Thinking About Iraq (II) - New York Times
Let's start with one simple fact: Iraq is a black box that has been sealed shut since Saddam came to dominate Iraqi politics in the late 1960's. Therefore, one needs to have a great deal of humility when it comes to predicting what sorts of bats and demons may fly out if the U.S. and its allies remove the lid. Think of it this way: If and when we take the lid off Iraq, we will find an envelope inside. It will tell us what we have won and it will say one of two things. It could say, ''Congratulations! You've just won the Arab Germany -- a country with enormous human talent, enormous natural resources, but with an evil dictator, whom you've just removed. Now, just add a little water, a spoonful of democracy and stir, and this will be a normal nation very soon.'' Or the envelope could say, ''You've just won the Arab Yugoslavia -- an artificial country congenitally divided among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Nasserites, leftists and a host of tribes and clans that can only be held together with a Saddam-like iron fist. Congratulations, you're the new Saddam.'' In the first scenario, Iraq is the way it is today because Saddam is the way he is. In the second scenario, Saddam is the way he is because Iraq is what it is. Those are two very different problems. And we will know which we've won only when we take off the lid. The conservatives and neo-cons, who have been pounding the table for war, should be a lot more humble about this question, because they don't know either.
Let's start with one simple fact: Iraq is a black box that has been sealed shut since Saddam came to dominate Iraqi politics in the late 1960's. Therefore, one needs to have a great deal of humility when it comes to predicting what sorts of bats and demons may fly out if the U.S. and its allies remove the lid. Think of it this way: If and when we take the lid off Iraq, we will find an envelope inside. It will tell us what we have won and it will say one of two things.
It could say, ''Congratulations! You've just won the Arab Germany -- a country with enormous human talent, enormous natural resources, but with an evil dictator, whom you've just removed. Now, just add a little water, a spoonful of democracy and stir, and this will be a normal nation very soon.''
Or the envelope could say, ''You've just won the Arab Yugoslavia -- an artificial country congenitally divided among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Nasserites, leftists and a host of tribes and clans that can only be held together with a Saddam-like iron fist. Congratulations, you're the new Saddam.''
In the first scenario, Iraq is the way it is today because Saddam is the way he is. In the second scenario, Saddam is the way he is because Iraq is what it is. Those are two very different problems. And we will know which we've won only when we take off the lid. The conservatives and neo-cons, who have been pounding the table for war, should be a lot more humble about this question, because they don't know either.
The neocons gambled on the first scenario and found themselves utterly unprepared to deal with the second. And nothing has changed very much since the statue came down. Only all the numbers have gotten bigger.
I confess I am at a loss. I do not know what anyone can do about Iraq now to salvage the situation. I do not see any good outcomes given the current situation. All I see is a nexus.
European Tribune - Dune
a nexus, a meeting place of countless delicate decisions, beyond which the path was hidden from the prescient eye
How about this: The U.S. pulls out completely and allows whatever is going to happen to happen. A new strong man (or woman, or organization) will eventually get control, and there will be a new version of Saddam Hussein or Benazir Bhutto or the Saudi family to run things. What exactly is the problem?
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, will be drawn in. Now we can probably count the casualties in the millions. Syria and Jordan are already under strain with the refugees just from our little prelude. Wait til they become logistical side issues of a regional war. Not likely that Israel can or will remain uninvolved.
With half the world's oil supply put at risk it doesn't stop there. China, Russia, the US, Europe. All of them have vested interests in what happens next and all of them have nukes. I don't even want to go there.
Yes, we need to get American troops out of Iraq. For any number of reasons. But we cannot just turn our backs and pretend we don't see the bloodbath that follows. Katrina is about five miles offshore. The levees aren't gonna hold. Saying just leave is not a plan. Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?
This is taken as a certainty, but I don't see why if you take away the biggest irritant, things would necessarily get worse. In any case, we won't avoid it, and the longer we wait, the more hate and hopelessness has been created - and the more people get killed by the thousands. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Wikipedia: Battle of Basra (2008)
The Battle of Basra began on March 25, 2008, when the Iraqi Army launched an operation (code-named Saulat al-Fursan, meaning Operation Charge of the Knights in Arabic) to drive the Mahdi Army militia out of the southern Iraqi city of Basra. The operation was the first major operation to be planned and carried out by the Iraqi Army since the invasion of 2003. Iraqi forces faced heavier than anticipated resistance from Mahdi Army militia inside the city and the offensive stalled, requiring American and British air and artillery support, eventually resulting in a stand-off. Following a ceasefire negotiated in Iran on March 31, Muqtada al-Sadr withdrew his fighters from the streets, but had gained a major political victory. However, the Iraqi Army, reinforced with brigades from other parts of Iraq, including the Iraqi 1st Division from al-Anbar, continued to carry out slower, more deliberate clearing operations in militia strongholds. The Hillah Special Weapons and Tactics Unit, as well as Iraqi Special Operations Forces (ISOF), carried out a number of targeted raids on militia leaders. By April 20, the Iraqi army had taken control of the last major district controlled by the Mahdi Army and by April 24, Iraqi forces claimed to be in full control of the city centre. [17][18]
Iraqi forces faced heavier than anticipated resistance from Mahdi Army militia inside the city and the offensive stalled, requiring American and British air and artillery support, eventually resulting in a stand-off.
Following a ceasefire negotiated in Iran on March 31, Muqtada al-Sadr withdrew his fighters from the streets, but had gained a major political victory. However, the Iraqi Army, reinforced with brigades from other parts of Iraq, including the Iraqi 1st Division from al-Anbar, continued to carry out slower, more deliberate clearing operations in militia strongholds. The Hillah Special Weapons and Tactics Unit, as well as Iraqi Special Operations Forces (ISOF), carried out a number of targeted raids on militia leaders. By April 20, the Iraqi army had taken control of the last major district controlled by the Mahdi Army and by April 24, Iraqi forces claimed to be in full control of the city centre. [17][18]
I wish I could believe that. I'm sorry, but I don't. American troops are not the biggest irritant, just to most obvious at this moment. Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?
Booman Tribune ~ Will the Slaughter Get Worse if the U.S. Leaves Iraq? A Common-Sense Analysis
Certainly, Iraq would not suddenly turn into Shangri-la, or become the Switzerland of the Middle East as soon as the Americans left. It IS possible that the violence and killing not directly attributable to U.S. actions might increase somewhat in the beginning, but it is extremely unlikely that it could increase enough to exceed or even replace the violence and death caused by the "coalition" forces and the resistance. The capacity simply is not there, nor very likely is the will. In addition, the primary stimulus for much if not most of the violence would have been removed. There is simply no chance of any improvement as long as the U.S. is in Iraq. On the contrary, as the past four plus years have shown clearly, as long as the U.S. is there the violence will continue to escalate and broaden, and the overall situation will continue to deteriorate. Iraqis have been living together without serious conflict for millennia. Sunnis and Shi`as have lived together in Iraq for about 1500 years with no history of serious sectarian civil conflict. Iraqis are the only ones who have the history, the ability, and the will to repair their society and their country. The United States must give Iraq a chance. It must get out now, and get out completely, and leave Iraq for Iraqis.
Certainly, Iraq would not suddenly turn into Shangri-la, or become the Switzerland of the Middle East as soon as the Americans left. It IS possible that the violence and killing not directly attributable to U.S. actions might increase somewhat in the beginning, but it is extremely unlikely that it could increase enough to exceed or even replace the violence and death caused by the "coalition" forces and the resistance. The capacity simply is not there, nor very likely is the will. In addition, the primary stimulus for much if not most of the violence would have been removed.
There is simply no chance of any improvement as long as the U.S. is in Iraq. On the contrary, as the past four plus years have shown clearly, as long as the U.S. is there the violence will continue to escalate and broaden, and the overall situation will continue to deteriorate.
Iraqis have been living together without serious conflict for millennia. Sunnis and Shi`as have lived together in Iraq for about 1500 years with no history of serious sectarian civil conflict. Iraqis are the only ones who have the history, the ability, and the will to repair their society and their country.
The United States must give Iraq a chance. It must get out now, and get out completely, and leave Iraq for Iraqis.
So. I retreat to my earlier position which was I don't have a clue. Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?
Neither staying or leaving is a good option.
NYT: Iran Fighting Proxy War in Iraq, U.S. Envoy Says (April 12, 2008)
From Mr. Bush down, administration officials this week have been turning up the volume on Iran. Administration officials said that Iranian support for Shiite militias became increasingly evident late last month during the indecisive Iraqi operation to wrest control of Basra from Shiite militias, in addition to the rocket attacks on the Green Zone. Administration officials have long accused Iran of supporting Shiite militias in attacks on American forces in Iraq. The difference now is that administration officials are trying to convince the Iraqi government that Iran may not be the ally it thought, and is behind attacks against Iraqi government forces. That is a harder sell, given that Iran has supported Iraq's government. Mr. Bush this week accused Iran of arming, financing and training what he called "illegal militant groups." He said that Iran had a choice, and hinted that the United States would try to sow distrust between the governments of Iran and Iraq, if Iran did not stop backing the attacks.
Administration officials have long accused Iran of supporting Shiite militias in attacks on American forces in Iraq. The difference now is that administration officials are trying to convince the Iraqi government that Iran may not be the ally it thought, and is behind attacks against Iraqi government forces. That is a harder sell, given that Iran has supported Iraq's government.
Mr. Bush this week accused Iran of arming, financing and training what he called "illegal militant groups." He said that Iran had a choice, and hinted that the United States would try to sow distrust between the governments of Iran and Iraq, if Iran did not stop backing the attacks.
