PDA

View Full Version : Iraq: A No-Win Situation



spurster
08-31-2004, 02:47 PM
Just so you can get your bias filters ready, it's a Krugman editorial, but if he has his facts correct about who is really controlling various regions of Iraq, we are in major trouble.

www.nytimes.com/2004/08/3...ugman.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html)

A No-Win Situation
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Everyone wants to go to Baghdad; real men want to go to Tehran." That was the attitude in Washington two years ago, when Ahmad Chalabi was assuring everyone that Iraqis would greet us with flowers. More recently, some of us had a different slogan: "Everyone worries about Najaf; people who are really paying attention worry about Ramadi."

Ever since the uprising in April, the Iraqi town of Falluja has in effect been a small, nasty Islamic republic. But what about the rest of the Sunni triangle?

Last month a Knight-Ridder report suggested that U.S. forces were effectively ceding many urban areas to insurgents. Last Sunday The Times confirmed that while the world's attention was focused on Najaf, western Iraq fell firmly under rebel control. Representatives of the U.S.-installed government have been intimidated, assassinated or executed.

Other towns, like Samarra, have also fallen to insurgents. Attacks on oil pipelines are proliferating. And we're still playing whack-a-mole with Moktada al-Sadr: his Mahdi Army has left Najaf, but remains in control of Sadr City, with its two million people. The Christian Science Monitor reports that "interviews in Baghdad suggest that Sadr is walking away from the standoff with a widening base and supporters who are more militant than before."

For a long time, anyone suggesting analogies with Vietnam was ridiculed. But Iraq optimists have, by my count, already declared victory three times. First there was "Mission Accomplished" - followed by an escalating insurgency. Then there was the capture of Saddam - followed by April's bloody uprising. Finally there was the furtive transfer of formal sovereignty to Ayad Allawi, with implausible claims that this showed progress - a fantasy exploded by the guns of August.

Now, serious security analysts have begun to admit that the goal of a democratic, pro-American Iraq has receded out of reach. Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies - no peacenik - writes that "there is little prospect for peace and stability in Iraq before late 2005, if then."

Mr. Cordesman still thinks (or thought a few weeks ago) that the odds of success in Iraq are "at least even," but by success he means the creation of a government that "is almost certain to be more inclusive of Ba'ath, hard-line religious, and divisive ethnic/sectarian movements than the West would like." And just in case, he urges the U.S. to prepare "a contingency plan for failure."

Fred Kaplan of Slate is even more pessimistic. "This is a terribly grim thing to say," he wrote recently, "but there might be no solution to the problem of Iraq" - no way to produce "a stable, secure, let alone democratic regime. And there's no way we can just pull out without plunging the country, the region, and possibly beyond into still deeper disaster." Deeper disaster? Yes: people who worried about Ramadi are now worrying about Pakistan.

So what's the answer? Here's one thought: much of U.S. policy in Iraq - delaying elections, trying to come up with a formula that blocks simple majority rule, trying to install first Mr. Chalabi, then Mr. Allawi, as strongman - can be seen as a persistent effort to avoid giving Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani his natural dominant role. But recent events in Najaf have demonstrated both the cleric's awesome influence and the limits of American power. Isn't it time to realize that we could do a lot worse than Mr. Sistani, and give him pretty much whatever he wants?

Here's another thought. President Bush says that the troubles in Iraq are the result of unanticipated "catastrophic success." But that catastrophe was predicted by many experts. Mr. Cordesman says their warnings were ignored because we have "the weakest and most ineffective National Security Council in post-war American history," giving control to "a small group of neoconservative ideologues" who "shaped a war without any realistic understanding or plans for shaping a peace."

Yesterday Mr. Bush, who took a "winning the war on terror" bus tour just a few months ago, conceded that "I don't think you can win" the war on terror. But he hasn't changed the national security adviser, nor has he dismissed even one of the ideologues who got us into this no-win situation. Rather than concede that he made mistakes, he's sticking with people who will, if they get the chance, lead us into two, three, many quagmires.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Joe Chalupa
08-31-2004, 03:58 PM
No post-war Iraq plan.

Not that I think it would be easy.

Yonivore
08-31-2004, 04:26 PM
I stopped reading at the by-line. Paul Krugman?

Anyway, President Bush has already addressed the issue of the difficulties faced after major combat operations were concluded.

To paraphrase, if any mistakes were made it was that the United States did not plan for such a quick victory over the Ba'athist regime. It was generally believed that, while it would have taken a little longer, there would have been more Ba'athists killed or captured before we rolled into Baghdad.

Unfortunately, no one thought that they'd cut and run and that about a third would melt into these urban cesspools of insurgency before we had a chance to put bullets in them or put them behind the bars of a P.O.W. camp.

A miscalculation? Sure...but, who woulda thunk it?

