The Partition Debate
With the Biden proposal now on the table (at least the New York Times), the question of Partition seems debateable again. Juan Cole weighs in masterfully on the debate, suggesting a superprovince approach as an alternatives, though the responses to his posting accuse even the nuanced Cole as being too imperialistic. But, the bigger problem with the partition debate is that it doesn't exactly provide us with a roadmap for when we (the US) ought to finally face the consequences of our disastrous entrance into Iraq.
I haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that what is going on in Iraq is somehow tempered by our presence there. Cole suggests, as have others, that to leave now would unleash something much more ruthless, akin to the outrages in Darfur. But, lets assume we have to leave at some stage (assuming, of course, we have the manpower to stay now, a huge assumption given our troop rotation problems). Better to suffer whatever consequences now (or say late 2006) or much later, after some partition that is wholly constructed by us (who owns Baghdad, for example?). Anybody's guess is that the consequences are as unknowable then as they are now; the benign Bosnia/Dayton Accords solution referenced by Biden and Gelb was likely exceptionally unique, and didn't come AFTER an occupation by the entities seeking to enforce it.
So, the problem with partition isn't that it wouldn't work, its that it isn't guaranteed to work in a country like Iraq. That being the case, the consequences for us (and the Middle East) are surely no more or less disastrous now rather than later.
Nearly a year ago, I wrote that our policy should be one of getting out, with a heavy emphasis on containing the mess we had created within the borders of Iraq. That is impossible now with a mini-Iran there. But, if our duty to stay is only posited on a moral duty that the consequences of us leaving are too unbearable, I am actually looking for an explanation why our deparature wouldn't be just as morally sound. The consequences of our occupation in Iraq will be felt at some stage (if not already) by both the Iraqis and the U.S.. If not now, what enclaves of partition or regionalism can guarantee that worse consequences won't be felt later.
Nothing can "guarantee" anything. But a deal worked out in advance which provides all sides with some stakes in the agreement will be superior to splitting with no deal in place at all. Still, what is troublesome to me, in Cole's proposal, is that he doesn't acknowledge that the flawed Iraqi system currently in place is the result of a 3-year process of negotiation by various Iraqi stakeholders. To throw that away and draw up a new agreement would undermine any sense of confidence Iraqis might have in the value and permanence of their negotiations. Why should they trust the new deal any more than the old one? Why should they even participate seriously in negotiations? Most likely the real lines of authorities would be drawn in battle after the Americans leave anyway, and the smart player would participate cynically in the blah-blah while building the biggest militia he can.
Why not leave the current system in place, but start in on a serious program of peaceful and negotiated population transfer, to avoid a bloodbath after we leave which will result in population transfer anyway?
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 1, 2006 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nearly a year ago, I wrote that our policy should be one of getting out, with a heavy emphasis on containing the mess we had created within the borders of Iraq. That is impossible now with a mini-Iran there."
I'm not sure what your issue is with the "mini-Iran". The Shia are in charge in Iraq (with Kurdish help, of course). Iran has significantly influenced the parties currently holding power in Iraq. This doesn't necessarily mean they're going to turn over Iraq to Iran any time soon. Grand Ayatollah Sistani may be Iranian born and consider himself an Iranian still, but he's not on board with the Iranian system of government, at least not to the degree the Iranisn are. If he were, HE would be the Supreme Leader of Iraq now.
If your problem is with the religious-based government aspects of Shia control of the government, well, unless the Baathists get back into power, you're stuck with this no matter who you shovel into the government. Many of the Sunnis vying for power are not secular people, either.
The only reason Ayatollah Sistani has restrained the Shia from kicking the US out of Iraq is because he has steadfastly kept his eyes on the prize - freeing the Shia from Sunni domination by getting a Shia-dominated government. He nearly has this sewn up now. Trying to reverse that situation will only cause him to issue a fatwa against the US that will double, triple or quadruple the number of insurgents we have to deal with in Iraq.
"But, if our duty to stay is only posited on a moral duty that the consequences of us leaving are too unbearable, I am actually looking for an explanation why our deparature wouldn't be just as morally sound."
This is where I disagree with Juan as well. He says that if we allow a civil war, it will spread out to the region.
Well, what happens if Bush attacks Iran - as is very likely by November of this year? Iran will obviously move into Iraq overtly or covertly and stimulate Shia resistance to the US. While I doubt Iran will actually try to invade Iraq, I can easily see them doing enough cross-border incursions to cause the US forces there to cross into Iranian territory, leading to a general ground war. They are already shelling what appear to be either M.E.K. or Kurdish dissident positions in northern Iraq. This situation can only get worse and could lead to the US launching attacks on Iran, claiming interference with Iraq.
