Choosing Sides
As we leap off the cliff into the yawning maw of violence that awaits us in Iraq we might want to figure out which side we are on. At least Congress appears to be thinking about it. Until now, US forces have spent most of their time targeting and killing Sunni insurgents with two major exceptions--April 2004 and November 2004. On those occasions we fought Moqtada al-Sadr's forces and those two months marked some of the highest U.S. casualties since the war started in 2003. December 2006 was another highwater mark for U.S. fatalities in Iraq only this one at the hand of the Sunnis. At the dawn of 2007 we are going to fight the Shia again.
We have four basic choices confronting us in Iraq:
- Fight the Sunni insurgents (there are at least 15 separate groups) and risk alienating the Saudis, the Jordanians, and the Turks.
- Fight the Shia insurgents/militia, which means we will engage 60% of Iraq's population (and strengthen the hand of Shia-led Iran).
- Fight both the Sunni and Shia and put ourselves in the middle of the civil war.
- Retire from Iraq and let the Sunni and Shia sort things out among their various sectarian factions.
There really are no other logical options. It looks like Bush chose Option 3.
By engaging both Sunni and Shia we will have a surge--a surge in U.S. casualties that is. But we are not going to be fighting two separate insurgencies. Nope. It is worse than that. We will be faced with in excess of 20 separate insurgent groups. Some cooperate with each other but most do not.
Unfortunately the United States military has neither planned nor prepared to fight twenty plus separate insurgent groups. A counterinsurgency plan is not the same thing as a plan to confront and defeat multiple insurgencies. And the icing on the cake is that we get to do this in the midst of a civil war.
Conventional armies can defeat civilian insurgents but the price in terms of civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure is enormous. The Germans in World War II defeated the Polish Home Army in Warsaw in 63 days. Of course they demolished most of Warsaw, but hey, they won the battle.
A military course of action to identify and root out insurgent groups will be accompanied by significant Iraqi civilian casualties. Troops going house to house trying to maneuver in narrow streets will be ripe targets for snipers, ambushes, and concealed explosives. As we roust civilians from their beds we will provoke more Iraqi opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq and will produce more support and recruits for the various insurgent forces. And that serves what U.S. policy objective?
We may not like it but there is no clean exit for us. Whatever choice we make it must take into account our broader interests in the region. Ironically the option that might best serve our regional interests vis-a-vis Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait is the one we are least likely to pursue. As we intensify pressure against the Shia do not be surprised as the violence spills over and Iran becomes more fully engaged in the fray.
There is another option: to leave Iraq in a semi-chaotic state with US troops handy to intervene in case the country threatens to become unified against US interests. In my view, this has been the US goal all along.
Back in 2003, I argued on my website of the time: 'I distributed on 5 October 2002 a rudimentary analysis of US goals.
The basic argument of that analysis was that the US needed a leaderless, chaotic Iraq in order to maintain hegemony over the Middle East, its oil, and those countries dependent on its oil. As long as the Iraqi oil fields were secure, there was no need to have a peaceful, well-ordered Iraq—actually, it would be cheaper and easier to maintain minimum necessary control if the country were highly chaotic, like Afghanistan after the US "liberated" it. And Iraqi chaos will be an effective lever to control the repressive, dictatorial regimes throughout the region, which will be constantly threatened by coups and the revolutionary movements of their people, as well as providing a ready excuse for invading any of these other countries if their anti-American forces grew too strong. This will be called the "war on terrorism."
In the seven months since that analysis, the Bush Administration has followed the anticipated politics very consistently. Today in Iraq the oil fields are secure and work has begun to repair and upgrade them for exporting oil; the rest of the country is in chaos and the US is doing precious little to restore order, let alone civil society. But "our coalition will stay until our work is done," says Bush. That is, the US will continue to exert just enough control to prevent the emergence of any unified social force that could unite the country effectively independent of US interests."
It should be recognized that over the subsequent four years the US has actually followed this consistent policy in Iraq. The problem facing Bush is that the chaos is greater than expected, to the extent that the oil isn't flowing very much and the chaos is more difficult to manipulate and control. That is what the 2100 troops are intended to solve, although they obviously will fail to do so.
One wonders who wants a 'clean exit for us,' as Larry Johnson says.
Peter Miller
January 22, 2007 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just goes to show you, The President sure is a Uniter.
Not in the sense we thought though. Bush has dissed our historic, old allies and he's bent on making the world unite, to stem Bushes quest for world domination.
It reminds me of the movie THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER. Where the Captain of the Russian Sub Shoots torpedos and they end up sinking themselves, and one of the crew basically tells the Captain " You've killed us ......."
The nations of the world are preparing for Bushes premptive strategy. The Worlds gone M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction)
Matthew 24:22 " In fact,unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved"
January 22, 2007 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it amusing that so many people want us to drop back and see how it works out, always ready to go back in and clean things up if it goes badly. For God's sake folks, if we could clean things up we would have done that over the past three years. Things will go badly in Iraq. That is a given. And, there isn't a thing we can do about it, other than donate a few more dead bodies to the carnage.
