 And I'm delighted to welcome Ambassador Luchman Faley here, he's the ambassador of Iraq, to talk about the Iraqi elections taking place on April 30th. Ambassador Faley has been here for about nine months. Prior to this, he served as Iraq's ambassador to Japan and spent many years in the UK studying to be an engineer when it was not safe to be in Iraq. Speaking of not safe, Ambassador Faley is a veteran. He ran the Boston Marathon two days ago. So when he comes, and he completed the Boston Marathon two days ago, so when he comes up, please give him extra time to make it up the stairs. But he will make it up and we're delighted to see when we look forward to what you have to say. After Ambassador Faley talks, he and I will have a discussion for about 15 minutes and then we'll open it up to the group for questions. So please join me in welcoming Ambassador Luchman Faley. I'm just to have an opportunity to chat among friends about the situation in Iraq. I will talk about 10, 15 minutes if that's okay and then we'll have the Q&A session. I think to start with, let me say that I'm privileged to be here today. First, because of the new magnificent facility and building which CSIS have acquired and B for talking about Iraq, an area which may have not been talked about for some time in DC following the troop withdrawal. But I think it's important that we provide some opportunities to discuss among friends as to what are taking place in Iraq and the region and more importantly, where the United States sees itself as a key player and partner in Iraq. And within that context, I think the CSIS has played an important role and John, thank you for chairing that part of the CSIS, the Middle East program. And there I think you all guys are in a safe hand. So we appreciate about that. Only two days ago, as John mentioned, I ran in the Boston monathon in honor of the and in support of the victims of terrorism from Baghdad to Boston. I'm proud that I've finished. I'm relieved that I've finished as well. And I have the tremendous respect and appreciation to those who completed the race following last year's tragic terroristic act. Iraq's journey from despotism to democracy is also a marathon. Only one week from today, or actually on the April 30th, the Iraqi parliamentary election will mark a milestone of on our progress and serves as an attribute to the sacrifices of so many Iraqis and Americans and other countries that helped us to stay in the course of democracy. This will be the fourth parliamentary election since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein back in 2003. And the first since the US withdrawal of troops at the end of 2011. Amidst regional turmoil and stability and sectarian polarization, this election offers us the opportunity to consolidate democracy, nurture greater stability and strengthen national unity. Democracy means that the people can elect leaders on their own choosing. In this election, Iraqis will be able to choose among over 9,000 candidates from 117 political entities competing for 328 parliamentary seats. Let me repeat that, 9,000 candidates, 107 blocks, political parties actually, or entities, forgive me, and 328 seats. We want the composition of the parliament to represent the diversity of the people. 25% of the seats in parliament are allocated to women. Christians and other minorities are guaranteed a certain number of seats in order to ensure their representation in parliament. 60% of the 21.5 million eligible voters are expected to turn that, around 60%. Out of country voting will take place in 19 nations. Here in United States, the process is being administered by the Independent High Electoral Commission and Independent Body of nine commissioners nominated and approved by the parliament. Throughout the nation, only 15, 1,5 candidates have been barred by the commission. There has been much less controversy than in the past elections about excluding candidates and about debatification. To ensure accountability and transparency, electronic voting cards are being used in order to eliminate or to reduce voting frauds. More than 650 credentials have been issued to foreign monitors. These improvements help to explain why 75% of Iraqis are more enthusiastic about this election than earlier elections, according to recent poll commissioned by NDI, National Democratic Institute. As the campaign enters its closing week, Americans would find some features familiar. The campaign are better organized and more professional than in the past, reflecting increasing the numbers of Iraqis who are online. The candidates are making greater use of social media to reach out to constituents and debate core issues. What are the issues? Well, I have heard the famous American slogan, it's economy stupid. In Iraq, the economy is one of four, four overriding concerns. Security concerns are inescapable. Most Iraqis believe that security can improve if Iraqi forces are better armed and trained. Regarding the economy, surprisingly, most Iraqis don't see the oil sector as a major driver for growth and prosperity. Instead, Iraqis believe that the two things our nation needs are loans for small businesses and incentives to businesses owners to hire more employees. Rounding out their major concerns, Iraqis want to rebuild and improve our education and healthcare systems. Now, it is no secret that the election is being held amid the rising threat of terrorism, groups such as so-called ISIL or Daesh, that that is why it's more important than ever that the elections are held on time. When they participate in the election, the voters will take the striking, will be striking a powerful blow against the terrorists who are trying to frighten us away from the polling places in order to prevent the consolidation of democracy in Iraq. Making no