If there is one thing we have learned about Iraq during the last decade, it is that violence is a direct reflection of the political process or lack thereof. When politics was dysfunctional in 2003-2007, violence skyrocketed. Once the success of the surge kicked in, the political process began to function again and various factions could resolve their disputes with back-room deals rather than with bombs and rockets. Now that U.S. troops have pulled out, the political process is fraying once again. Consider the events of just the past few days.
Vice President Tariq Hashimi, a leading Sunni moderate, is in internal exile in the Kurdish region; he fears if he returns to Baghdad he will be seized by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s security forces and put on trial on what he says are trumped up charges of terrorism; he accuses the Maliki government of torturing his aides to produce phony confessions. At the same time, Maliki is moving to remove Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al Mutlaq, another Sunni, from office for (ironically) accusing Maliki of running a nascent dictatorship. Sunni provinces are openly pushing for more autonomy from Baghdad. The Iraqiya coalition, which represents secular nationalists including many Sunnis, is boycotting parliament. Maliki is threatening to kick them out of the government altogether and effectively rule without Sunni participation.
It is hardly surprising that amid what is the most severe crisis Iraq has faced since 2007 violence is breaking out: Earlier today a series of car bombs and other explosive devices went off across Baghdad, killing more than 60 people and wounding at least 160. These sorts of explosives are the hallmarks of Sunni insurgents. This may be seen as their riposte to Maliki’s high-handed dealings with Sunni leaders, and a warning that if the prime minister does not adopt a more inclusive approach the Sunnis may go to the mattresses again.
That would be a catastrophe–it would mean the revival of the civil war which was barely snuffed out in 2007-2008 by the presence of more than 150,000 U.S. troops. With no U.S. troops, there is nothing left to prevent an even worse explosion this time around–a conflagration which could easily merge with the war already going on in next-door Syria to produce a regional catastrophe. This is the direct result of President Obama’s failure to negotiate an agreement that would allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq past this year.
The lack of U.S. troops removes a major source of American leverage. But there are other pressure points that still exist and could be utilized if the administration chooses to do so. Team Kagan (Fred and Kim Kagan) summarize some options in this Weekly Standard post:
The U.S. should immediately threaten to withhold assistance, including the shipment of military aircraft Iraq recently ordered, if Maliki does not back down and adhere to the commitments he made to the Sunni bloc. Washington should engage Ankara energetically to enforce a common front toward the Kurds. Kurdish parliamentarians—and security forces—remain key players in this drama, but they have been acting selfishly and fearfully, always with one eye on the door out of Iraq and into independence. Many Kurdish leaders apparently believe that even if the U.S. will not back them, Turkey will. But it is no more in Turkey’s interest than in ours to see Iraq once more in flames. Now is the time for some smart power in the region.
Above all, however, now is the time to show that this administration actually cares about what happens in Iraq. It is not enough for the vice president to phone it in. The secretary of state should go to Baghdad, not to celebrate our withdrawal, but to play an active role in mediating the aftermath. Obama should invite Maliki and his Sunni and Kurdish counterparts to a summit somewhere in the West to hash this out.
That’s good advice, but taking it would force the president to back away from his “Mission Accomplished” narrative and acknowledge that Iraq is not actually, as he claimed on Dec. 12, “sovereign, self-reliant and democratic.” Instead, Iraq is in a state of crisis that threatens to undo the democratic accomplishments of recent years. If Obama does not act, and fast, he could be presiding over the biggest disaster in an administration that has had more than its share of them.
The Sunnis may be prepared "to go to the mattresses" ? What does that mean? The Sunnis will start pro-creating like crazy? The Sunnis will take out all the money hidden under their mattresses? n nDid you mean go to "the mat" ?
Godfather reference
I get the feeling more and more that the Middle East might be one of those cases where things will never get better until they have first gotten alot worse. n nIf so, the U.S. should be arming Israel to the teeth and making it very clear that the U.S. will back Israel to the hilt if there is any military strike attempted. Next, the U.S. should go on an aggressive, covert campaign to get rid of Assad and support pro-Western forces in Syria. Finally, the U.S. should make it clear to Turkey that we do not condone their incursions into Kurdish Iraq and we should covertly supply the Kurds there with weapons to withstand the inevitable civil war that is coming and be ready to send forces there on humanitarian grounds if it looks like the Kurds are threatened with being overrun. When the smoke clears and the crazies in the Middle East have had enough with killing each other, the survivors may be ready at long last to accept U.S. help. Until then, the madness may have to play itself out.
Agree with the thrust of your argument but I wonder if the crazies will ever tire of killing each other. And this President is not likely to do much to alleviate any danger to Israel.
Which is why 2012 is so important. And also why the jewish vote cannot be fooled again by Obama.
There are no Pro-Western forces to speak of in Syria.
Not true. n nBut, for the sake of argument, assuming that there are no "pro-western" forces at this point does not mean that there can never be such forces. The hard fact is that people align themselves according to their self-interests. Up to now, the U.S. has been a shameful supporter of the Assad regime and has shown itself to be in retreat since 2009. If the leader of the free world is acting this way, why would anyone in their right mind look to us for help? And yet there are signs that Syrians are asking for U.S. help in their struggle against Assad. The challenge for the U.S. is to find credible groups of resistance in Syria who have a vested interest in receiving U.S. support— i.e. who need our help— and are willing to act in ways that coincide with U.S. interests. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Sometimes this is a minority that fears attacks from the majority and with our backing can defend itself and be at least part of the national conversation or part of a ruling coalition. The point is to do something. For all its problems, the U.S. still has unmatched resources and capabilities and that is extremely attractive to those in Syria who are fighting for their lives. Most of this is covert. Unfortunately, the CIA has decimated its human intelligence capabilities, so we have to go begging to other countries for human intel. Smarter diplomacy and smarter policy begins with great intelligence. We have a lot of rebuilding to do.
I propose a better solution, how about we forget about trying to run the affairs of other countries that are imbued with an Islamic culture we have no hope of changing? That is the true lesson of Iraq. We could stay another 10 years and the result MIGHT be a semi-stable oppressive regime operating under Sharia law in a manner that is antithetical to our values. That is not worth the lives of our soldiers or our treasure. Lesson learned, whatever is going to be is going to be in these Muslim hellholes. If one of them threatens us directly we take them out, otherwise screw it.
As tempting as your solution seems, it is simply not an option for the U.S. unless we are truly prepared to give up many of our freedoms, most of our wealth and all of our national dignity. n nI am not talking about "trying to run the affairs of other countries" but simply exercise whatever influence we can, where we can. There are many, many ways to do this that do not involve ground forces as in Iraq. As I said in my original post, it may be best to simply allow the crazies in the Middle East to exhaust themselves against each other, whether that takes a year or a decade. But the U.S. cannot remove itself from the world entirely. That is an isolationist fantasy and a juvenile one at that. We could certainly be far less vulnerable to the crazies if we had used the last 10 years to explore and develop our unbelievably rich energy resources here in the U.S. But everyone moans and complains that these muslim countries are incapable of democracy based on the assumption that it must look just like ours. That is the real crime. Not that we went into Iraq or A-stan— those were necessary operations– but that we went in and then decided it was our burden to make them into a Western-style democracy with independent elections. n nI agree with you as far as responses to direct threats, but it is in our interest to cultivate an appetite in these countries for freedom however long that takes. But we need not follow the well-meaning but stupid models of Iraq or A-stan to do so.