Iraq: The logic of disengagement

[Black Dog]

Given all that has happened in Iraq to date, the best strategy for the United States is disengagement.

The plain fact is that there are not enough aspiring democrats in Iraq to sustain democratic institutions. The Shiite majority includes cosmopolitan figures, but by far its greater part has expressed in every possible way a strong preference for clerical leadership. The clerics, in turn, reject any elected assembly that would be free to legislate without their supervision--and could thus legalize, for example, the drinking of alcohol or the freedom to change one's religion. The Sunni-Arab minority, for its part, has dominated Iraq from the time it was formed into a state, and its leaders have consistently rejected democracy in principle because they refuse to accept a subordinate status. As for the Kurds, they have administered their separate de facto autonomies with considerable success, but it is significant that they have not even attempted to hold elections for themselves, preferring clan and tribal loyalties to the individualism of representative democracy.

[newbie]

Thanks for the link Black Dog. A great article!

[Melanie_]

Here's another dose of the logic of disengagement....

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/...l_date=20051009

[BHS]

Hmm, yes, some peace activist and Gary Trudeau. Guiding lights of foreign policy, to be sure. You started this thread as if disengagement isn't already a goal, which contradicts everything that the Administration has been saying and doing since the end of major combat operations in 2003. There's a difference between disengaging with care and leaving the country a better place, and doing the old Saigon cut'n'run. But repeating 1975 would just make all of the Left's comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam that much more accurate, wouldn't it? Making your own predictions come true?

[Black Dog]

Yeah, BHS, Edward N. Luttwak is a peace activist....

There's a difference between disengaging with care and leaving the country a better place, and doing the old Saigon cut'n'run.

The point of the article is (which would be apparent if you had read it, which it appears you did not) that the notion of "leaving the country a better place" is a hopeless pipe dream. Full blown civil war (as oppossed to the low-level civil war that is occurring right now under the U.S.'s nose) is likely inevitable. It may even be necessary.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

that the notion of "leaving the country a better place" is a hopeless pipe dream.

It is a hopeless pipe dream, as long as the rest of the world sits on thier hands and does nothing. It's easier for other nations to sit back and critize the US for all Iraqs problems, than it is to get involved in solving the problem.

The damage has been done and, whether it was right or wrong, the problem remains that Iraq is torn apart and has no future as a nation. It's people have no future at all. This problem is beyond the US abilities to fix. Not just militarily but on all levels. And if it's not fixed there will be a Gulf War III, IV etc.

We'd have to live in a perfect world for disengagement to work, ( we Don't) do we really think that by the US leaving Iraq that all these badguys are going to take up farming. They left the farm fields to kill infidels, ( thats all us western nations, including Canada)

What the rest of the world needs to do is get involved. With large amounts of cash, troops, reconstruction teams, police, provide a secure envirment not just for those troops, and other agencies involved but a secure enviroment for the people of Iraq. give them running water, power, sewage much needed infra-structure.

Hearts and minds win those and the bad guys will have no reason to fight.

But then again thats a pipe dream as well because we in the west are far better at pionting our fingers than getting involved.

[Black Dog]

It is a hopeless pipe dream, as long as the rest of the world sits on thier hands and does nothing. It's easier for other nations to sit back and critize the US for all Iraqs problems, than it is to get involved in solving the problem.

Tell me, in your view, what is the "problem"?

To me the problem is the core idea that a country with no democratic tradition to speak of, with deep religious, ethnic, sectarian and tribal divisions, with a history of resisting foreign invaders and colonial occupation and a social fabric and civic infrastructure shattered by decades of war and deprivation can be tranformed by a benevolant foreign power into a western style democracy.

What this whole fiasco has shown is that Iraqis of all stripes are universally uninterested in democracy (at least the kind of democracy westerners associate with he word) and more interested in a winner take all scenario. The Sunnis are desperate to retain soem grasp on the power they held under Saddam Hussein. The Shiites want the oil-wealth and an Islamlic government. The Kurds want their own country altogether.

The damage has been done and, whether it was right or wrong, the problem remains that Iraq is torn apart and has no future as a nation. It's people have no future at all. This problem is beyond the US abilities to fix. Not just militarily but on all levels. And if it's not fixed there will be a Gulf War III, IV etc.

This of course begs the question of why Iraq (an artificially created country to begin with) should have a future as a nation. the longer people cling to the idea of a unified, democratic Iraq (despite all evidence indicating such a scenario is, at best, highly unlikely), the worse off Iraq will be.

We'd have to live in a perfect world for disengagement to work, ( we Don't) do we really think that by the US leaving Iraq that all these badguys are going to take up farming. They left the farm fields to kill infidels, ( thats all us western nations, including Canada)

They left to kill infidels who came into their country. Chances are, once the infidels left, they'd either go back to farming, or go on with the business of killing their neighbours. Which they're doing already.