This situation is so much more likely to result in a general regional Shia vs the US conflict than an Iraqi civil war would. al Sadr in Iraq has already said his militia will fight on the side of Iran. While I doubt Sistani would necessarily support such a response, it is possible, especially if US responses to other Shia militia get out of control, as they could easily, and Sistani is forced to issue a fatwa against the US in order to defend the Shia caught up in the US-Iran conflict.
I say that only pulling the US troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible can prevent the US from getting involved in any civil war which may occur. It will also reduce the chances for an unintentional (not that I think Bush has any "unintentions" for Iran) conflict with Iran.
If the Iraqis start (or escalate an existing) civil war, it seems to me that the US and Arab nations would be in a better position to contain it by operating from outside the country than within it in the manner we are now. We can always insert troops into the bases we have built there if necessary to "spot-check" a particularly bad area, in coordination with the Iraqi army (such as it is.)
Letting the US forces get caught up IN a civil war is worse than allowing a civil war to occur by leaving. We need to take care of our own, first. It is simply common sense not to let "moral" considerations determine practical actions.
The "if you broke it, you own it" philosophy is wrong. The Japanese have a better attitude - what happened in the past cannot constrain the present because the past is the past and the present is all there is. You only get to change events if you acknowledge past mistakes and act appropriately in the now.
In the end, despite Juan's claim that a million or five million people could die in a civil war, that is the responsibility of those people - not the United States.
We broke it.
They can either fix it or break it worse. That's their choice - not ours.
There's nothing stopping the US from suggesting any number of resolutions to the problem to all parties involved. But the US remaining there is NOT a solution to anything, including civil war.
May 1, 2006 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is simply common sense not to let "moral" considerations determine practical actions.
And your objection to nuclear preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear sites is...?
You have a confused and overly rigid perception of the divide between the moral and the practical. It is highly impractical to act in an overtly immoral fashion, or to refuse to acknowledge responsibilities one has incurred through past actions. Japan's failure to sufficiently apologize for its atrocities in WWII is still reaping severe negative foreign-policy and commercial consequences in the region, decades later. Abandoning Iraq to its bloody fate, after having invaded it, would severely exacerbate anti-Americanism around the world. Your "that was then, this is now" attitude sounds like something Dick Cheney might dream up.
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 1, 2006 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no objection to nuclear strikes on Iran from a moral perspective - sorry to disappoint you.
My objection is on correctness grounds and on the simple fact that it's stupid to start a war you can't win. That and the fact that it is illegal. Not that I, as an anarchist, believe in international law or even local law - but supposedly everyone else does - except when it conflicts with their intentions, apparently.
I don't happen to believe it is correct or rational in terms of organizing human society to attack and kill hundreds of thousands of people for no particular reason other than a desire for what they possess and to control them, and then dress it up with the suspicion that they might have a WMD somewhere someday. If you think this is "moral" or not, I really don't care.
Secondly, your reaction is entirely incorrect and proceeds apace with no connection to anything I've said or advocated.
I said nothing about acting in an overtly immoral manner just on practical grounds.
What I said was that a "moral" basis for doing something shouldn't replace common sense and rationality.
It reminds me of Jayne's comment in the movie "Serenity" where he says, "Shepherd Booke used to say: If you can't do something smart, do something right."
I advocate doing something smart first of all, and generally it will tend to be "right" if it really IS smart. In other words, I'm not committed to doing something stupid on "moral" grounds.
May 1, 2006 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said nothing about acting in an overtly immoral manner just on practical grounds.
Pulling US soldiers out of Iraq at a moment when Iraqi ethnic and religious factions are gearing up to slaughter each other's populations to effect ethnic cleansing and territory grabs seems pretty "overtly immoral" to me. It's closely comparable to the Belgian decision to pull their peacekeepers out of Rwanda just as the genocide there was getting started. Pulling your troops out just as the genocide is ramping up is even worse than failing to take any military action to stop a genocide in progress, which is bad enough in itself.
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 2, 2006 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. UNILATERAL Bush and his merry team of ideologues wedded to their greed caused this mess. All the discussions after-the-fact will not result in practical solutions. Our own country is in chaos and not looking so good as a model for others such as Iraq. Insurgents exploit our own divisions and milquetoast committment to this erroneous war. Unify THIS country first behind competent leadership, then perhaps we can expect more from Iraq.
May 2, 2006 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
May 2, 2006 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
May 2, 2006 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
More today from ColeMay 2, 2006 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
First place, who do you think the US would back in the Big Slaughter? If Rumsfeld is to be believed - no one. We cannot stop it. We won;t stop it, and our policies and actions have brought us to this pass. They are driving us and Iraqis ever deeper. Maybe that's why most Iraqis, the overwhelming majority wish us gone.
What we see here is nothing more, nothing less than the old colonialist tripe - we can't leave until we civilze tha savages.
