Last week while driving into work I turned on CSPAN radio which was broadcasting live the debate from Congress on the Iraq war. The House of Representatives of Congress were debating a Republican resolution for keeping US troops in Iraq.
The Democratic points for pulling out:
• This is not part of the “War on Terror”
• The Bush Administration lied to get the US in the war.
• Iraq is a civil war.
• The US forces are inciting terrorism by their presence.
• The cost is too high.
The Republicans points were:
• Irregardless of how it started, Iraq is now the center of the “War on Terror” for both Al Queda and the USA.
• “Cut & Run” is not fair to those Iraqis who are supporting the US
• Abandoning Iraq does not honor those Americans who have died.
• We are slowly winning if we stay the course.
There are two key arguments being made here. The first by the Democrats has to do with why the war was started. The administration’s central arguments about starting the war was the possession of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD) by Saddam Hussein’s regime. The Iraqis had used chemical weapons both against their own people (Kurds) and against the Iranians during their long war, with little criticism at the time. Very few people in the US, or outside, believed that Iraq had removed all of their chemical weapons. Scott Ritter, the former head of UNSCOM, was a notable exception. You can read Scott Ritter’s article written before the war.
When, as Ritter predicted, the US could not find any after the war, the Bush Administration was left without a reason for the just finished invasion. Even though there were a few folks like Ritter, where were the Democrats when the vote for authorizing the war was taken? Hillary Clinton voted Yes. Kerry voted Yes. Over 40% of the Democrats voted Yes - not a small percentage from a party in opposition and wedded to the 60’s Peaceniks. There is a lot to learn from the mistakes made by the Bush Administration in rushing to war, but at the time only the most left wing Democrats tried to fight the Administration. As important as it is to understand this history for the benefit of the future, it does not inform us on what the US should do now. The other argument is really substantive since it questions if this is a war that the US can win. This is a tough one. To start to answer the question, one must understand the divisions of the Iraqi society. Most people are now familiar with the terms Shiites (or Shias), Sunnis and Kurds. The population is broken down basically
at 20% Sunni Arabs, 20% Kurdish, and 60% Shiites. Saddam’s Hussein’s regime was built on the back of the Sunnis who had run Iraq since the Shiite uprisings against the British after WWI. Before the US-Iraq war, I believed that the US would simply look to put in a US backed Sunni regime built on the ashes of the Bathist (Saddam’s political party) to run the military with the support of US friendly Sunni regimes in the area (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.). The US would have been criticized for such pragmatism but it would have been cheap and the insurgency would have been Shiite and easily suppressed by the new regime. Instead the Bush Administration decided to go with the idealistic strategy of supplanting the current ruling class of Iraq (Sunnis) with the more numerous but disenfranchised Shiites. Any time an occupying country decides to remove the existing ruling class and put in a new governing class, that country is in for a real fight and possible civil war. The disenfranchisement of the Sunnis would lead to an inevitable guerrilla war within the Sunni populated Anbar province of Iraq and Baghdad. Iranian Influence
If the Sunni challenge was not enough, the Americans also have had to deal with the Iranian religious and political strength among Iraqi Shiites. The largest militias, the Badr Brigade, is the armed wing of Iraq’s largest party – the Supreme council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The Badr Militia is a 10,000 strong group which has been trained and financed by the Iranian Government. This group is mostly based in the Shiite stronghold of Basra where they have increasingly been combating British coalition forces. The more notorious militia, the Mahdi Army, is run by the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. In August 2004, the US Army crushed the 2,000 members of the Mahdi Army who had taken up positions around the Shiite shrine of Najaf. The Mahdi Army is mainly based out of the Shiite slums of Baghdad called “Sadr City” after the father of Muqtada al-Sadr.
The only allies the Americans have in this situation are the small Shiite secularist parties like Mr. Allawi’s National Accord Party and the Kurds. This is slim pickings compared to the number of hostile parties.
Possible Outcomes
Disintegration of Iraq
Sunni and pro-Iranian Shiite parties pull Iraq apart leading to the creation of 3 countries – Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite states. A Shiite state with its capital in Basra emerges. Due to the large oil fields and its access to the sea, this state emerges as a strong Persian gulf power and Iranian ally. US Forces are stationed in Kuwait to protect the Kuwait from the threat. US troops are also positioned in the new state of Kurdistan to protect this state from Turkey. The new Kurdish state would also awaken Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria with calls for more self autonomy and the creation of a “Greater Kurdistan.” The Sunni rump state would be backed by the Arab Persian gulf countries and Jordan.
Shiite Victory
The US forces, with the help of the religious Shiite establishment, defeat the Sunni insurgency. With the defeat of the Sunni insurgency, the pro-Iranian Shiite administration ask all US troops to leave the country. The US has built a democracy in the Middle East but the country is anti-American and sympathetic to Iran.
Sunni Victory
The US is forced by the American public to leave Iraq before the insurgency is defeated. The power vacuum is filled by the Sunni insurgents, led by ex-Bathist officers. With support from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the Sunni insurgents are victorious against the divided remnants of the Iraqi government and the Shiite militias. The Kurds declare a policy of neutrality to insure their autonomy.
Secular Iraq
Coalition troops, with the help of Iraqi troops, defeat the insurgency and the Shiite militias. The Iraq populace is divided and the pro-Iranian Shiite parties are not able to dominate the government. A loose coalition of Iraqi parties results in significant US influence. Iraq assumes a foreign policy similar to the US allies in the Persian Gulf.
Strategies
USA
The US government has been working to strengthen the Iraqi government while simultaneously fighting the insurgency. The Iraqi government is unquestionably getting stronger even amid the turmoil. Increasingly, Iraqi military units are being called on to crush the insurgents. The US was also instrumental recently in putting together an Iraq government which is more moderate than its predecessor, where the Shiite militias were prominent. The past government had key posts being held by individuals who were tied to the Shiite militias. The irony with the US political strategy is that only with the help of the moderate Sunnis can the US succeed in keeping out the extreme Shiite militias from the government.
Al Qaeda
The strengthening of the Iraqi government has pushed Al Qaeda to realize that the war may be lost for Sunni extremist cause unless a civil war can be unleashed. The very strong Shiite leadership of Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani will be working to see that this does not happen. Al Qaeda is now in a holding pattern unless a civil war breaks out. If the US is successful in bringing moderate Sunnis into the government, Al Qaeda will be soon finished.
The Militias
They share a common interest with Al Qaeda and the insurgents. The greater the danger of the insurgency and the weakness of the Iraqi government, the stronger they will be. Al Qaeda’s push for civil war will be reciprocated against the Sunnis by the Shiite militia, who also gain politically and militarily from the violence. The militias will be working to undermine the Iraqi government from within and without. Their recent ejection from the Iraqi government was a major blow against their inside position. The militias have also stepped up the pressure against the British in the Basra area to increase their own popularity. The Iraqi government is countering by moving more Iraqi units into the Basra area, but will these soldiers by loyal to the government or the militias?
Final Analysis
From the US perspective, the key threat to Iraq right now is the Shiite militias and the establishment of a pro-Iranian Iraq, not the insurgency. If the US can address the militia issue, the US may pull off establishing a moderate democratic Shiite state. Since the establishment of a democratic Shiite state would endanger long-term theocracy in Iran, the Iranians will be working overtime to try to stop US plans. The US must continue to negotiate and engage with the more moderate Sunni elements of the insurgency. If these groups can be broken off from the insurgency and brought into the government, the US may finally see a path of diminishing violence and a strengthening Iraqi government. Six months ago I was more pessimistic on this possible outcome, but there have been moves by the Sunnis and US towards an understanding. The emerging Sunni and US relationship can be seen in the formation of the new Iraqi government. This is a major accomplishment because it happened against the wishes of the Shiite militias and with the inclusion of the moderate Sunnis. The news media has not been able to understand the full significance of this development against the backdrop of violence and US political calculations.
In spite of the negative publicity, casualties and questions about whether the war was initially justified, the US must stay the course at this juncture. The US negotiations with the Sunnis will not be helped by a US pull-out. Any sign of weakness will only embolden the insurgents into believing a Sunni victory is still a possibility. In addition, a departure date would create a power vacuum that would lead to increased Iranian and militia influence in Iraq. The US must stay in order to finish successful negotiations that will bring the Sunnis into the government and diminish the influence of the pro-Iranian parties. If this is successful, the US will be rewarded with a key and moderate ally in the Middle East. A quick pull out is the only way to guarantee that outcome in Iraq will be a failure. Hillary Clinton is taking the stand against setting a date at a time when many other Democrats like John Kerry are pandering to the Democratic Peacenik base in order to better position themselves for the Democratic nomination.
Does this absolve the Bush administration of their many policy mistakes in Iraq? No. But we can’t go back. We must go forward and base our policy on what best contributes to the security and morals of the US.
(Right - Kurdish Peshmerga Militia - The only solid US Ally)
No comments:
Post a Comment