What the rest of the world needs to do is get involved. With large amounts of cash, troops, reconstruction teams, police, provide a secure envirment not just for those troops, and other agencies involved but a secure enviroment for the people of Iraq. give them running water, power, sewage much needed infra-structure.

More troops won't solve the fundamental problems of Iraq. And while I would agree that the establishment of infrastructure is a key element to acheiving stability, I would suggest that an increased foreign prescense would only serve to keep the ant-western flame burning and simply postpone the inevitable civil strife.

[BHS]

What this whole fiasco has shown is that Iraqis of all stripes are universally uninterested in democracy (at least the kind of democracy westerners associate with he word)

Did you miss the whole election thing in January? Millions of ordinary Iraqis going to the polls and proudly displaying their ink-stained fingers despite the strong likelihood of terrorist violence?

[BHS]

Yeah, BHS, Edward N. Luttwak is a peace activist....

There's a difference between disengaging with care and leaving the country a better place, and doing the old Saigon cut'n'run.

The point of the article is (which would be apparent if you had read it, which it appears you did not) that the notion of "leaving the country a better place" is a hopeless pipe dream. Full blown civil war (as oppossed to the low-level civil war that is occurring right now under the U.S.'s nose) is likely inevitable. It may even be necessary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone who posts here knows what your hopes are for Iraq. Violence and distruction and endless chaos just to prove your little political theories correct. Talk about hubris. If you're on the right side of history, then any dreams for a better future (anywhere) are a hopeless waste of time. Why don't you turn that frown upside down, friend? Everything is going to be just fine.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

Everyone who posts here knows what your hopes are for Iraq. Violence and distruction and endless chaos just to prove your little political theories correct.

I wouldn't say they are 'hopes'. To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby (from the TV Series "Yes, Minister"), "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist".

There are two vastly different options, and I think Black Dog sees it too, as to what should happen in Iraq. The first one is to withdraw all foreign forces, and let them sort it out. If Iraqis want 'democracy', and now that Saddam is gone, they shall have to fight for it themselves, and they will have to win. When the dust settles, they will have, (and until then they will never have) the stability brought about by the 'internal' will of the majority. Whatever that may be. If it is secular, pro-western democracy, so be it. If it is not, the 'west' must also deal with it, however the cards fall. That must be, though, as a trader and a mentor, not as an enslaver or occupier.

The other option is a bit unsavoury, but really the only option the US has if it hopes to end eternal conflict over it's, perceived or factual, 'less than truthful' dealings with Islamic and third world nations. That is, overwhelming and brutal force. Outlawing religious law in any country, instituting 'democracy' by force, in every country, whether or not it is perceived as 'a holy crusade against Islam' or any other religion or monarchy. It also must be fought with brutal efficiency, gloves off, lest the outcome be in doubt.

[Black Dog]

Did you miss the whole election thing in January? Millions of ordinary Iraqis going to the polls and proudly displaying their ink-stained fingers despite the strong likelihood of terrorist violence?

So what? An election where the people don't even know who they avoted for, an election where a significant segment of th epopulation (the Sunnis) boycotted the process. A veneer of democracy (such as elections) is no substitute for a real democracy. Even therecent constitutional wrangling has shown there to be little interst in pluralistic, representative government.

[Guest eureka]

It may well be too late for any "solution." Inevitably, now, there will be a Shiite theocratic state - if Iraq can hang together at all. One where the majority is supported by their brethren in Iran.

That will be opposed to the Sunni majority in the surrounding countries. The civil war that so many warned before the Western theocrats invaded now seems to be unavoidable. It could be followed by an explosion of the Middle East of the the two sects.

The best that can be hoped for, in my opinion, is a civil war that does not become a wider conflict.

[Argus]

Did you miss the whole election thing in January? Millions of ordinary Iraqis going to the polls and proudly displaying their ink-stained fingers despite the strong likelihood of terrorist violence?

So what? An election where the people don't even know who they avoted for, an election where a significant segment of th epopulation (the Sunnis) boycotted the process. A veneer of democracy (such as elections) is no substitute for a real democracy. Even therecent constitutional wrangling has shown there to be little interst in pluralistic, representative government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The funny thing about elections with even a veneer of honesty to them is they seem to whet peoples apetites for more. I expect the new Iraqi government to be basically mouthpieces for the Mullahs, and for something approaching a theocratic state (but not as bad as Iran) to follow.