Julietter mentions Juan Cole. If you follow his blog, you soon learn that no observer is more sensitive and worried about the dangers of an escalation of the civil war that has been going on now for two years. I think it has something to do with his stint in Beruit and Jordan when Lebananon blew.
Cole thinks it imperative that all ground troops be gone not later that the end of this year
May 2, 2006 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
May 2, 2006 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Since I was one of the posters you referred to (in fact 3 are mine), I have to push back a bit here.
Being "too imperialistic" is, in this case at least, like being "a little pregnant" Juliette.
As a legal matter if nothing else, Iraq is a sovereign state with a democratically elected government and nobody in this partition debate seems to care about this fine point.
May 2, 2006 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq has a constitution. Iraq has an elected parliament. It is now up to Iraq to decide how to govern Iraq and who will do the governing. Part of that decision is what to do with the US military presence and the US "contractor" presence in their country. At most we should let Iraq dictate when we leave there - if the parliament votes that we leave now, we leave now.
What we are doing now is like the "kings horsemen" studying the smashed egg, with the quickly drying contents spread all over the ground, trying to figure out how to put it back together and get it back on the wall. Sometimes the ultimate wisdom is to accept things as they are.
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 2, 2006 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I puzzled by the basis of your assertions. Even if Sistani is not inclined to support Iran's interference in Iraq why won't Iran used its wealth to do just that? Also what makes you think that the Arab Sunni Muslims are about to allow a dominant Shia country in their midst? Or at least one without a Sunni strongman keeping them in check.
The United States is not Japan. Afterall the nominal goal in Iraq was to revamp the system of government there not leave chaos in our wake. Also given the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan I am not sure there will be much stomach to leave a collapsed state in the middle of the oil producing region of the world.
The problem is that it is not at all clear what Bush and Rice are doing to broaden the problem beyond the United States and Iraq. Picking a fight with Iran on their nuclear program seems to suggest they do not intend to talk to them about Iraq. Without Iran, the Saudis, the Turks we either have to get out of Iraq and leave potential chaos behind or change our tactics to fight an insurgency in a more serious manner.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 2, 2006 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Caesar as a guide to the partition of Iraq
What Bush might write:
Iraqia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Kurdae, aliam Shiae, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Arab, nostra Sunnae appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt. Shiae ab Sunnae Tigris flumen, Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Kurdae, propterea quod a cultu atque humanitate provinciae longissime absunt, minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant atque ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent important, proximique sunt Iranii, qui trans Euphratis incolunt, quibuscum continenter bellum gerunt. Qua de causa Syraniae quoque reliquos Iraquae virtute praecedunt, quod fere cotidianis proeliis cum Iranii contendunt, cum aut suis finibus eos prohibent aut ipsi in eorum finibus bellum gerunt.What Caesar actually wrote:
All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws. The river Garonne separates the Gauls from the Aquitani; the Marne and the Seine separate them from the Belgae. Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are furthest from the civilization and refinement of [our] Province, and merchants least frequently resort to them, and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind; and they are the nearest to the Germans, who dwell beyond the Rhine, with whom they are continually waging war; for which reason the Helvetii also surpass the rest of the Gauls in valor, as they contend with the Germans in almost daily battles, when they either repel them from their own territories, or themselves wage war on their frontiers.
Professor John Stuart Blackton
May 2, 2006 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say Iran wouldn't try to influence Iraq.
I said Sistani is not likely to turn Iraq over to Iran - and without Sistani, it isn't likely Iran can do so on its own. Sistani will undoubtedly accept a certain amount of Iranian influence as long it supports the Shia in Iraq in ways he can get behind. And he probably will even support Iranian influence if it's primary beneficiary is Iran vis-a-vis the US.
But I see no evidence that Iran is going to "own" Iraq in the sense that the US would like to own it. The fact is that Iran and Iraq are clearly going to be geopolitically aligned no matter what the US does.
So why leave our troops in that exposed position? Especially if we're planning to start a war with Iran.
As for the Sunnis elsewhere in the region, what would you suggest? That we put a Sunni strongman back in power in Iraq? The opportunity for that has passed and Sistani made it so. The Shia and Kurds will either control Iraq, or Iraq will fracture into three independent states. I don't see any other option. I suppose it is theoretically possible that the Sunnis could somehow regain power, but I see no theory of how.
In fact, if the concern is a "Shia crescent", then having Iraq fracture into independent states would be better than having the Shia control all of Iraq. At least the new Sunni state could make its own alliances. The Kurds are already following that path, and I don't see anybody concerned over that, despite the fact that it will cause trouble in Syria, Turkey and Iran. Turkey is already massing troops on the Iraq border, and I foresee cross-border incursions very shortly if something isn't done to restrain the Kurds - which won't happen because the US is using them against Iran and also needs them to act as at least a minimal check on the Shia.
It's a mess, indeed, and keeping the US troops there on the pretext that this will somehow prevent a civil war is simply untenable.