mistake, every vote that is cast will be a vote for hope and not fear, ballots and not bullets, and democracy and not dictatorship or divisiveness. When the final results are released, which is expected to be by the end of May, the democratic process will continue. Since it is possible that no single party gains a majority, the conversations will continue about how the competing parties can come together to form a coalition government. An inclusive government will keep Iraq moving forward towards security, stability, and democracy. And we want all three. Having been ruled by one man and one party and the Saddam regimes, Iraqi understand that no single faction, whether political, ethnic, regional, or religious, should control or can't control their country. When every segment of society has a voice and no community feels excluded, the new government will gain legitimacy. Let me repeat that. When every segment of society has a voice and no community feels excluded, the new government will gain legitimacy. This will deny the extremist, the political support they need for their violent tactics. Inclusiveness isn't only the best way to building democracy, it is also the best and only way to beat terrorism. As we succeed at holding elections and forming a new government, we will be better able to make progress on the security, political, economic, and diplomatic fronts. In the seven provinces throughout the election campaign, there have been no reported security incidents in Muthanna, Dewania, and Najaf. In the western provinces, improved security will depend on the speed of process of forming the new government. Despite the current difficulties in Ambar, the government is committed to ensuring conditions for a strong vote to turn out. Displaced persons will be able to cast their votes at secure sites. On the political front, the process of forming a government will be conditioned on reaching an agreement with key segments of our society, such as the Kurds over the oil revenue and the scope of federalism among other issues. We are hopeful that following the election, the odds will improve for breaking that block. This in turn will pave the way for a greater focus on trade and investment. On the diplomatic front, successful elections will improve Iraqis standing in the international community. This will enable us to play a greater role in the region as a force for moderation. Forming a new government will also re-energize the implementation of the strategic framework agreement which was signed between the United States and Iraq. We want to build what President Obama has called a partnership of two equals. As part of that endeavor, our embassy will continue our efforts to promote institutional and people-to-people exchange between Iraqis and Americans. When you visit Iraq, you will find an energetic and educated people committed to building our democracy, securing our country, stabilizing our region, and rebuilding our roads, highways, and airports, restoring our water and electrical systems, and improving our education and healthcare. We welcome American partnership, friendship, and investment. The marathon we are running is long, but we are determined to cross the finish line despite the challenges we face. Let me thank you again for giving me the opportunity to be here, and I will be more than happy to take any Q&A question. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. One of the things that is curious sitting in the United States watching these elections is I haven't seen any coverage of alternatives to Prime Minister Maliki winning reelection. There don't seem to be other political personalities that are being reported on. There don't seem to be political movements that have a reasonable chance of winning a plurality. Could you just help us understand? We all know Prime Minister Maliki. He's been there. He's been to Washington. Who are some of the other candidates who are either likely to be serious contenders or likely to be the ones whose decisions will shape the consequences of the elections. Okay. In Iraq we have somewhat of a strange or a stranger system of government. We're not like the British system in the sense that the member of parliament will become Prime Minister, keep their parliamentary seats, and every party put their candidates forward. That's not the case. We also have a situation in which the dynamic of electing the Prime Minister is totally different to the dynamic of voting. Let me explain this to you. For example, you have the populace elect their parliament, representation of parliament. However, once the parliamentarians are there, the formation of the government is on whose best able to collect the votes of the parliamentarians, not of the people. That's so you have two different dynamics altogether. For the premiership to be elected than for the parliamentarian to be elected. Because the parliamentarians choose the premiership. You have also a culture in which there are very few red lines between the blocks as to what to give and not to give. And which makes it a bit complicated for the formation of the government, a prolonged process, and more importantly, candidacy will not be paid forward until the election is complete. So you don't have even blocks, forget about the, within the state of law, other blocks. I'm not aware of anybody putting a name forward and say this is my candidacy. Although they have said we will secure or we will endeavor to gain the premiership or lead the Prime Minister government formation. Why? Because they think that they will undermine the candidacy by declaring the names between now and the election. For, primarily for tactical reasons. That's a key issue. Although, I mean, one way to read that would be that putting a name forward if they think that the Prime Minister is likely to be