But you know what, the only place in the Muslim world which seems to hold a widespread desire among the people for real democracy, democratic reforms and more freedoms (as opposed to more rigid applications of Islamic laws) is - Iran. Is that strange, or what? The old expression of familairity breeding contempt has its place here, I believe. Yes, the people turned to the Mullahs to oppose the Shah, and supported them in power, for they trusted no one else. But after years of that they have come to realize that the clerics are as fallible, as prone to greed, cruelty, incompetence and corruption, as anyone else. They have seen theocratic rule in Iran, and it no longer has the appeal it once had.

Perhaps Iraqis need to see this for themselves too. It might, in fact, be a phase other Muslim nations have to go through before coming to realize that clerical rule is not the path to salvation. We shall see. But I don't think it will take as long for the Iraqis to come to this understanding as it took the Iranians. Twenty years from now Iran and Iraq might be the beacons of freedom in the Muslim world.

Maybe not, of course. But it's worth a try.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Twenty years from now Iran and Iraq might be the beacons of freedom in the Muslim world.

Maybe not, of course. But it's worth a try.

I hope you are right.

They have seen theocratic rule in Iran, and it no longer has the appeal it once had.

Indeed. The Taleban was fast losing favour in Afghanistan for its rigid application of theocratic rule also, but events made change come from outside, rather than from within. I suppose that is what Black Dog (and many others, including myself) believes in. That change must come from desire, and it must come from within.

Iran didn't need to get invaded to see this, and really, neither did Iraq. Supervised elections in Iraq probably would have accomplished the same thing as invasion, (as there was no 'imminent threat') at at far less cost.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

This of course begs the question of why Iraq (an artificially created country to begin with) should have a future as a nation.

Whether it is Iraq or divided up into small countries everyone needs a nation, something to call home. Yes Iraq was artificially created but that does not make it any less of a nation, you don't need to take ground through conquest to be called a nation.

the longer people cling to the idea of a unified, democratic Iraq (despite all evidence indicating such a scenario is, at best, highly unlikely), the worse off Iraq will be.

It does not have to democratic, (although most western nations will not support most other types of goverments). but it does have to be a goverment that will act in a civilized manner, towards it's people and other nations. and like i said before it does not even have to be unified, although if not, getting 2 or more parties to agree to borders, etc only complicates the whole process all that much more.

They left to kill infidels who came into their country.

Yes, they bought into some cleric's mumblings that the US was there to conquor them to take thier oil etc etc. I think that once some form of goverment is established and the people see that they are not there to enslave them, construction starts and they see the results they may just stop fighting...actions speak louder than words. The US is spread to thin to provide security to the entire nation, without this security construction can not begin. the first one s that need to be educated is the clerics once they stop preaching this hatred the fighting may stop. next is close the borders. Thousands of muslims not from Iraq are fighting in Iraq they need to be educated, or hunted down.

  More troops won't solve the fundamental problems of Iraq. And while I would agree that the establishment of infrastructure is a key element to acheiving stability, I would suggest that an increased foreign prescense would only serve to keep the ant-western flame burning and simply postpone the inevitable civil strife.

No, it won't but without security nothing can get up and running. the security needs to absolute, at all levels military,police. And all the different agencies need to be involved to make this happen, not just construction, but putting back together the entire countries infra structure,from the refinerys to farms. If those fighters don't have anything to lure them back into a different live style they will continue to fight it's all they know. Once this is well under way the Iraqi people will police themselfs, it's amazing what runnig water does to the quality of life.

[Black Dog]

Perhaps Iraqis need to see this for themselves too. It might, in fact, be a phase other Muslim nations have to go through before coming to realize that clerical rule is not the path to salvation. We shall see. But I don't think it will take as long for the Iraqis to come to this understanding as it took the Iranians. Twenty years from now Iran and Iraq might be the beacons of freedom in the Muslim world.

Maybe not, of course. But it's worth a try.

Interesting observation about Iran, Argus. And you know what's even more interesting? The hunger for democracy is coming from within. people who beleive the "regime change" model can lead to the flowering of democracy forget that democratic institutions work best when they are homegrown. Germany and Japan, as Luttwack notes:

"The mass instruction of Germans and Japanese about the norms and modes of democratic governance, already much facilitated by pre-existing if imperfect democratic institutions, was advanced by mass media of all kinds as well as by countless educational efforts. The work was done by local teachers, preachers, journalists, and publicists who adopted as their own the democratic values proclaimed by the occupiers. But the locals were recruited, instructed, motivated, and guided by occupation political officers, whose own cultural understanding was enhanced by much communing with ordinary Germans and Japanese. In Iraq, by contrast, none of this has occurred."

Whether it is Iraq or divided up into small countries everyone needs a nation, something to call home. Yes Iraq was artificially created but that does not make it any less of a nation, you don't need to take ground through conquest to be called a nation.