For one thing, there is no evidence that even US military power can prevent a civil war. It hasn't prevented the insurgency, and the sectarian violence has been getting steadily worse. So exactly how does anybody expect the presence of US troops to prevent civil war?
It makes no sense on the face of it. Without the US killing thousands or scores or hundreds of thousands more Iraqi civilians, if the Iraqis want a civil war, they will get one. And if the US does kill those Iraqis imvolved in a civil war, the rest of the country will turn on the US as well.
It's a no-win scenario for everybody. Accept it and move on.
May 2, 2006 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, your opinion as to what is "immoral" is just that - your opinion - and irrelevant to me, as I don't accept any definition of morality as having any value in any case. Correct behavior and workable results are what matter. I'm not interested in promoting myself as more "moral" than someone else for the egoboo.
Secondly, there is no evidence that US troops can prevent a civil war or genocide anywhere that the locals are determined to do so.
The US presence has done little to prevent the insurgency, and little to stem the increasing tide of sectarian violence.
The assumption that it has prevented a civil war so far is not valid, because there is no evidence that a civil war was incipient up until the last year or so. There has never been a civil war in Iraq before despite the tensions. Some people - both Arab and Western - believe the US and others may in fact be stimulating a civil war in Iraq because that will cause Iraq to remain fractured and unthreatening to certain other countries in the region (pick whether you prefer the Saudis over the Shia or Israel.)
If there is no proof that the US has restrained a civil war up to this point, there is no proof the US can prevent a civil war at all.
There is also no evidence that a full-scale civil war can be handled by US troops. The US troops there are hard-pressed by the existing insurgency of 20-40,000 insurgents. Only the restraint of the Shia as imposed by Ayatollah Sistani has prevented the Shia (except for al-Sadr's branch) from attacking the US and increasing the insurgency by perhaps another 50-100,000 insurgents.
How do you propose to have US troops prevent a civil war if the result is 100-200,000 or more fighters taking part in it and also shooting at the US troops?
We would need a million boots on the ground to control that situation, and even then it could only be done by absolute martial law imposed by the US. How long do you want to support that solution - and at what cost? $20 billion a month? More?
Do you want the US to try to stop a civil war if it costs the US five thousand more dead US troops, another hundred thousand to a half million Iraqi civilians killed by US troops, and STILL end up with a half million or more dead Iraqis due to the civil war?
The fact of the matter is that "morality" has nothing to do with this. The REALITY of the situation on the ground is as I stated before: We broke it. It's broken. Accept it and get out.
And don't break anything more - such as Iran.
May 2, 2006 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Wolfowitz, before being shuffled off to wreak his havoc on the World Bank, assured Congress that Iraq's oil revenues would finance reconstruction etc. They haven't, and one big reason they haven't is because the country's enormous black market diverts gasoline and other oil products away from the state, yielding huge profits for government officials and other insiders involved in the trade. Can we do anything about this? Insurrgent attacks on pipe lines etc. don't help matters either. On the ground military personnel should be concentrated around oil and gas facilities. The average Iraqi is poor and angry about it, not a condition conducive to law and order. "Oil and gas are the property of all the people of Iraq" according to the country's new constitution. Perhaps if the Iraqi people realized the profits from what is rightfully theirs the myriads of problems today could become yesterday's news.
May 2, 2006 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
May 2, 2006 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's impossible to defend the oil and gas installations - and especially the pipelines. Some of those pipelines go hundreds of miles. Not to mention that half the workers on them are probably insurgent sympathizers.
And how you defend the ports adequately? We just had that discussion with the Dubai thing.
When I was in Vietnam, I was stationed for my last three months at a small bay called Vung Ro Bay. It had three beaches, a cargo pier, a transportation battalion, and a pump station. Shell oil tankers came into the bay, attached pipes to pipe connectors held up by buoys in the bay, and the pump station pumped the oil and jet aircraft fuel on to the shore and on to the main area airbase at Tuy Hua, sixteen miles north or so.
I was the radio operator for the petroleum detachment. We also had a pipeline repair crew. Every day we would pump oil, and the crew would go out to repair breaks in the pipeline. The pipeline would break on its own, but mostly it was the local Vietnamese breaking it to get oil for their cooking fires. Then of course it was also sabotage. The crews could repair sabotage done during the day - but at night, it was impossible because the sabotage could be an excuse to set up an ambush. So if the pressure dropped at night, we shut down until the next day.
And that was with half a million US troops plus half a million ARVN troops in Vietnam - and a pipeline only sixteen miles long. Granted, there were other priorities for those troops, but you see the point - nobody thought of trying to defend that pipeline every night.
Basically the same applies to the black market. I don't know of too many black markets that have ever been put out of business by law enforcement action. The only way to put a black market out of business is to change the economics which makes the product "black" in the first place. I'm not sure how that would be done in Iraq, but I suppose it might be possible.