Still, that doesn't negate the necessity of ending the Hussein regime. That doesn't negate the necessity of the invasion, in the first place. It just made the "post-war" Iraq a little more difficult than envisioned. No one should delude themselves into believing we wouldn't have invaded if we'd known it would be this way a year and a half later...Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime was ripe for the picking and they were a growing danger every day.

Aggie Hoopsfan
08-31-2004, 04:45 PM
The problem isn't lack of planning.

It's Syria to the west, Iran to the east, Turkey to the north, and Wahhabi radical fundamentalists crossing the border from Saudi Arabia to the south.

Nbadan
08-31-2004, 09:02 PM
The war on terrorism is unwinable

Even W. agrees with Krugman's assessment of the sitation in Iraq. I wonder if the democrats will exploit this statement by W. the way the Repugs have exploited kerry's comments about being in Cambodia in 68?

Tommy Duncan
08-31-2004, 09:04 PM
They have tried. It hasn't caught on.

Ruby Ridge
08-31-2004, 11:40 PM
I don't see Sistani as "the" solution either. Of course, he will not produce a western style democracy that will fit comfortably into doing our bidding. Sistani is a Shia and contrary to all the hub bub about al Sadr in Najef, the real out of control area is the Sunni triangle.

The Sunnis will only cooperate with Sistani or al Sadr to the extent that they oppose the Americans and the transistional government. Should the American's leave, the alliance will collapse and fighting for power will happen between the Shiites and Sunnis. The Sunnis lost the most with the overthrow of Saddam. They are the angriest of the lot.

To the north, the Kurds are keeping a wary eye on the situation. The Kurds are the most pro-American Iraqis there are. Turkey is concerned about the Kurds and is right across the border.

At the risk of offending my conservative brethren, there is a similarity between Vietnam and Iraq. Like Vietnam, the U.S. is a superior force that can win any battle they are inclined to engage in. However, and this is in no way a slap in the face of our military, they are the visitors.

Despite, the sense of purpose and duty our men and women feel in their mission in Iraq, the one thing that separates them from their enemy is they long to go home. I am not saying they want leave the job "unfinished" but eventually what keeps them going is the knowledge of one day they will go home.

The insurgents are home. They can wait us out. Same as the VC and the North Vietnamese. It's their country and we are the intruders, crusaders, occupiers, you pick the word, they see themselves as the resistance.

I heard a conservative talk show host in Houston yesterday saying we could win this thing but liberals and people in both parties were holding us back. That we could go in and just level the place.

While that is correct but to what end does it accomplish? The goal these days is to get a democracy going in Iraq and leveling the country is going to accomplish that. We can't coddle them into it either.

They (the Iraqis) have to want it for themselves. There really isn't strong evidence that enough of them do.

What to do then?

The Sunni triangle is currently a hotbed for the insurgency and has spawned into a haven for terrorists. Actually there are more terrorists in Iraq now then in Saddam's day.

The Shia have the majority and would almost certainly dominate any election. Philosophically, they are closer to the mullahs in Tehran than the Bushies in Washington.

Finally, the Kurds are wanting to know what stake they will have in a new Iraq. They do not want to answer to either the Sunnis or the Shia and want a voice in any new government.

So, without the presence of an overpowering military presence (either Saddam or the Americans) it appears this country will devolve into civil war.

It looks like our options are the following:

Continue to stay the course and try and force that sqaure peg into the round hole. Basically, this entails installing a puppet regime under a sham election and retaining a military presence there for years if not generations.

or

Force an election, declare victory and get the heck out before all hell breaks loose.

or

Divide the country into three separate countries and ally ourselves with the Kurds and let the Shia have the south and the Sunnis have the Tikrit, Baghdad, Fallujah area. We could then work with a democratic Kurdistan but would have to keep the Turks at bay who might be tempted to go to war with an independent Kurdistan.

Not actually a bunch of positive things.

The old Pottery Barn analogy does apply. We broke it, now we own it. Was it worth it? Not really.

Aggie Hoopsfan
09-01-2004, 12:13 AM
Ruby Ridge is on the right track.

To be honest all this anger and hatred has been building since the British and the French divided up that part of the world at the end of WWI, it' snever been the same since.

Sunnis and Shi'ites will never live in peace, they've been fighting with each other since 680 AD or so. The only times they stopped fighting with each other were when the "Christians and Zionists" showed up trying to spread the word of a different god.

Yes the Sunni Triangle is the land of the terrorist, but hey - all those radicals who want to charge an American tank and go get their 72 virgins are being accomodated, and it's at the hands of our military instead of at the controls of our airplanes.

It's not the best way to look at it, but it is reality - we've changed the locus of confrontation from here in America to that part of the world.

If we broke up Iraq, what would become Kurdistan would probably be allied with us. I think Sistani would realize the benefit of working with us in a limited manner, particularly given the problem children to the west (the Sunnis in Iraq, and the Ba'athists in Syria).

Yonivore
09-01-2004, 12:20 AM
It was said that Japan would never be a civilized country.