This has all the appearances of a debate over how we are going to put the smashed egg back in the shell, intact and ready to hatch. It isn't going to happen.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 22, 2007 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Larry probably has it exactly right from the military strategy viewpoint. It feels to me like a reincarnation of the Vietnam "pacification" strategy, sending troops into a village of mistrustful, frightened or resentful people, who may or may not be sheltering some of the enemy (whom they may also fear and resent). We know how well that worked. Doing it in an urban setting sounds hellish.
Bush sounds like he thinks this will be something like American community policing, or maybe like the feds raiding stills in old Kentucky!
I also agree that there are some powerful people who think it's just fine to have a certain level of chaos in Iraq. The war happens on many levels. Politically, however, it is a disaster for the Bush Republicans.
Bush is at a Nixonian 28% approval rating and Cheney is lower. What a lovely day it would be if they both emulated Tricky Dick and resigned, which would mean we would have President Pelosi, but I'm not holding my breath for that. We'll have more death, more torture, more loss of our liberty and wealth, and more disgrace on our heads. It's a tragedy, and I really think it is an emergency too.
January 22, 2007 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest impediment to a "solution" in Iraq is the confusion in the fantasy-based community between planning and wishful thinking. Being a decider and making a choice is not the same thing as having a plan. Our moron president and his dimwit supporters and handlers still want to "win" in Iraq, but they don't even bother to develop a practical working definition of the term. If winning means that the elected Iraqi government will complete the task of establishing a Jeffersonian democracy in which all ethnic factions co-exist peacefully, then we have already lost. That egg is broken and rotting.
Given the current situation in Iraq, "winning" is not on the table. The only outcome that can possibly be influenced is whether the catastrophe can be contained mostly within Iraq or will it spread throughout the Middle East. If we opt for containment, then the plan must be to allow the warring factions to kill each other in quantity, while US troops guard the borders. That appears to be the plan preferred by the Iraqi government, and it does have the chance of working because it doesn't demand that any of the players behave in an uncharacteristic manner. Its main weakness is that it doesn't sustain the neocon fantasy world.
January 23, 2007 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Johnson writes:
I'm not sure whether it is possible to plan or prepare to fight twenty plus separate insurgent groups, when the plus can range from 1 to infinity. And I'm wondering whether there are any Iraqis left who are not, in some sense, insurgents--persons who don't, nightly, just close their eyes and wish we'd just go away, or perhaps just wish we'd never come at all. Are there many Iraqis who, in their heart of hearts, support this American venture? And will a jobs program adequately substitute for members of extended families lost or maimed? Answering my own rhetorical questions, I think not.
I assume there are some Iraqis, translators, camera men who work with reporters, reporters themselves, who respect individual Americans with whom they work. No doubt some of the Iraqi army have bonded with the American soldier who have trained them and been embedded in their units. But respecting an individual isn't the same as respecting the nation that sent that individual, or agreeing with the mission upon which that country embarked. The best one can hope for is the nation being cursed for its ignorance, rather than its malice.
aMike
January 23, 2007 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
With our "humane" leaders running a "humane" policy like that is it any wonder the world hates our government and people will be out to get us. Encouraging terrorism against US interests - George W. Bush.
Tom
January 23, 2007 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where are the flowers and the candy? You know, that must be the problem. These people were so oppressed by Saddam Hussein that they didn't have any flowers and candy to give to our troops, so now they're fighting. We should just loan then flowers and candy, have them give them to our troops, have a parade and then bring the troops home.
Seriously, I'm so frustrated by this, and by the notion that we didn't prepare for the inevitable civil war that the Bush Gang was warned about, that I can't come up with anything but ludicrous solutions.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 23, 2007 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Question: How do the Kurds fit into this? They're not likely to simply walk away from everything they've gained since Gulf War I. So far they seem to have been able to keep their heads down but that can't continue forever.
January 23, 2007 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Hoppy. The war itself is a non-issue, in the sense that what is going to happen is just going to happen. The real issue is the refugee problem. When Iraq finally does collapse into a free fall, there will be an enormous surge in the population of refugees. We are powerless in the war, but we might actually be able to smooth the way for the refugees.
Senator McCain asked those who suggest withdrawal from Iraq for a proposal to deal with what is going to happen when we leave. That is my proposal. Do something about the refugee problem.
January 23, 2007 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry makes some very good points, but I'm not so sure that Bush has chosen option 3 - from what McCain, Lieberman and Keane/Kagan have said in their many appearances, Bush has chosen option 1. More and more, I see that Sunnis are being blamed for the insurgency and the violence (not that they haven't done their share)and it looks as though they will be on the losing end of the "surge."
January 23, 2007 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two questions. Why isn't Bush backing up our clear use of force with diplomacy. Bush acts as if talking is a weakness but given the size and strength of our forces it would seem that most of the countries, if not all of them, surrounding Iraq might want to negotiate a process to get the U.S. out of the region.