May 2, 2006 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But no number of U.S. troops will stop a civil war."
Biden definitely has THAT right.
"Withdrawing them too soon would open the door to all out civil war that could turn into a regional war."
Problem is - there's no proof that is true.
"Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now, they are strengthening their common central government, and disbanding their separate armies."
Based on what little I've read recently about that, I'm not so sure that is entirely true.
"The central government would be responsible for border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues. The regional governments -- Kurd, Sunni and Shiite -- would be responsible for administering their own regions."
It's not clear to me that the Kurds are prepared to give up Kirkuk oil revenues - unless they get the vast bulk of them.
"Baghdad would become a federal zone, while densely-populated areas with mixed populations would receive both multi-sectarian and international police protection."
Since Baghdad is THE multi-sectarian area, with some five million people, I'm not sure this plan is much more than hand-waving. Organizing that "multi-sectarion police protection" seems to me to be problematical.
"Sunni Nationalists and neo-Baathists would still be unhappy but they would be easier to contain."
Hand-waving.
"Similarly, while decentralization won’t end the militia problem overnight, it is the best way to begin rolling it back. Right now, there is no plan to disband the militia. Militias have so heavily infiltrated the security forces that our training program is effectively making them better killers. The regions can become magnets for the militia, integrating them into local forces, and eventually into the national force. Again, the constitution already provides for security forces within the regions. There is nothing radical in this proposal."
On the other hand, I don't see it really changing anything. It presumes that the since the regions will be single ethnic, the militias will be essentially useless. And what does "integrating them into local forces, and eventually into the national force" really change from the current situation.
"Shiites and Kurds will get a slightly smaller piece of a much larger pie. That’s a better deal than they would get by going it alone."
This isn't clear to me. It is based on the notion that there won't be any oil investment unless the oil "is run as a unified whole". My understanding is that is how it was supposed to be in the first place - with tremendous concessions to foreign oil companies who basically get to drain Iraq dry for a very low price. I forget the details, but there has been considerable criticism over the way the oil industry is being structured in Iraq.
Secondly, I wonder if the Kurds really like the idea of the central government controlling their piece of the pie, no matter what size it is. They may prefer to have their entire slice of Kirkuk, and the devil take the rest. Otherwise, their future plans for an independent Kurdistan financed by Iraq oil is going to be held hostage to the central government. I don't really see them agreeing to this.
The only motivation I see for the Shia to agree to this is the idea that paying the Sunnis 20% will cause them to drop the insurgency. Has anybody asked the Sunni insurgency leaders if they think this is a good idea? Until you do, I take that one with a grain of salt, too. It's worth it to propose, but I'd wait for the response before getting confident about its viability.
"But we should clearly condition [US] aid on the protection of minority and women’s rights."
I've commented on this before. Sistani and the senior clerics will control that aspect. While I might expect Sistani to allow minority religious rights, I'm not so sure women's rights will be equally supported. And I doubt the clerics are that impressed by US aid that they will overturn their religious principles for it.
"Iraqis should be in the lead of small-scale projects that deliver quick results."
I can buy into that one - once we're out of the country. Otherwise, in the current climate, you build a school with US money and the next day the insurgency blows it up.
"President Bush's failure to move on this front is inexplicable. There will be no lasting peace in Iraq without the support of its neighbors."
Not inexplicable to me - Bush intends to knock those neighbors off with regime change - Iran is the next one on the list, but Syria, Jordan and perhsps even Saudi Arabia are on the neocon and Israeli list and have been for years.
"We would maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops -- to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq’s neighbors honest, and train its security forces."
This part of the plan is utterly unworkable. It will continue to fuel the insurgency, hardly restrain Iran should it ever desire to invade (not likely but not impossible), and be ineffective against the insurgency - unless you assume the insurgency dissipates on its own.
And what "concentration of terrorists" is he talking about? These days the insurgency can mount operations with as many as 100-300 insurgents taking part. If we can't stop that with 130,000 troops, how are you going to do it with 20,000? Keep in mind that maybe ten percent of US forces in Iraq are actually combat troops - the rest are support troops. Out of 20,000 US troops, perhaps 2,000 would be combat troops. They'd get creamed unless the insurgency itself dramatically reduced - which has yet to be proven despite the Sunni "bribe" money.
By the way, anybody think to compare this Sunni offer with the $100 tax cut the Republicans want to offer Americans to offset the higher cost of gas? I'd say it's just about as cheesy and I suspect the Sunnis will see it that way.
"Right now, our troops are still necessary to prevent total chaos."
Again, not proven - and probably false.
"But unless the Iraqis see and believe we are leaving, they will have little incentive to shape up."
What exactly does "shape up" mean? Does this idiot think they're all standing around feeding at the US trough just because US troops are there?
