. (See Marisa Cochrane-Sullivan's analysis at the Institute for the Study of War.)

The process of forming a new government will be messy and will probably take considerable time. Given Iraqi negotiation styles, it will include vituperation, accusations, threats, blame, legal action and other noisy techniques. Which is wonderful.

Iraqis voted to try to sort out their issues through a political process. Those disappointed with the results turned immediately to legal appeals and the media. No one has yet challenged the rules of the game or tried to upend them. No one has taken up arms against the results. It's far too early to say that such things will not happen. But for a country that was losing 3,000 people a month to sectarian violence three years ago, it is remarkable to watch a nonviolent process in which Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds decide how the country will be run.

We must not squander this hard-won opportunity. U.S. forces and civilian efforts continue to play vital roles in helping Iraqis keep the peace, and they will be essential to helping Iraq manage its first-ever transition from one freely elected government to another.

We owe it to them, to the Iraqi people and to ourselves to see this project through to the success that is now within reach.

Frederick W. Kagan is resident scholar and director of the Critical Threats Projects at the American Enterprise Institute. Kimberly Kagan is president of the Institute for the Study of War.