Curiously, the only people in Iraq who seem to care for the idea of a unified Iraq is the Sunnis, simply becaus ethey have the most to lose.

Experts see grim times ahead -- a torn Iraq -- even if constitution is approved

The constitution, completed after fractious negotiations conducted under American pressure to reach a quick accord, devolves much power from a weakened central government to regional authorities. That's fine with Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, who will get regions rich in oil revenue, but the minority Sunnis are resisting the loss of their long-standing power.

It does not have to democratic, (although most western nations will not support most other types of goverments). but it does have to be a goverment that will act in a civilized manner, towards it's people and other nations. and like i said before it does not even have to be unified, although if not, getting 2 or more parties to agree to borders, etc only complicates the whole process all that much more.

Kinda lowering the bar, ain'tcha?

Yes, they bought into some cleric's mumblings that the US was there to conquor them to take thier oil etc etc. I think that once some form of goverment is established and the people see that they are not there to enslave them, construction starts and they see the results they may just stop fighting...actions speak louder than words. The US is spread to thin to provide security to the entire nation, without this security construction can not begin. the first one s that need to be educated is the clerics once they stop preaching this hatred the fighting may stop. next is close the borders. Thousands of muslims not from Iraq are fighting in Iraq they need to be educated, or hunted down.

I think, given factors such as the U.S. support of Israel over Arab interests and the historical animosity between Islam and Christianity (excrabated today by the "war on terror"), it won't matter what the U.S. does. No matter what they do, they are still invaders, occupiers and infidels.

No, it won't but without security nothing can get up and running. the security needs to absolute, at all levels military,police. And all the different agencies need to be involved to make this happen, not just construction, but putting back together the entire countries infra structure,from the refinerys to farms. If those fighters don't have anything to lure them back into a different live style they will continue to fight it's all they know. Once this is well under way the Iraqi people will police themselfs, it's amazing what runnig water does to the quality of life.

I agree, but that isn't the counter-insurgency model the U.S has followed.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Curiously, the only people in Iraq who seem to care for the idea of a unified Iraq is the Sunnis, simply becaus ethey have the most to lose.

Which is why massive investment is going to be required, to create some sort of industry, or cash generating product.

Kinda lowering the bar, ain'tcha?

Yes, but what choice is there most are not receptive to a democratic system, and a democratic goverment that is controled by religion is not democratic. Let them choose what form of goverment they want, with some guide lines of course. It might be easier for them to swallow, and put into action.

I think, given factors such as the U.S. support of Israel over Arab interests and the historical animosity between Islam and Christianity (excrabated today by the "war on terror"), it won't matter what the U.S. does. No matter what they do, they are still invaders, occupiers and infidels.

That is why it has to be global, not just troops/ agencies from the west but involing more arab countries as well. Your right the US does not have a good Arab repore but it can not be done without them. It was to be made very clear that this force is not invading or occuping set out diffent time lines for construction, withdrawal etc.

.

I agree, but that isn't the counter-insurgency model the U.S has followed

Actually it's pretty close, they have said that first security was going to be establish, ( something that has not be accomplished) then construction could start. Don't get me wrong construction and repairs to infra structure are on going but with military CBT Engineers doing it. what is needed is massive reconstruction projects and give these people a job other than killing infidels. Money is another quality of life matter that could make all the difference.

[newbie]

Which is why massive investment is going to be required, to create some sort of industry, or cash generating product.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, think Iraqi oil and Haliburton.

[Army Guy]

We were talking about if the country of Iraq was split up, there is no oil most of the Sunni sector.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

Twenty years from now Iran and Iraq might be the beacons of freedom in the Muslim world.

Maybe not, of course. But it's worth a try.

I hope you are right.

They have seen theocratic rule in Iran, and it no longer has the appeal it once had.

Indeed. The Taleban was fast losing favour in Afghanistan for its rigid application of theocratic rule also, but events made change come from outside, rather than from within. I suppose that is what Black Dog (and many others, including myself) believes in. That change must come from desire, and it must come from within.

It is always best if change comes from within. Unfortunately, it sometimes is just not possible. Still, change WILL come from within, for it to work. All the US has done is knocked out the dictatorship which was so settled and so powerful that change was virtually impossible to even consider, much less impliment. The new government will be something of a dictatorship, I suspect, but it won't have the roots and power of the old, and if the Iraqi people start getting restless, as the Iranians have, then change will come. Not immediately, perhaps, but it will. This is, in part, the result of having a government which at least pretends (and to some extent believes) that it is doing what is in the best interest of the people. It's difficult to be as universally tyrannical as someone like Sadaam.