Does he think the Iraqi government is bickering daily just because they think that while the US troops are there, their asses are still safe from being assassinated? If so, when we do leave, unless the insurgency is damn near gone, what's going to happen to them then? And when one or more of them get assassinated (which is a virtual certainty in that tribal revenge society), that's when we will see how well the government can absorb such things and continue to function.
There may be points in this plan that are workable. But in my view, they are only workable if we declare a fast troop withdrawal plan now and stick to it regardless of circumstances on the ground.
All this assuming that Bush does NOT intend to attack Iran within the next six months. If he does, all bets are off - and NO plan will save Iraq or the US forces there. It will be game over.
Followed by an even BIGGER mess in Iran.
I believe we haven't see anything yet as to how far this President can literally wreck the world.
May 2, 2006 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that would be a pretty good timetable too. The question is: how should this be done? What structures are we putting in place to ensure that when we leave, there won't be a civil war?
All I'm saying is that a simple "troops out now" is immoral, if you can see that mass slaughter of civilians is in the cards when the troops leave. The comparison to Rwanda is extremely stark.
Cole's suggestion is to consider strengthening the country's federalized structure and separating the ethnic and religious groups, while providing them with incentives to uphold the system rather than blast it to pieces. I think that completely rejiggering the government at this stage won't work because the current government is the process of a 3-year national dialogue which it is perilous to discard; no new government which is not the product of national negotiations will last more than five minutes; and there's not enough time or goodwill left to enter such a negotiation. But where efforts to separate the communities and insulate them from each other are possible without wholescale changes, they should be pursued.
But bigger ideas are necessary. What about a Muslim peacekeeping force to prevent sectarian violence (especially civilian massacres) after the US pulls out? With US backup to be called in rapidly if things get hairy? (Think the F-16 strikes that were called in by Dutch blue-helmets in Srebrenica, but stupidly nixed by UN HQ; they could have prevented the slaughter.) Maybe Indonesian, Pakistani, Moroccan troops?
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 2, 2006 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, transhuman. Of course the black market in petroleum you describe probably persisted right up through the late '80s, when Vietnam finally put its black markets out of business by...legalizing them. To mischaracterize the picture somewhat.
Anyway, you also made me think back to December, when a Vietnam-inspired "clear and hold" strategy was touted as the new Big Solution in Iraq. (It sort of still is, kind of...hard to figure out what's actually going on under the whirl of PR confusion.) Of course nobody seems to mention that the reason why Westmoreland initially adopted "search and destroy" instead of "clear and hold" was that the US wasn't even able to protect the most important 20-mile stretch of highway in the country from VC night attacks, much as we still can't secure the highway from the Baghdad Airport.
But I think your Vietnam comparison raises one final important question. Nobody knows what's going to happen in Iraq after we leave. But it seems very, very plausible that there will be a Bosnia-style genocidal civil war. In Indochina, there was no bloodbath after we left Vietnam (though 300,000 starving reeducation-camp internees didn't exactly find it a picnic), but there was a genocidal bloodbath after we left in Cambodia - and we turned our eyes away. Do you really have no compunctions or qualms whatsoever about that? "Sure, the US tore Cambodia to pieces and then left it at the mercy of genocidal maniacs and did nothing to denounce the genocide, much less stop it; but that was then, this is now?" Do you really think it would be "the Iraqis'" fault if they "decide" to start a civil war? Do you think it was "the Cambodians'" fault that Pol Pot massacred a quarter of the country?
I'm not saying this is necessarily going to happen when we leave Iraq. But it could very well happen; it's likely, in the same sense that it was likely that there would be massive looting after we toppled Saddam Hussein. I think it's incumbent on us to plan for and try to prevent the potentially awful consequences of our actions on others.
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 2, 2006 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"All I'm saying is that a simple "troops out now" is immoral, if you can see that mass slaughter of civilians is in the cards when the troops leave. The comparison to Rwanda is extremely stark."
The problem with your analysis is twofold:
1) You can't prove a mass slaughter of civilians will occur in Iraq. The tribal conflicts of black Africans are not on a par with the religious conflicts of Arab nations.
You can expect a considerable amount of violence in Iraq, but estimates of one to five million casualties I think are speculative. I think the senior clerics on both sides - or even Iran or even the other Arab states (who would have much to lose if the civil war spilled over into their territories) - would intervene before it got that bad. Of course, I could be wrong - but that is the problem; we can't be sure. And not taking the risk has its own costs, as I show below.
2) You can't prove that if the Belgian troops had remained in Rwanda that they would have prevented or sufficiently ameliorated the genocide there. In the specific case, it might be easier to prove than the Iraq case - I don't know what armed forces commiting genocide were present in Rwanda vs what armed forces were deployed there to prevent it. Possible the deployed forces would have been enough. [See the update below - it would seem the situation is oversimplified.]