I think this "bigotry of low expectations," (to borrow a phrase), being directed at Arab countries and Muslims is a bit short-sighted.

People are people. And, the vast majority want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors. There are Arab Israelis living in Tel Aviv and serving on the Knesset.

To say that Sunnis and Shi'ites will never co-exist peacefully, is to give credence to the minority that continues to foment hate one against the other. I don't buy it.

Joe Chalupa
09-01-2004, 12:25 AM
Humans have been killing each other since the beginning of time and the turmoil in the middle east is not going away any time soon.

I wonder what is going to happen when Arafat kicks the bucket.

Yonivore
09-01-2004, 12:27 AM
Well, it only took a few years to bring the Japanese Empire into the fold.

And, when Arafat dies? I predict Sharon will let loose the dogs of war and settle the "Palestinian" issue once and for all. It won't be a campaign of extermination but one of "get along, get out, or die."

Just my opinion.

Joe Chalupa
09-01-2004, 12:29 AM
That's what bother me. A loose Peres is dangerous.

And what about the internal fight to take over for Arafat?

Aggie Hoopsfan
09-01-2004, 12:31 AM
Yoni,

I'm not drawing low expecations for the Arab people.

I am drawing on 1400 years of fighting between the different sects of Islam.

Ruby Ridge
09-01-2004, 12:37 AM
Yoni,

A democracy is possible in the middle east and in an Islamic nation. Turkey is such a creature and tends to be pro-western although they did not support us as much as we would have liked when Iraq was invaded.

In my post, I suggest the Kurds could form such a country as well. A unified Iraq of the three areas would be a much more difficult task to accomplish.

AHF makes me think of something else as well. If a southern Iraq were to become it's own country and we could cultivate some sort of relationship with it, that would potentially be fertile ground for intelligence resources for learning more about what is going on within Iran.

With three separate countries, the Syria like Baathist Sunni country would be a hotbed for terrorism though.

Yonivore
09-01-2004, 12:39 AM
I think a peaceful government(s) will evolve in Iraq, in fairly short order and we will have an ally and a friendly base from which to operate in the middle east.

Aggie Hoopsfan
09-01-2004, 01:02 AM
The Sunni triangle is already a hotbed of terorism, we'd just have the opportunity to take care of Damascus as well if them and the Triangle started acting up.

Yoni, I don't doubt that the Iraqi government itself will be "peaceful", the problem is a lot of people in that world will never let there be peace.

I hate to stereotype them but the Arab population in general develops severe contempt for those who experience any economic prosperity - they think it should be them, not their neighbor.

Don't bash me on this, it's just the way it's always been.

Yonivore
09-01-2004, 01:08 AM
I learned a long time ago to never say never.

MannyIsGod
09-01-2004, 01:43 AM
i agree with the posts made above by ahf and ruby.

the problem is that the united states over the past 55 years has not promoted democracy, only democracy which suits its own interests.

at some point we have to realize and allow countries to have opposing viewpoints. the best thing to do here is to allow the country to establish a goverment of their choosing as quickly as possible, and if that means 3 autonomus regions under a weak federal governement, or 3 independent regions all together, then so be it.

there is also a lot of fear of iranian interfernce with whatever sunni governement is set up, but quite honestly with all the internal strife iran has at the moment it is in no position to threaten neighbors, regardless of what the bush presidency wants you to believe.

at this point the most important thing for the united states to accomlpish is for it to build up it's credibility on the world stage, which has been destroyed to a great extent. whether some of you want to believe it or not, unilaterism will not win the war on terror, we will need a lot of other help.

exstatic
09-01-2004, 02:02 AM
I think a peaceful government(s) will evolve in Iraq, in fairly short order and we will have an ally and a friendly base from which to operate in the middle east.
[/rosecoloredglasses]

Tommy Duncan
09-01-2004, 02:14 AM
I believe if there was a Democrat president the views of the posters in this thread on Iraq would be reversed.

MannyIsGod
09-01-2004, 02:26 AM
please,the last democratic president who had any colation of value was fdr.

going it alone is not a republican or neocon invention, but they are pushing it rather hard at the moment.

Nbadan
09-01-2004, 04:39 AM
please,the last democratic president who had any colation of value was fdr.

One word - Bosnia.

spurster
09-01-2004, 10:22 AM
I believe if there was a Democrat president the views of the posters in this thread on Iraq would be reversed.
<big fat lie>Yes, there was very little Democratic opposition to Vietnam while LBJ was president.</big fat lie> So far, what I am surprised at is the level of GOP unity. Maybe I shouldn't be. The Democrats were unified in 1964 early in the Vietnam War when they still thought that war was winnable.

Tommy Duncan
09-01-2004, 10:35 AM
This is not Vietnam.

Yonivore
09-01-2004, 12:04 PM
"One word - Bosnia."
Two words - Air War. Clinton put no skin in the game.