rethinking Iraq
by John at 6/22/2005 08:15:00 PM
I've been reading Juan Cole lately and rethinking my position on Iraq.
Previously, I've been pretty clear that I think the US should just withdraw from Iraq. Do it slowly, safely, but just get out.
Cole has made the important point that an uncontrolled civil war in Iraq would be disastrous for the region and the world in whole. Because of ethnic and sectarian reasons, as well as political ones, it would be nearly impossible for Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran to stay out of an inflamed Iraqi civil war. With their involvement comes the threat that there would be major disruptions to the flow of oil from the whole region due to guerrilla attacks on the oil infrastructure of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia (the same kind of attacks already occurring in Iraq). So besides the spread of violence, disruptions in the oil supply would cause sustained price spikes ($80 a barrel or more?) in the already tight oil market, which could easily lead to a global depression that would be especially disastrous for nations that are only now ramping up their industrialization.
Cole's solution is to get the UN involved in peace-making in Iraq concurrent with the withdrawal of US forces. UN forces would have to be drawn from the global South - that is, not Europe or North America, as those continents do not really have any troops to spare (and the USA is trying to get out). The incentive is that the global South has much to lose if Iraq is completely destabilized (the oil crisis) and much to gain if oil contracts and foreign aid are used as carrots for supplying the necessary "boots-on-the-ground." Other UN actions of this nature have been moderately successful, for example East Timor and Cambodia.
There are a few obvious problems with this: 1) it is not clear that the incentives are good enough to get other nations involved, given the obvious risks, 2) the USA would probably be obliged to provide the bulk of the logistical and monetary support for the endeavor which would give the whole operation the appearance of imperialism-by-proxy, 3) there is no way that the neoconservatives currently in power would ever go for something like this because it is practically the antithesis of everything they believe in.
I think a UN option like the one Cole has proposed is, effectively, unrealistic. That does not mean it is not a worthy goal, and a future Democratic presidency may be able to accomplish something like it. However, I now think that there can be no withdrawal of US troops until there is a force to replace them. While it is still not clear to me that the US is really keeping a lid on the violence in Iraq, the downside risks of leaving Iraq to an uncontrolled civil war are too great. We are stuck there for now.
On the other hand, it is also seems to me that we cannot win in Iraq. There is no chance that we will fight the insurrection to a demise soon (that is, within a few years). There is little chance that we will ever be able to build an Iraqi army that is large enough and well-trained enough to defeat the insurrection. The CIA now believes that Iraq will soon be exporting terrorists, because it has become the preeminent traing ground for terrorism in the world. If we cannot shut it down with our tremendous wealth and resources, how can the Iraqis do it on a shoestring budget and riddled with sectarian spies?
On the positive side, there have been some small political victories that might signal a beginning to the end. Sunni politicians were included in the constitution drafting committee in a number somewhat proportional to the Sunni population of Iraq. If successful, this might give the Iraq constitution more legitimacy and encourage future political engagement from the Sunnis, instead of violence. Further, there have been some reports of Iraqi insurgents fighting against foreign jihadis, because the Iraqi insurgents are willing to pursue a political solution. While unlikely, a political solution could allow us to withdraw from Iraq. The only requirement is that the Iraqis themselves standup against almost overwhelming odds and make the solution happen. There is, unfortunately, little chance that an Iraqi Thomas Jefferson or George Washington will rise up to lead his or her nation given the poisonous environment we have gifted to Iraq.
I think it is important to recognize where the fault for this problem lies, so that we can hold the right people accountable and learn from our mistakes1. The problem was caused by the utter failure of the Bush administration to plan for the predictable aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall from power, and the glacial pace at which they responded to changes in the Iraq political and military climate, not to mention the folly of pursuing the war in the first place, based as it was on deliberate lies and exaggerations.2 President Bush allowed the situation in Iraq to spiral out of control in the summer of 2003, by not effectively shutting down the growing insurrection. His administration did not anticipate any of the obvious problems of occupation, even going against the advice of our top military planners on the number of troops required to occupy a nation the size of Iraq. For political reasons, they consistently downplayed the necessity of major action on their part and minimized the seriousness of the entire situation in Iraq. We were constantly assured that things were getting better, and Bush and company backed up that lie by staying their disastrous course through 2004, which got us where we are today.
So, it seems to me there is no near-term solution. We can leave Iraq and let the civil war evolve as it will, with potentially global repercussions. Or we can stay there, and continue to pay the price in blood and money until the civil war burns itself out. As distasteful as it is, I think the later option might be the better one. Nevertheless, we should not give up on finding another way, either through a breakthough political solution or multilateral intervention. The American people are ready to find an exit strategy. I think we will have to wait for a Democratic President before we get one, unfortunately.
-----
1. Some people will of course point out that the civil war is the fault of the insurgents and terrorists. Well, duh. Mostly, however, "some people" are wrong. We provoked this fight, and we made it worse for ourselves by not fighting well.
2. I also think many Americans themselves deserve blame for sleepwalking through the lead up to war and the war itself. Anyone who was paying close attention should have known better, and we all should have known enough to ask better questions of our leaders.3
3. Yes, I am "blaming the victim" but sometimes the "victim" behaves so stupidly that he deserves some of the blame.
(I know it is long winded, but at least it is somewhat coherent and part 1 of only 1. Thanks for your indulgence.)