The problem with Iraq is they almost certainly will NOT be enough. If we can't restrain the insurgency of 20-40,000 insurgents with 130,000 US troops, how can we expect to restrain a civil war with the same number? And to place those 130,000 US troops in that position is also "immoral" - as I'm sure those troops would tell you once the body count starts to rise.
If you want to put another 300,000 US troops into Iraq to prevent a civil war - which is at LEAST the number it would take - you then have to decide at what cost. $20 billion a month? More? For how long? At what point can we be SURE a civil war won't break out when they finally do leave? And what about the reaction of the entire Iraqi civilian and insurgent population to even MORE US troops being in the country for an indefinite period of occupation?
It's just not tenable - certainly not at this point in the history.
One might argue that had General Shinseki been listened to, we would have had 500,000 troops in Iraq in April, 2003. And then had we NOT disbanded the defeated Iraqi military, we might have had a coherent force to turn the control of the country over to - one that could perhaps actually protect whatever government the military could give its support to.
Now, it's too late to talk about that or try to reverse the circumstances in the same manner.
UPDATE: I did a little - very little - research on Rwanda.
A quick Google finds this quote about Rwanda:
"Let there be no doubt: the Rwandan genocide was the ultimate responsibility of those Rwandans who planned, ordered, supervised and eventually conducted it. Their extremism was the seemingly indestructible and ugly harvest of years of power struggles and insecurity that had been deftly played on by their former colonial rulers. But the deaths of Rwandans can also be laid at the door of the military genius Paul Kagame, who did not speed up his campaign when the scale of the genocide became clear and even talked candidly with me at several points about the price his fellow Tutsis might have to pay for the cause. Next in line when it comes to responsiblitiy are France, which moved in too late and ended up protecting the genocidaires and permanently destabilizing the region, and the U.S. government, which actively worked against an effective UNAMIR and only got involved to aid the same Hutu refugee population and the genocidaires, leaving the genocide survivors to flounder and suffer. The failings of the UN and Belgium were not in the same league. (p.515)"
Here is another quote about the Belgian departure:
"After the attack of 6 April 1996, the Radio des milles collines spread the rumour that Belgian soldiers from United Nations Mission for Assistance in Rwanda were the source. The Rwandan presidential guard captured and assassinated ten Belgian soldiers. That dramatic episode drove Belgium into a depressive consternation which entailed Belgium's disengagement from UNMAR. As to justify its decision, Belgium carried the UN along with a spiralling number of countries who were leaving UNMAR. Those who assassinated the Belgian soldiers did not fail their mission. An informer, known as "Jean-Pierre" by General Dallaire, had announced this plan early in 1994 to UNMAR to blame the Belgian soldiers in order to make them leave. In a certain way, the massacre of the Belgian soldiers represents the "routine" epilogue of decolonialisation, however different, the last protectors of the Belgians definitively drive off their former colonists.
Starting with 7 April, Belgium demanded an extension from the UN of UNAMIR's mandate in order to evacuate the 1,520 Belgian residents, but not to protect the threatened Rwandans. Rwandan authorities refused to allow an intervention from Belgium, suspected to be the origin of the attack, preferring instead a French intervention."
So it would seem that blaming the whole thing on the retraction of Belgian troops would seem to be an oversimplification, if any of this stuff is correct.
I take no specific position.
May 3, 2006 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not at all sure that a civil war in Irag will be as bloody as in Bosnia or Cambodia. The cases are sufficiently different (especially Cambodia vs Iraq) that the comparisons aren't helpful. Bosnia might be closest. According to Wikipedia, however:
"Each nation reported many casualties in the three-sided conflict, in which the Bosniaks reported the highest number of deaths and casualties. However, the only case officially ruled by the U.N. Hague tribunal as genocide was the Srebrenica massacre of 1995. At the end of the war approximately 102,000 people had been killed according to the ICTY [3] and more than 2 million people fled their homes (including over 1 million to neighboring nations and the west)."
So, for the whole three-year conflict, 102,000 people were killed. A large number - but far less than the one to five million estimates for an Iraq civil war. The Sbrenica massacre involved "only" 8,000 people. Saddam is accused of much more than that (although how much can be proved is another matter.)
Not to mention that the estimates are that the US presence has already resulted in at least 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. How many more might result if the insurgency is inflamed by installing another 300,000 or more US troops into Iraq to prevent a civil war?
I think the estimates of one million to five million dead Iraqis is highly speculative. I think the senior clerics of both sides (assuming they survive...) or even Iran or even the other Arab states - who would have much to lose if the civil war spilled over into their countries - would intervene before it got that bad.
It's also not clear to me that the people in charge of Iraq's factions at the moment are "genocidal maniacs". I think the Iraqi civil warriors, while perhaps religious fanatics to some degree (compared to your average US Protestant or Catholic), are driven more by power politics than an actual desire to exterminate either Sunnis or Shia. Sure, there are probably quite a few who are so driven. But is it logical to assume that everybody in Iraq is - or even enough to justify the above casualty estimates?
Remember, there has never been a civil war in Iraq, even under periods of insurgency or other upheaval. Most families in Iraq are multi-religious, as are most tribes.
I just don't see a civil war in Iraq being anything on the scale of a black African tribal slaughter such as Rwanda, or the political repression of the Asians.
Naturally, I could be wrong.
But the bottom line remains: how do you stop it without imposing ANOTHER 300-500,000 US troops into Iraq for an indefinite period of further occupation (further incensing the insurgents and killing even more Iraqi civilians) at a cost of $20 billion/month or more?
Sure, if we can come up with some idea to try to prevent it - some political or religious or economic solution - it would be incumbent on us to propose it.
I just don't see anything like that being successful if the Iraqis really are so fanatical about their religion that they fully intend to have a civil war and exterminate each other.
And I DAMN sure know that trying to stop or control a civil war with 130,000 troops simply is NOT going to happen.
And as a piece I quoted elsewhere about Rwanda said, the responsibility for the genocide rested with those who planned and carried it out - not the Belgian troops who withdrew. The French ended up supporting those who were committing the genocide, according to the little research I did, and the US haggled over the whole thing for two years because we didn't want to use the word "genocide". They were complicit in the genocide by their actions - they were not responsible for it, even if the political behavior of the colonial powers supported and encouraged the political factions that did it.
If personal responsibility in the manner of the Nuremberg Trials is to have any meaning, the individuals who organize and commit mass murder are the ones who should be held responsible. Accusing those forces who are unable to control those people of "immorality" because they miscalculate or are forced to withdraw because of incompetent planning is nothing to the purpose. Accuse those forces of the errors they commit.
In other words, as I've said before:
We broke it. We admit it.
It's broken. We admit it.
Accept it and don't break it any more.
And don't break anything else either - like Iran.
As an aside, while researching genocides, I found this interesting fact:
"Universal acceptance of international laws, defining and forbidding genocide was achieved in 1948, with the promulgation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide(CPPCG). The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). After the minimum 20 countries became parties to the Convention, it came into force as international law on 12 January 1951. At that time however, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) were parties to the treaty, which caused the Convention to languish for over four decades.
In 1951 only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) were parties to the CPPCG: France and the Republic of China. The CPPCG was ratified by the Soviet Union in 1954, the United Kingdom in 1970, the People's Republic of China in 1983 (having replaced the Taiwan-based Republic of China on the UNSC in 1971), and the United States in 1988. So it was only in the 1990s that the international law on the crime of genocide began to be enforced."
The US was the LAST country on the UNSC to ratify a genocide treaty...
May 3, 2006 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
With the British and Itailans set to bail in the South, mostly turning security over to Muqtada's militia, Juan Cole asks:
The Sunnis are already demanding leadership of the Revission Committee that Kharzai prevailed upon the Kurd/Shia majorty to include in the Constitution. By the time, if it ever comes at all, that the US gets around to "patitioning" Iraq, there will be no more Iraq to partition
May 3, 2006 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
The Center for American Progress is out with Strategic Deployment 2.0, headers follow intro. My view, stop diddling about. Out completely by the end of 06 early 07 latest
May 3, 2006 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ivo Dallder just weighed in here supporting a plan similar to Korb and Katulis.
I actually can't find anything wrong with it - except of course that it's not likely to work, probability-wise. But that's true of every other proposal put forward so far. At least this one is worth a shot.
"Troop levels in Afghanistan would be doubled." This is the part that is completely idiotic. What good is that going to do? Do they think the Taliban will be defeated that way?
The only suspicion I have is that the "redeployment" will be into Iran, not Afghanistan...
Hmmm, maybe that's why Ivo is behind it...
May 3, 2006 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
ROFLMAO
But it doesn't matter! The real value of such debate is that it establishes the proper, realistic ontext for debate, genuine debate over REAL options none of which "work" because we've long past the point of no return in Iraq
SIlence only serves to obsure that fundamental and foundational fact
May 4, 2006 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
A very late reply: neither I nor anyone else in the universe has ever blamed the genocide in Rwanda on Belgium's retraction of its troops. But like just about anyone else who has ever commented on the issue, including whoever wrote the quotes you cite above, I do think that it was a morally culpable and cowardly response on Belgium's part to pull out their troops rather than call for a larger intervention to prevent a bloodbath. Had Belgium begun calling for an immediate and massive UN or other deployment, and said it would pull out UNLESS such a deployment took place, that would be one thing. But that's not what happened. They just pulled out.
Same goes for US in Iraq, depending on how things play out. Without a strong good-faith effort to organize a serious peacekeeping deployment, a flat-out US pullout is a morally deficient act.
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 12, 2006 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink