The Future of Iraq

Originally Posted: January 12th, 2007

The ever-changing situation in Iraq has long since made this post somewhat obsolete, but I think the themes still ring true. Iraq saw increasing sectarian violence towards the end of 2006, which continued well into the new year. At one point in this post I suggested that the Iraqi war was not yet a civil war - this point became harder to defend as the year wore on and casualties rose. Eventually the American troop surge and re-evaluated strategy reduced violence in some parts of Iraq, leading to a softening of public opinion here. Such a change may have allowed John McCain, with his pro-war policies, to become the Republican nominee - whatever the cause, my prediction that the U.S. would leave Iraq even if the right won the general election in 2008 is surely invalid. The situation for the Iraqi government also does not seem as grim at the moment - their military may not yet be ready to take on the task of taking back control of their country from the insurgents, but they may slowly be on their way to being capable of doing so should U.S. forces leave the country in 2008.

My position when writing the blog was that the U.S. still needed more troops in Iraq in order to provide human security and defeat the insurgency, whether they be their own, Iraq's, or the international community's. It remains so. It was also that given the proper training of Iraqi forces, the U.S. should draw down its troops to take on a supportive role, and allow the Iraqi government and military to put the country back together how they saw fit. It also remains so. There won't be peace in Iraq until there is not only minimal U.S. presence, but also until the Iraqi government and military are empowered enough to provide human security, economic stability and democratic solutions. Any potential American or international initiatives should be based on such facts.


So a while ago I wrote a blog about the crisis in the Middle East involving Israel and Lebanon. If you read my blog (haha, yeah like anyone does!), you might remember me having said something about statecraft and sacrifice - about people having to make some really tough decisions and take some difficult stances in order to resolve the crisis. I've said the same thing about the Iraq war for a long time, and stand by that.

I won't bother to criticize the Bush administration at this point - my opinion on the second Iraq war, the old Iraq strategy, and the "new" Iraq strategy are all irrelevant. What I will do is state, quite frankly, what MUST be done if Iraq is to return to stability (and eventually peace), and what the future probably holds for Iraq. I think that there are several fairly likely outcomes to the current situation, which hold big implications for both the U.S. and the Middle East... But again, I'll stick to the two topics I mentioned before.

What needs to be done to foster stability in Iraq? If you remember your history, you might realize that one of the only reasons, and the main reason, that Iraq was stable in recent times was because of Saddam Hussein. As horrible as that is, and as much as he was a vile, disgusting, horrible excuse for a human being, it's the truth. Iraq has for centuries, been one of the most violent parts of the Middle East. (Though we must also remember, that thousands of years ago, human civilization found some of its roots in precisely the same location.) The clash of different ethnic groups and religious sects in Iraq has provided fuel for centuries of conflict, and was only exacerbated by the slicing up of the Middle East by Imperial Britain after the Second World War. The only reason these different groups of people we able to coexist "peacefully" over the last 20 years or so was due to FEAR imposed by Saddam and the Bathist regime - that if you did anything they didn't like, you would be killed, or tortured, or worse. Stability was imposed from within; forced in a brutal manner for all the wrong reasons in all the wrong ways.

So obviously, as many have said, as entire reports have REPORTED and entire predictions had PREDICTED, not only was winning in Iraq was going to be hard, but rebuilding the country and fostering a stable environment (to which human security is obviously paramount) was going to be a monumental task. It should be no surprise that with only 140,000+ troops on the ground, after 3 years the insurgency in Iraq is still waging a grueling war of attrition against allied and Iraqi forces. These different factions are seeking to settle their differences through violence - a position which has been validated by everyone - by Iraqis in the past, by the brutal Bathist regime, and by us, the International community, by the invasion of their homeland by allied forces.

Taking all of this and more into consideration, there is a fairly obvious solution to the crisis in Iraq. It hinges on addressing the concerns of all of the different factions in Iraq. One prominent foreign policy pundit said the other day, on BBC World, that one thing we have to remember is that American forces are still winning every single battle. Let me say that again: American forces are still winning every single battle. There are concerns about deaths of American troops, domestic concerns about support for the war, etc, and I am not disputing any of that. Leave that entirely out of my argument. What I'm saying here, is that winning is important, but it isn't enough. This is perhaps one of the few things that both Bush's "new Iraq strategy" and the Iraq Study Group Report both agree on. They both agree that more needs to be done.

And why? Because despite winning every single battle, an entire host of other things are happening:
1) Iraqi civilians and security forces are dying by the thousands.
2) The insurgency is growing, and seems to have an unlimited supply of martyrs and fanatics, who come from both inside and outside Iraq.
3) There is no political or public dialogue between different factions.
4) The only political dialogue taking place between the Iraqi state and the insurgent factions is bilateral; the government does not have the power, means, influence, resources or experience to mediate between factions, or seem impartial enough to even seem like a plausible mediator.