Previously, I've been pretty clear that I think the US should just withdraw from Iraq. Do it slowly, safely, but just get out.
Cole has made the important point that an uncontrolled civil war in Iraq would be disastrous for the region and the world in whole. Because of ethnic and sectarian reasons, as well as political ones, it would be nearly impossible for Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran to stay out of an inflamed Iraqi civil war. With their involvement comes the threat that there would be major disruptions to the flow of oil from the whole region due to guerrilla attacks on the oil infrastructure of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia (the same kind of attacks already occurring in Iraq). So besides the spread of violence, disruptions in the oil supply would cause sustained price spikes ($80 a barrel or more?) in the already tight oil market, which could easily lead to a global depression that would be especially disastrous for nations that are only now ramping up their industrialization.
Cole's solution is to get the UN involved in peace-making in Iraq concurrent with the withdrawal of US forces. UN forces would have to be drawn from the global South - that is, not Europe or North America, as those continents do not really have any troops to spare (and the USA is trying to get out). The incentive is that the global South has much to lose if Iraq is completely destabilized (the oil crisis) and much to gain if oil contracts and foreign aid are used as carrots for supplying the necessary "boots-on-the-ground." Other UN actions of this nature have been moderately successful, for example East Timor and Cambodia.
There are a few obvious problems with this: 1) it is not clear that the incentives are good enough to get other nations involved, given the obvious risks, 2) the USA would probably be obliged to provide the bulk of the logistical and monetary support for the endeavor which would give the whole operation the appearance of imperialism-by-proxy, 3) there is no way that the neoconservatives currently in power would ever go for something like this because it is practically the antithesis of everything they believe in.
I think a UN option like the one Cole has proposed is, effectively, unrealistic. That does not mean it is not a worthy goal, and a future Democratic presidency may be able to accomplish something like it. However, I now think that there can be no withdrawal of US troops until there is a force to replace them. While it is still not clear to me that the US is really keeping a lid on the violence in Iraq, the downside risks of leaving Iraq to an uncontrolled civil war are too great. We are stuck there for now.
On the other hand, it is also seems to me that we cannot win in Iraq. There is no chance that we will fight the insurrection to a demise soon (that is, within a few years). There is little chance that we will ever be able to build an Iraqi army that is large enough and well-trained enough to defeat the insurrection. The CIA now believes that Iraq will soon be exporting terrorists, because it has become the preeminent traing ground for terrorism in the world. If we cannot shut it down with our tremendous wealth and resources, how can the Iraqis do it on a shoestring budget and riddled with sectarian spies?
On the positive side, there have been some small political victories that might signal a beginning to the end. Sunni politicians were included in the constitution drafting committee in a number somewhat proportional to the Sunni population of Iraq. If successful, this might give the Iraq constitution more legitimacy and encourage future political engagement from the Sunnis, instead of violence. Further, there have been some reports of Iraqi insurgents fighting against foreign jihadis, because the Iraqi insurgents are willing to pursue a political solution. While unlikely, a political solution could allow us to withdraw from Iraq. The only requirement is that the Iraqis themselves standup against almost overwhelming odds and make the solution happen. There is, unfortunately, little chance that an Iraqi Thomas Jefferson or George Washington will rise up to lead his or her nation given the poisonous environment we have gifted to Iraq.
I think it is important to recognize where the fault for this problem lies, so that we can hold the right people accountable and learn from our mistakes1. The problem was caused by the utter failure of the Bush administration to plan for the predictable aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall from power, and the glacial pace at which they responded to changes in the Iraq political and military climate, not to mention the folly of pursuing the war in the first place, based as it was on deliberate lies and exaggerations.2 President Bush allowed the situation in Iraq to spiral out of control in the summer of 2003, by not effectively shutting down the growing insurrection. His administration did not anticipate any of the obvious problems of occupation, even going against the advice of our top military planners on the number of troops required to occupy a nation the size of Iraq. For political reasons, they consistently downplayed the necessity of major action on their part and minimized the seriousness of the entire situation in Iraq. We were constantly assured that things were getting better, and Bush and company backed up that lie by staying their disastrous course through 2004, which got us where we are today.
So, it seems to me there is no near-term solution. We can leave Iraq and let the civil war evolve as it will, with potentially global repercussions. Or we can stay there, and continue to pay the price in blood and money until the civil war burns itself out. As distasteful as it is, I think the later option might be the better one. Nevertheless, we should not give up on finding another way, either through a breakthough political solution or multilateral intervention. The American people are ready to find an exit strategy. I think we will have to wait for a Democratic President before we get one, unfortunately.
-----
1. Some people will of course point out that the civil war is the fault of the insurgents and terrorists. Well, duh. Mostly, however, "some people" are wrong. We provoked this fight, and we made it worse for ourselves by not fighting well.
2. I also think many Americans themselves deserve blame for sleepwalking through the lead up to war and the war itself. Anyone who was paying close attention should have known better, and we all should have known enough to ask better questions of our leaders.3
3. Yes, I am "blaming the victim" but sometimes the "victim" behaves so stupidly that he deserves some of the blame.
(I know it is long winded, but at least it is somewhat coherent and part 1 of only 1. Thanks for your indulgence.)