re-elected. They'd rather be in the coalition rather than against it. I mean, I just remember in the last election. That was the same, John, that was the same scenario in 2009. Well, we had, he had done that, right? Who won more seats than the Maliki coalition. And he was clearly running and he clearly didn't win. Yes. Because exactly that's my point. The point is the formation of the government following the election is different than electing your representative. Because the challenge each party have can they gather enough votes? Can they entice other blocks to form up a coalition to form the government? That's a key challenge. So speaking politically, it seems to me that gives tremendous advantage to incumbency, because the incumbent Prime Minister would have tremendous tools at his disposal to build the coalition. And the dynamic outside that coalition would be how do I get in rather than how do I assemble an alternative coalition? Is that a fair reading of the? I think you're right to a certain extent that however, you also have an issue of no premiership is secure. So halfway through the last government there was a challenge to the Prime Ministers. No confident vote. And they were more or less there. So in a way it said that's what the democratic process of Iraq is. People have been talking about moving on to the presidential situations and others. I think we're somewhat far from that. But also Iraqis have historically used to the presidential system. So you have a cultural issue as well. So that's the problem. Let me give you another example. The Prime Minister's position according to the constitution is head of the cabinet. And his vote is won. And he has no authority of laying people off or whether they're cabinet members or others. He has to go to the parliament. So his power is different. The actual people who voted for the constitution were sure about separating the powers in a way. And this is what's taking place in Iraq. So at the cabinet level the Prime Minister's vote is won among many. He has no veto. He has no extra weight or anything else. So we're going through a new dynamic of Iraq, Iraqi democracy. And this is the key issue which I think I hope people appreciate. The Dexter Filkins article in the new New Yorker. Which I'm yet to finish reading. So. Well wait, let me give away the ending. The ending is this. I saw Dexter before so I know what the ending is. The ending is that they quote Emma Sky saying that one of the tragedies of the Iraqi political system is the Prime Minister's ship is too weak. I'm sure maybe it's too strong. Anyway, she and Ryan Crocker are opposed. And one of them says. Yeah. The Prime Minister's ship is too strong. The other says the Prime Minister's ship is too weak. Yeah. I think, let me, I know both, I've spoken to both extensively about these issues. Let me project to you my analysis of it. You have a new political process forming in Iraq. You have a new dynamics taking place. You have a culture which is not known to democracy in the whole region, not just in Iraq. You have three or four generations of militarization of the society. So there the issue of what is the perceived power versus actual power is very important. The issue of symbolism in Iraq is very important. So that's another issue. For example, people were saying, well, the president is no longer there because of his illness was that the president position. Many people have now saved something. The presidency, should that be occurred because the previous president was occurred? Or no, the previous president has the oar and has the personality to bring everybody. And that's why it's unique. You know what I mean? So it has to do with the personality impact of us. And in our own culture, the whole Middle Eastern culture, the personality is very important. It's not the actual power authority or the legitimacy, it's a personality issue. And we're trying to move away from that to save God us. And this is what I was talking about. Okay. The Hausa, the sort of clerical establishment in Iraq has traditionally urged people to vote and traditionally tried to keep the Shia community unified to protect Shia interests. And it's not been active in this round of elections. And your judgment, is that a good thing or a bad thing? They have actually been very active in their weekly summons in which they focused primarily on the caliber of the candidacy, their displeasure with services provided to the people. So they've tried to keep away from personalizing the issue because they were labeled that they intervened in the first government formation. And therefore they thought that they should not take the baggage of that any longer. And they disassociate themselves. Historically, Hausa, especially the Sistani school of thought, the Sistani school of thought have never been involved in politics historically. But following the 2003 situation following the lack of visible leaders, following the dynamics, the challenges of Iraq, they start being, people ask them to promote that in more guardian role. And which I think they have played a very positive role to be honest. They have been very stable, very mature, totally opposite end of sectarianism, totally opposite end of polarizing the society, inclusion has been they've seen. So they have been a very good player there. Now in this election, they have been advocating for participation, they've been advocating for the caliber of the parliamentarians and they're kept away from personalizing the issue. Which I think is a very nice position, very healthy position for a major religious or I can't even call it a cultural institution to promote. One of the really troubling things we've seen in Iraq in the last six months seems that sectarian violence is ticking up again thousands of deaths this year. Can you paint a picture of an electoral result which actually helps address some of the sectarian divisions or is it outside of electoral consequences? Is there a way that this election could or is likely to lead to a decrease in sectarian tension, sectarian violence? The election within democratic systems are the reboot button for resolving and re-energizing societies and we are certainly looking for that. Nobody is saying the election is coincidental or marginal, they're saying it's essential for the serious discourse, serious discussion, sorry, serious discussion to take place after the election. To address core issues which is to do with centralization, decentralization, power of provinces, disbursements of the budgets, oil, law, and so on. So in that sense, the election will provide us or will re-energize us in having that discussion. A fresh view with people who are just being given the mandate by the vote of the people. That's one aspect. The other aspect of it is no single party, no single block is saying I need to dominate or I need to have a full authority of the formation of the government and at the cabinet level or other representation issue. So everybody's saying we need to get the buy-in of the Kurds, we need to get the buy-in of the Sunnis, we need to get the buy-in of the majority of the Shi'a. If you're looking at it from that binary way or we need to get the majority of religious establishment or we need to get moderate voices involved or we need to get the professional involved in the government. So they're talking about, for example, the ministers. They're saying we need to move away from leaders of the parties being their own minister. We need to get professional people involved in it. Or we need to bring people in who can work with each other and the prime minister or others need to have a bit more power or say in who his team should be. We should all to do with effectiveness and efficiency of governing. And these are all good news. The election is the only way we're approaching it. I'm not aware of any specific party saying it has to be us who gets 51% plus to form the government. That's not possible. Although you certainly have Sunnis who feel systematically excluded from the process. But they have representation in the government. They want to have representation in the cabinet level. So let me address the issue we talked about before, which you just mentioned, which I think will address this question as well. What you have now is not the scenario of 2005, 2006, 2008. You don't have turf war. You don't have a neighborhood fighting each other. You don't have the ethnic cleansing you had before. That's no longer the case. You have people who believe in rule of law and you have people who say this democratic process of Iraq is not working for us. This is the key issue. It's the governor of Ambar who stood with the government who was elected, by the way. And he's as Sunni as anybody can be who stood by the government against the Daesh and others in Fallujah and Rumadi is a Sunni. Surely him or others should have a say in governing in future Iraq. And we will welcome that. Nobody is expecting to dominate or to exclude other. It won't work. The constitution will not allow it. It's actually, it's not the 51%. It's 60% or 63% because of the presidency requires for the government, for the process to kick in, you need to select a president. And that won't take place unless you are more or less confident about the premiership because you have a period of 30 days, which means two-third of the parliament have to agree. It's not the actual 51%. It's two-thirds of the parliament have to agree to kick start the process again. I hope you have an easier time being two-thirds of your parliament to agree than we have with our Congress. Tony Cordesman put out a report, which I'm sure you've at least glanced at, which had, I thought, some very surprising numbers right up front. Said the World Bank ranks Iraq as having extremely low quality of governance, 178th in the world in accountability, 201st in political stability and violence, 182nd in government effectiveness, 205th in the quality of rule of law, 189th in the quality of government regulation, and 193rd in the control of corruption. He's my friend. Tony tells it straight. But what, I'm interested in your explanation of why that set of numbers can exist alongside with the fact that we see a prime minister who most people think is going to be re-elected. I mean, if there's a democratic process and everybody is looking for inclusion, nobody knows how it's gonna come out. How does that set of numbers not create the sense that there's going to be any alternative to the current government rather than, despite these numbers, the prime minister seems likely. These numbers are elite numbers. Democracy is about the populace. The numbers are not disputing them. However, one thing I know about these numbers, and I work closely with the World Bank and others, we provide full access for those numbers to be known. A lot of other countries don't even allow those numbers to be known. So in that sense, we, our ministry of oil, announces every month how much oil we sold to whom so transparency. Tell me other countries you do that. So we don't have an issue of understanding our weaknesses. We go to the World Bank. I was there two weeks ago with our minister of finance. We said to the World Bank, we, the governor was, the bank of governor was there. We said to them, please give us more numbers. Tell us exactly where we're getting wrong. Because we want to build that country. The prime minister issue is again, to do with the populace whom they think is the right person, candidacy for it. That's one aspect. People have been telling us for the last 10 years, Iraq will be divided and Iraq is going through all kinds of troubles. And I think we are proving them wrong enough for them to start thinking twice about the basic assumption of this. That's the second. Third point, which I fully agree with these numbers and we're working, we're trying to do that effectively. We know we have a coalition government in which there is no opposition party. Technically speaking, there is no opposition party in Iraq. If you have five or seven parliamentarians, you're eligible for ministerial or at least senior officials at one of the high commissions and others. And therefore you're part of that. That's not very effective. I would even call it inefficient. But that's the system we have chosen. And now we're trying to say, okay, let's try to be more effective and not get everybody, literally everybody, maybe get majority of people in. That's what we're trying to do. I think this is where we're going with it. As to why the prime minister is popular or others is, I suspect is that individual Iraqis look at this election as what is the only issue of importance to them? Not what are the issues of importance? One issue, which is to do with their nationalism, to do with their ID, to do with their security, for example. And they see, in that perspective, they see a prime minister who is focused on security. Whether that's right or wrong, that's for our historian to tell. But what we have is we have to expect and accept these democratic processes. It may be painful, but I think that's what we're choosing. Last question before I go to the audience. As reading up all the press on Iraq and the elections, why do you think you get such a hard treatment in the press? Why do the people who seem to know Iraq seem so disappointed in what's happening? We are still a story in the making in as far as democracy is concerned, in as far as adhering to a constitution is concerned. You know, for the last, prior to 2003, the last constitution we had was in there during the Hashimid Kingdom, 58. After that, we had all transitional constitutions. So we are somewhat new for having a new social contract. That's one aspect of it. The other aspect of it is the complexity of Iraq, and forgive me for saying that, I'm not trying to be arrogant or anything, I would say I doubt very much, a lot of people can understand it. It's complicated because of the fourth line theme of Iraq, whether it's sectarianism, NAG, nationalism, having two big neighbors who are non-Arabs next door, in that aspect of it, it's difficult to understand. You also have a pride, a key theme of the people where pride is important. However, time is irrelevant. So people try to pigeonhole us and say, how could a formation of government take nine months? Well, it has taken nine months. Is it right or wrong? We don't work based on the American concept of a project, which is to do with time, resources, and scope. These are the three elements you always have in mind. We don't have those correlation in a similar manner, and therefore we are complicated. And sometimes I would say we are even contradictory to our character because of that complexity. That's why people are somewhat disappointed. What we say to them is, look at us as a theme. Don't look at us as individuals. Look at us as a theme. Over the last 10 years, we have evolved. Even those who are in opposition are saying we need to be opposite to the political process. I'm not just saying you get to Prime Minister Maniki. We need to be involved in this democratic process. They are saying that democracy is the only way. Nobody is advocating dictatorship any longer. So in that perspective, it's an issue. Even the Prime Minister, who's been accused with dictatorship, he's saying, I need the provinces to have better displacement rate for their budget so that we decentralize more. And that call for decentralization has come from the governor of Basra, or the previous governor, who was in the same party of the Prime Minister, who's calling. So you see the complexity of that? That's something that people have to appreciate. It's a long history. And with history, you get complication. And that's what we are. Unfortunately, we're not binary. Says the engineer. The mathematician, actually. Happy to open it up to questions if you would do us all a favor by introducing yourself and perhaps asking just one question until there is a chance to ask. Sir, all the way back. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. My name is Dan Tavana from the Project of Middle East Democracy. To follow up on John's comments with the numbers that Tony Coorsman cited in his report, I think we saw for the first time, especially with Iraq earlier during Prime Minister Maliki's visit, an attempt by members of Congress to condition assistance, particularly security assistance, on progress on meeting some of these indicators or responding to them at least. Can you tell us a little bit more about how the Iraqi government viewed that effort and maybe even how it's responded to some of those impulses so far? Thanks. We do need to keep talking and communicating with our American friends at all levels. Historically, the majority of discussion has been between the White House and the government. The embassy's role, the primary role for us, we do less work with the White House and more with Congress and others because we think there's an urgent need for it. We've got good communication and understanding with the White House. So that was the key issue. And that was what the Prime Minister took back with him, that he, as a representative of the government, needs to work with the embassy to strengthen our relationship with the stakeholders of the United States. In the United States, the decision-making is not one single party or person, and therefore we need to have institution-to-institution relationship. Based on that, the security issue became clear to all people or parties in the United States that the danger of Daesh, the safe haven of the Ambar province and others will be a significant risk to US as much as it is to Iraq and the regional instability. In that sense, I think the Congress and the House and the Senate could see now that they need to work with us. We may have our own inner politics to discuss with them, fair enough, as friends, we're willing to do that, but to make it conditional, I think they know that we need urgent assistance, and we have been getting that, and we're thinking we're on the right track. So right here on the aisle. Phoebe. Phoebe, that would be you. Phoebe Maher, independent scholar. Thank you very much, and congratulations on the marathon. I would like to get back to the election if I may, and sort of follow up on some things you said about the inclusiveness of it. I have not heard much about how the election is going to be run in areas that are presumably almost at war, such as Fallujah, Ramadi, and so on. And how do you assess, first of all, how is the government going to doing in terms of keeping security there for the election, and how would you assess the ability of the Sunni population there to participate in the election? That's one of the key challenges, Phoebe. We had as to where does our responsibility and the safety of the people lie. Responsibility of government of providing election and opportunity for people to participate, and the safety of the people in us not barging in Fallujah or us not using indiscriminate sort of, or being ganho, that's the right way to use, in our approach to that. And that's why we've been patient, which is not in our nature, by the way. What the military are doing now, it's not in their nature. There has been a lot of urging for them to just go in, especially after the Daesh tried to close the dam and there was an issue of water flow to the south. So that's a challenge for us. So we know there is an obligation on government to provide safe environment for democratic, to take place, for democracy to take place. And also we have an obligation for the security of the country as well. So that's the key challenge we've been trying to get. What we have been trying to do is those who are in displaced in Karbala, in Mosul, in Diyala provinces and others, and there are quite significant numbers there for them to be able to vote, for representative of the Rumadi province. So if you are in Karbala, you can vote for Rumadi. That's the idea of it, rather than just to vote, because currently each province votes for their own representative. So that's one aspect. The cards we've been giving these smart cards or sort of electronic cards, so not smart cards. Electronic cards, we're trying to disperse it better. We're still working on that, to be honest. Even a week before the election, we're still working on that. We know there will be less representation as a result of that, unfortunately. However, we're eager not to go to the 2005 scenario where the whole communities are excluded. That's an issue as well for us. So there we're trying to get the right balance between true representation versus security and safety. And it's not an easy formula. Mr. Ambassador, thanks for your presentation. My name is Becca Smith, I'm a fellow here at CSIS. This is maybe following on John's reference to how the media treats Iraq, covers Iraq negatively. My impression is that there's a sentiment in the United States, there's a strong desire to see Iraq succeed. And Americans may feel some responsibility for success in Iraq, understanding that we pulled back and now it's your responsibility. And yet we spent a decade there and we want to know that it was worth it, both for U.S. objectives and for Iraqis themselves. So I guess I would ask you what is, was it worth it to you to have the U.S. intervention? Was it worth it to the average Iraqi citizen? What are the benefits that Iraqis may experience now despite all the challenges that came with intervention? As you may appreciate, when you evaluate, historians talk about evaluating situations. They try to move away from the binary element of it. Is it right or wrong? And was it worth it or not worth it? There are mirrors of issues which Iraqis went through prior to 2003. The popular slogan at that time was, forgive me for saying that, we say, let us have Sharon rule us. And to the Iraqis, that's a different perspective than anybody else. That's what I'm saying. That's one aspect of it. The other aspect of it is that the people used to have pride in their country. Now they were alienated internationally. More U.S. sanctions than anybody else. Chapter seven and everything else. Middle class more or less were no longer there. More or less like evaporated the middle class outside the country or internally. You had the university professor doing taxi service in the evening to earn up and to supplement it. That was the extent selling their households. So that was one aspect. The question I think is more for American historian than Iraqis to answer that specific U.S. dimension of it. But for the Iraqis, we now have an opportunity for democracy. We have challenges. Nobody's underestimating that challenges. But we have a big project ahead of us. We have extremely ambitious project ahead of us. To achieve that, people want to do it in their lifetime. I think it will take generations rather than lifetime because of the legacy to generations. It's always harder to build than to demolish. In that sense, I think the United States provided us with the opportunity. Was it worth it or not to the Americans? I think I would leave that to our American colleagues to answer that and so on. But I think for Iraqis, we have a chance. We have a reality we have to work with. And also the legacy didn't help us to sustain. So even now, people are saying, well, let me give you an example. At worst case scenario in Iraq, people say, we need to be more effective. Let us have a just dictator. A just dictator. So even the dictator they had, they want them to be just, which is impossible to do. So I think this is what, so people are somewhat educated better at a cost. And we're going through that painful process. But as I said in my talk, it's a marathon. It's not a, for someone who's done the marathon, I know it's not an easy right. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Daniel Sirward from Johns Hopkins SICE. I wonder if I could ask you to solve a problem for me. You've emphasized inclusivity as the outcome of the election. The prime minister's made no secret of his desire for what he calls a majoritarian government. And his campaign has frankly been a campaign of law and order, security, but very heavily focused on an appeal only to Shia. That will be very few Sunni and Kurdish votes for the prime minister. So how do you reconcile his campaign and his interest in a majoritarian government with what you have emphasized here, which is the importance of inclusivity? The prime minister is at the end of the day, he's a politician and he wants to be voted into power. So I don't see any contradiction or any anomaly there. And he also is fully aware that the formation of the government, you have to have the inclusivity and you have to get other bodies into it. So he's coming from that direction as well. You also have a situation in which people are saying, we need to have a better sense or pace for decision making. And we can't have pull and push and between the various institutions of the government. Let me give you the anomaly, which told me, let me reverse it. You have a cabinet which is more cohesive and at the same time, a mirror image of that cabinet at the parliament, which is very dysfunctional. So at the end of the day, the system depends on parliament for legislation and monitoring. If that's somewhat dysfunctional, how would you expect the government to be effective? I think the prime minister is coming from that point. And it's not just the prime minister, I have not seen anybody who says we need to have a government in which every segment of Iraq and no opposition party should be forming it. Nobody's calling for that again. Because everybody knows that they need to get more votes so that they have more power so that they can become more effective in governing. Because the key question we have now is we've tried for the last 10 years to be inclusive, but also not to have anybody excluded. And that do mean that nobody. Now we're saying this is not working for us because of the challenges, because of the pace, decision making, security, regional issues and so on. And we need to be more effective in our governing. However, the prime minister at the same time is a politician and he wants to get more votes. I don't see any surprises there. But can he form the government by his own block alone? I doubt if he even promotes that. I don't think he is aware of that. And he's saying we need to get more parties, but we need to get some of the Kurdish parties. We need to get some of the provinces parties such as from Anbar or Musil or Diyala or others as much as I need to get parties from Basra to be involved in the government formation. I think this is where he's coming from. If you look at it from a pure binary way, it won't work. But if you look at it as two stages, one for the election and one for the government formation, I think it can resolve the issue for. We only have a couple of minutes. Let me just pick up on that if I can. One of the large goals the United States had in 2004 or 2005 was bringing people together. What I might take from your last comment is actually if there's less solidarity in the Shia community and less solidarity in the Sunni community and less solidarity in the Kurdish community, that may actually lead to better outcomes. And it goes to what you were saying with the party formation that there have to be people in opposition. Is perhaps one of the outcomes we should hope for out of this election is not that people come together into blocks, but that none of the blocks prove sustainable and there is a process by which people of all variety come together. There are lots of Shia in opposition. There are lots of Sunnis in the government and we move into a post-sectarian organization for Iraqi politics. Is that something you hope for? Yeah, that's what I'm saying in a way. It's necessary for us to evolve into one in which the policies are the issues, not the background or the color of your skin. That's essential for us because we also know that the, let me tell you why the reason behind that. Team building or teamwork is not a core characteristics of our people because of various other regions and therefore for them to form the government in bringing everything, like what we call national, national, that won't work. That no longer is a case because we have tried it. It may have been a painful process for us. It may have been a necessary process for us. Yes, but for us to be more effective in governing to address the core issues of providing better services. The country is rich, but we need to move away from these numbers, up the numbers which Anthony Cozman mentioned before. People are realizing that and they're saying we need to address these issues and that's where we're coming from. Mr. Master, you have a busy week ahead. We've got a tiring week behind you. A bit of busy week ahead as you get ready for the elections. We wish you luck. We appreciate your coming to join us and we look forward to hearing more about Iraq in the years to come. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.