President George W. Bush recently visited Slovenia for a summit between the United States and the 27–nation European Union. Slovenia is the only success story emanating from the violent ethnic break up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s after the Cold War ended. The reasons for its success, and lack thereof in other new states originating from the now defunct Yugoslavia, should inform policy decisions in faraway Iraq.

Unfortunately, in the 1990s, violence during Yugoslavia’s break up tended to be directly proportional to the ethno–sectarian diversity of the geographical entity. Slovenia—the most ethnically, religiously, culturally, and linguistically homogeneous of the former Yugoslav states—had the least violence during the disintegration. After a war of independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 that lasted only 10 days and killed only 70 people, Slovenia has flourished politically and economically. In contrast, in the more ethnically and religiously diverse Croatia, severe violence occurred in its subsequent war of independence. Even worse, the most ethnically and religiously heterogeneous piece of geography in the former Yugoslavia—Bosnia—had a brutal civil war with the worst atrocities committed in Europe since World War II. The Western powers, led by the United States, became involved and forced the parties into the uneasy Dayton peace accord.

Paul Bremer's decision to disband the Iraqi Army in May 2003 is without doubt one of the most controversial military and political decisions made in Iraq and perhaps one of the most controversial made since 9–11.

The circumstances surrounding Bremer's CPA Order No. 2, issued May 23, 2003, remain a bit vague, though Douglas Feith's "War and Decision" (Harper, 2008) provides some very useful documentation and footnotes.

Democracy: Lawmakers in Iraq reached a crucial milestone this week by approving provincial elections. This is more evidence for the "reconciliation" that Barack Obama claims not to see.

Good news is no news these days, especially when it comes from Iraq. So you might have missed the story about the political breakthrough in the Iraqi parliament, which approved legislation to hold a new round of provincial elections early next year.

Suddenly, the U.S. economy has edged out Iraq as the most consuming issue for American voters. Not so for Iraqis.

Who wins the presidential election is of paramount importance to a nation finally approaching a semblance of normalcy. For some, regime change in America is not necessarily a welcome proposition.

Among those concerned about what might happen should Democrats prevail is Sami al–Askari, a senior Shiite member of parliament and close adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al–Maliki.

The Iraq war has become one of the most polarizing issues in American politics. Most Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama (D–Ill.), want large, early troop cuts; most Republicans, including Senator John McCain (R–Ariz.), want U.S. troops to stay until Iraq's stability is guaranteed. Years of bad news from the front have hardened these divisions along partisan lines and embittered many on both sides. Today, however, there is reason to believe that the debate over Iraq can change. A series of positive developments in the past year and a half offers hope that the desire of so many Americans to bring the troops home can be fulfilled without leaving Iraq in chaos. The right approach, in other words, can partly square Obama's goal of redeploying large numbers of U.S. forces sooner rather than later with McCain's goal of ensuring stability in Iraq.

On September 16, General Raymond Odierno will succeed General David Petraeus as commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. The surge strategy Petraeus and Odierno developed and executed in 2007 achieved its objectives: reducing violence in Iraq enough to allow political processes to restart, economic development to move forward, and reconciliation to begin. Violence has remained at historic lows even after the withdrawal of all surge forces and the handover of many areas to Iraqi control. Accordingly, President Bush has approved the withdrawal of 8,000 additional troops by February 2009.

With Barack Obama's recent declaration that the surge in Iraq has succeeded, it should now be possible to move beyond that debate and squarely address the current situation in Iraq and the future. Reductions in violence permitting political change were the goal of the surge, but they are not the sole measure of success in Iraq.

Iraqi leaders Friday expressed incredulity and disappointment over a report that U.S. officials had spied on Prime Minister Nouri al–Maliki and other top Iraqi leaders.

While America's attention has understandably drawn inward with the presidential contest, events elsewhere are changing the landscape that will confront whoever takes office next January.

Some of the most profound changes have occurred in Iraq, where the surge has produced a real and unexpected success. It's important to note that change, and to acknowledge the limits of what "success" in Iraq really means.

The surge has bought the Iraqis the time to create at least rudimentary institutions of power with which to control their country. It has created an opportunity for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq with honor within the foreseeable future. And it has helped to give Iraq hope of a tenuous stability where little had existed.

I hate to say it, but both John McCain and Barack Obama are wrong in their approaches to Iraq. On Aug. 18, McCain said, "The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawals and arbitrary timelines." A day later, Obama mused, "Iraqi inaction threatens the progress we've made and creates an opening for Iran and the `special groups' it supports."

Before I explain, it's worth noting that the era in which the United States has the dubious luxury of focusing on one kind of war at a time, plus Afghanistan, plus too much face time in that so–called "peace process," is over.

Our critics like to point out that we never write about the good things going on in Iraq. We didn't genuflect and praise those who called for the surge (because we thought – and continue to think – that a political solution will be required). In general, we're supposed to just ignore the "good news" from Iraq.

Well, here's a story that's all good: Iraq could end its fiscal year with a nearly $80 billion budget surplus from oil revenues. This is money that nation is saving to pay for national reconstruction.

In a stunning upset, Barack Obama this week won the Iraq primary. When Prime Minister Nouri al–Maliki not once but several times expressed support for a U.S. troop withdrawal on a timetable that accorded roughly with Obama's 16–month proposal, he not only legitimized the plan.

He relieved Obama of a major political liability by blunting the charge that, in order to appease the MoveOn left, Obama was willing to jeopardize the astonishing success of the surge and risk losing a war that is finally being won.

Maliki's endorsement left the McCain campaign and the Bush administration deeply discomfited. They underestimated al–Maliki's sophistication and cunning.

With characteristic self–absorption, Americans are looking at Prime Minister Nouri al–Maliki's recent statements about a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops in terms of our 2008 presidential election. We should see this issue instead in terms of Iraqi history.

Modern Iraq was founded on an abhorrence of foreign military occupation. The national self–image is of resistance to British colonialism. That's why al–Maliki and most other Iraqi politicians have balked at signing the status–of–forces agreement sought by the Bush administration, and why the Iraqi prime minister is enthusiastic about a timetable for the departure of most U.S. troops by the end of 2010.

BAGHDAD –– Iraq's presidential council Wednesday rejected a draft provincial elections law and sent it back to parliament for reworking –– a major blow to U.S. hopes that the vote can be held this year.

Baghdad
I have made four trips to Iraq since May 2007. I have walked through markets in Baghdad escorted by U.S. soldiers, visited the outposts where they live with their Iraqi army partners, talked with school children playing soccer in the street, seen newly renovated housing in war–torn neighborhoods, and eaten in the homes of local and tribal leaders who have helped our soldiers fight Al Qaeda in Iraq. This morning, a weekday in July 2008, I am doing something I have never done before: visiting the headquarters of a small Iraqi political party to learn about its campaign for the upcoming provincial and national elections.

The visit was not on the original itinerary of the group of military analysts with whom I am traveling. The party's leader, a member of parliament whom we met several days ago, invited us to his headquarters, our schedule permitting. We have cancelled a morning's worth of meetings in order to see something new.

And so I step out of a Humvee onto a quiet, semi–residential street in central Baghdad, lined with trees that shade us from the bright sun. The only U.S. military personnel in sight are our escorts. We Americans are incongruously dressed in the body armor and helmets required outside the Green Zone, while our host, who comes out to greet us, is wearing a fine suit. We look as ridiculous in our protective gear as we would if we dressed like this to walk into a foreign embassy just off 16th Street in Washington.

ATLANTA –– The elected leader of Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, is demanding a timetable for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops from his country.

In the holy city of Najaf, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the religious leader of Iraq's Shiia majority, signaled to his followers this week that it was time to negotiate an end to the "illegal" U.S. occupation.

"We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al–Rubaie said after meeting with Sistani.

We're thrilled to hear that Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al–Maliki is resisting the idea of a long–term (permanent) treaty with the U.S. Many in the country's Parliament have spoken out against the terms of the agreement as requested, no, demanded, by the U.S.

No matter how the story is spun, tracking Iraqi army movements with American spy satellites does not suggest a relationship built on mutual trust.

Certainly there is no love lost between supposed allies. U.S. forces rolled through the Iraqis in 2003, and then dissolved the military and sent everyone into unemployment and onto insurgent recruiters.

It took five years, the deaths of 4,100 U.S. soldiers and the wounding of 30,000 more to make Iraq safe for Exxon. It is the inescapable open question since the reasons given by President Bush for the invasion and occupation did not exist, neither the weapons of mass destruction nor Saddam Hussein's ties to Al–Qaida and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The New York Times reported last week that several Western oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, BP and Chevron, are about to sign no–bid contracts with the Iraqi government. Western oil had a significant stake in Iraqi oil for much of the last century until the government nationalized the industry in 1972. The Associated Press quoted Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Fadel Gheit as saying he believed the contracts were a first step toward production–sharing agreements. "These companies are in it for the money, not to make friends," Gheit said.

Having recently returned from Egypt, I have the Suez Canal on my mind. And looking at Iraq from Cairo, the thought occurred to me that maybe the Iraqis have just crossed the Suez Canal. If so, that's good news.

What am I talking about? There is no way that Egypt's President Anwar Sadat could have ever made peace with Israel had he not first launched his lightning strike across the Suez Canal on Yom Kippur, 1973. "The crossing," as that surprise attack became known in Egyptian lore, was as psychologically important as it was militarily important. It wiped away Egypt's humiliating loss in the 1967 war and gave Egyptians the dignity and self–confidence to make peace with Israel as military equals. While the military reality was more complex, Egyptians nevertheless felt they had liberated the Sinai themselves.

Faced with Iraqi anger over a U.S. plan to enable Washington to keep military forces in the country indefinitely, President Bush is offering concessions to the government of Nouri al–Maliki in an effort to salvage an agreement.

The proposed terms of the impending deal, which were first revealed in The Independent, have had a predictably explosive political effect inside Iraq.

Negotiations between Washington and Baghdad grew fraught, with Iraqi politicians denouncing U.S. demands to maintain a permanent grip on the country through the establishment of permanent military bases.

Officials complained that the plan, which allows U.S. troops to occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, would turn Iraq into a colony of the U.S. and create the conditions for unending conflict both in Iraq and the Middle East.