In addition to these things, there are a few things about Iraq that we need to remember, that have been pointed out by many over the course of the conflict:
1) Rule of law in Iraq is pretty much non-existent.
2) The main military actor in Iraq is the US; other countries need to be involved.
3) The success of non-military initiatives is dependent on human security.
4) Democracy is pointless if it doesn't truly represent the people.

So back to the point - how do we get back to a stable Iraq?

More troops are required. Why? Because not only are there not enough American and Iraqi forces, but the ratio of highly skilled to low skilled troops is pathetically poor. More American troops are needed if the insurgency is to whittled down to a controllable level. This is an awful conclusion to have to come to, because it means more lives are required. More deaths are required. Many will have to sacrifice if stability in Iraq is to be achieved, and this is the sad reality of the conflict and war in general.

Optimally, I would say the best bet would be for Bush and the State Department to woo other countries to send more troops. Admit that things have gone wrong. Admit that the whole thing was a horrible idea, but maintain that stability is necessary in the Middle East. Suck up their pride, and convince the French, the Germans, the Brazilians, the Russians, and the Canadians, that they need troops to help train Iraqi forces, hold ground, and assist Iraqi organs in policing actions. If this can be done, then American forces can concentrate on clearing the streets of insurgents while everyone else makes encouraging a return to the rule of law, de-Bathization and rebuilding Iraqi forces and institutions a priority, which will in turn help work towards stability in Iraq.

The clash of different factions, cults, sects and ideologies in Iraq is something that will take years, if not decades, perhaps even centuries to truly accomplish. I think the solution here lies, like many have said, in relying on the democratic political discourse, diplomacy and institution building. Policies need to be put in place to resolve these issues. But all of this needs to take place on Iraqi terms. The rest of the world needs to stop trying to influence the direction of the country and act merely as watchful and vigilant advisers (yeah, like that'll ever happen), while the Iraqis piece together their own peaceful society. The solutions will be difficult; maybe they'll decide that they want to have a federal structure, maybe they'll go for three separate countries - either way, it needs to be come to with all of the factions and sects at the table. It also has to occur with the belief - the FEAR of the POTENTIAL insurgents, that if they step out of line and become violent, they will be utterly destroyed. The right incentives must be put in place, as in any peaceful society.

But clearly, this is all obscenely complicated. The bottom line is that 1) the insurgency must be crushed in order to begin the return to stability, 2) that Iraq must return to the rule of law for this to succeed, and 3) that diplomatic and democratic solutions must be not only embraced and implemented, but made a priority. SIMULTANEOUSLY. Pulling American troops out of Iraq, even on a timetable and relying solely on democratic solutions will not achieve peace in Iraq, but neither will simply adding another 20,000 troops and handing out cash to Iraqi civilians. As usual, there is no one shouting for moderation - no one is reaching across the aisle and trying to bridge conservative and liberal solutions, which clearly is the overall solution to this entire crisis. Why? Haha, because everyone wants to be the next President. Similarly, no one in the international community is reaching out to the Americans, or the Iraqis, and offering an olive branch to resolve previous disagreement and help fix Iraq (consequently, Americans aren't reaching out to the international community either). So where is the leadership? Where is the statecraft and sacrifice - the honor that we're all so damn passionate about?

As for predictions, let's go with the two different extreme scenarios.

The first? Lets go with the current plan to ramp up US troops and moderately expand other programs to foster the rule of law. If it goes ahead, unchanged, we're not going to see the death of the insurgency. Iraqi civilians will still be targeted, will still die and suffer horribly, as will Iraqi security forces, and the war on the ground will not be won, unless either a hell of alot more troops are added and there is more support and participation by the international community. American troops will pull out after the 2008 election under this plan, regardless of whether the Democrats or Republicans win.

The second? Lets say that somehow the Dems manage to stop the surge of troops and have their own strategy implemented immediately. As US troops leave Iraq, the country will descend into utter chaos. The current Iraqi government will most certainly be toppled, and thousands, if not millions or Iraqis will die in the ensuing civil war. What we are seeing in Iraq right now might be close to a civil war, but it certainly is not. We're seeing measured, tactical engagements between factions - not open warfare in a free for all setting in which hundreds of people are dying every day.

It is of the utmost importance that we find a way to marry these two schools of thought on the Iraq crisis if we are to foster both a stable and peaceful Iraqi state.

What a depressing post. So, on to something a little more uplifting... Check out my next blog, lol.