The other question when discussing sides is Al Qaeda. The main reason they targeted the United States is the support for the very Sunni regimeses that Larry mentions but which Al Qaeda finds insufficiently on the Right Path. At the same time they hate Shiia Muslims. Al Qaeda is an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood which was ignored for a decade while the U.S. focused its efforts on Iran and Iran's agents such as Hezbollah.
Bush's incompetence has been amazing. It just does not seem to be simple answer Sunni versus Shiia in Iraq. What part of the region from Turkey and Israel to India will be left out of a chaos that Bush has helped unleash?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 23, 2007 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with BevD's analysis that it is far from clear Bush is not choosing 1. Remember, you can fool most of the people most of the time.Notice how sketchy all the details are on Malaki's "crackdown" on Medhi militants, re-entry of al-Sadyr representatives into parliment, "arrest" of Sadyr's key aid etc.. All initiatives to create the appearance of balance but i still don't believe Petraeus agreed to take on EVERYBODY.
The trick to strategy 1 is getting the Saudis to cooperate in exodus of Sunnis and getting Iran to hold back on it's celebration until the American public has moved on to the next crisis.This can be managed.Don't expect oil prices to remain low for long after this outcome.
January 23, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
5. Negotiate an armed truce in Baghadad while arming and training locally countrolled Provincial guards to keep the local peace in the rest of the country.
January 23, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is option #3 that Bush has settled on in hopes that fighting the Shi'a along with the Sunnis will draw the Iranians in and we then invade Iran...giving us our "out" from Iraq. And with a "sorry guys, we've got bigger fish to fry" we'll be on the road to Tehran blaming them for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq. And with their nuclear aspirations and being a member of the so-called "The Axis Of Evil" it'll be about the GWOT. It is a perfect plan (for it's sheer simplistic lunacy) to get us "out" of Iraq and the blame off the president...
Of course #4 is the only option we have as far as I am concerned along with engaging all of Iraq's neighbors in an effort to stabilize the country after we leave.
But for Bush war is much easier to wage then it is to engage in diplomacy...which for him signals "failure". Good vs. evil, right vs. wrong and all that other absolutist BS he spouts prohibits him from negotiating anything. I have to think at this point in his mind it is more important that he is not perceived as "failing" then it is to get Iraq "right" or further America's best interests.
January 23, 2007 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
6. Obtain eternal authority to develop the Iraq oil fields for American corporations, followed by having all Iraqis sit down and peacably discuss their religious and cultural differences. The discussion to result in warm feelings in the hearts of all Iraqis who then convert en mass to Christianity.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 23, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between 5 and 6 is that armed truces have been successfully negotiated in history, while eternal occupations have never been accomplished.
January 23, 2007 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
An armed truce between whom?
Provincial guards for provinces with which borders?
/Tuomas
January 24, 2007 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could tell you what terms to impose on the armed truce and what structural details to build an Iraqi Federalism on ... but if the Bush regime cannot successfully impose a Constitition on Iraq, with a medium size armed force occupying the country, how could I?
Those are things that have to be hammered out in a regional conference, including Syria and Iran, and including a range of as many legitimate representives of different regions of Iraq as we can find.
The problem with any structure I would propose is that the perfect structure for conditions on the ground is inferior to a structure that all parties agree to.
However, the present structure simply feeds off the Iraqi experience of one group controlling the central government, using that to control the army, and using that to control the country. The Shias control the government, and therefore the Sunnis must fight to prevent the establishment of an effective army, or else they will be under the thumb of the dominant faction among the Shias.
At the same time, Shia militias fight to undermine the fighting force of the Sunni militia in order to try to allow establishment of a Shia-controlled army and control of the country.
This is why an overly centralized government structure causes such problems in plural societies.
January 24, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That may be the DIFFERENCE between them, but the thing that is the SAME about them is that NEITHER ONE IS POSSIBLE.
PS: Didn't you get that Hoppy was pulling your leg?
Jan Knaus
January 24, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's an interesting theory and one that has been postulated before (at least I postulated the same theory a year ago I know @ TPM .)
But it doesn't hold water since maintaining the balance point of the chaos would cost too much money even for the neocons who like to spend money on military contractors.
So I think they just plain believed they could simply plant a democracy after saddam's fall. You can tell to say the least that they didn't think through the democracy planting phase of their war since there was no immediate plan to maintain the Iraqi army. (which is more ammunition for your theory, however I think it is more believable that this administration was just plain dumb and dumber and didn't think to maintain the Iraqi army before it meltted down then re-appeared in the form of sectarian militias battling each other in a civil war.
I think what they had planned was to try to make Iraq the next Israel. With one of the strongest economies and possibly militaries over the long run. George is always talking about that he is concerned only of how people will judge him in the history books.
Now that we know that some countries need a monarchy or dictatorship, and that that is why Saddam's tyrannical style kept Iraq together, we can see how naive they, and even our own congressional representatives since they all voted to allow the war, were.
January 25, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink