« Respect Whose Authority? | Main | Crawl to War »

They Made a Civil War and Called it Victory

01 Nov 2007 01:50 pm

Ilan Goldenberg asks what's the president' strategy for Iraq:

Iraq still does not have a functional central government. Half of the cabinet has quit and the national government has essentially given up on reconciliation. Moreover, the Iraqi government opposes the Administration’s “bottom up” approach in Anbar and has been actively working to undermine it. It is also not clear how the approach in Anbar, where American forces and Sunni tribes agreed to fight foreign extremist elements, translates to the rest of the country. It does not explain how warring Shi’a factions who are fighting a civil war in the South might reconcile or how to overcome the conflict between Kurds and Arabs over Kirkuk. In effect, while the central government is willing to work with the United States and the Sunni tribes are willing to work with the United States, there is no indication that they are willing to work with each other. If these questions are not addressed, the situation in Iraq may deteriorate further and in the long run we may find that the arming, organizing, and training of various Sunni and Shi’a groups will only exacerbate the civil war.

Seems like a problem. Of course, insofar as you create a situation where you have three different factions who all dislike and distrust each other more than they dislike and distrust the United States, then you've laid the groundwork for a situation in which a long-term American military presence will be tolerated, if not exactly welcomed. This is one of the paradoxes of our current policy in Iraq. Insofar as the establishment of permanent military facilities in Iraq is one of the goals of the policy, national reconciliation is probably a bad thing since a unified Iraq would be more likely to tell us to get lost.

Share This

Comments (13)

I'm not sure why anyone is even bothering asking serious questions about Iraq relating to American strategy. It's obvious what the strategy is--remove the Iraq conflict come from the position it holds in the American consciousness until there is nothing left but spun numbers and bad voices saying bad and negative things about the numbers. No images, no reports, no worries, no outside existence, nothing else.

This is all prelude to Iran, which is going to be a war fought without anyone speaking of it at all without first granthing themselves the a priori absolution to make the conflict work. It's going to be the flag for the sociopaths who want it, and unfathomable ignorance for the rest. Iran will be a blameless deathless question mark the moment the first bomb hits.

Now we are getting somewhere. The meaning of the phrase success in Iraq as understood by most of us is different from its meaning in the minds of those who do not waver from their insistence that we must continue to pour our resources into this fiasco.

For Bush, success in Iraq has for some time now meant anything that doesn't force me to tacitly concede I'm the most disgraceful president of the modern era. He'll keep is finger in the dyke until Jan. 2009 and then spend the rest of his days blaming the Democrats.

Bill-

Doesn't fly. Unfortunately, this war has a lot of fingerprints on it besides Bush's.

Victory means a dysfunctional Iraq for the next 30 years.

He'll keep is finger in the dyke until Jan. 2009...

FYI: the preferred spelling's "dike." For most readers, spelling it with a "y" will conjure a visual image fairly different from the "little Dutch boy" that was probably intended.

Victory in Iraq Defined, from the November 2005 National Strategy for Victory in Iraq:

  • In the short term:
    • An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
  • In the medium term:
    • An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
  • In the longer term:
    • An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
    • An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
    • An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

The strategy was presented in a major televised speech at the Naval Academy. Unless and until he repudiates this strategy, President Bush should be held accountable to it.

This reminds me of the realization I had about Bush's Iran policy. It makes no sense to attack Iran when unlike other countries they have the means and gumption to fight back by funding greatly increased terrorist attacks. Unless an increase in terrorist attacks is seen as not necessarily a bad thing for supporters of an imperial executive and police-state powers at home.

Paradox? What is it about divide and conquer that you find paradoxical?

Paradox? What is it about divide and conquer that you find paradoxical?

I don't think it is flippant to separate the Presidents strategy in Iraq from the real strategy in Iraq. With the complication that the second isn't one strategy but many. There are various military strategies, multiple political ones among players in both parties. The strategies of the ideological true believers who of course play a role in all the above.

Well I guess I am arguing that there is no strategy. Which isn't really a bad thing as far as our empire builders think. For as was famously said they create new realities all the time and strategies are not fluid enough for that.

Iraq doesn't deserve a strategy because it's a sideshow. Differing tactic,ad hoc will do. The one overarching strategy is continued US Political, military and financial supremacy over the globe.

Will we throw Turkey or the Kurds under the bus? Check in next week. Mursharoff or Butto, ditto.

Matt: "Insofar as the establishment of permanent military facilities in Iraq is one of the goals of the policy, national reconciliation is probably a bad thing since a unified Iraq would be more likely to tell us to get lost."

Well, duh!

The establishment of permanent bases is a SIDE ISSUE. It's not a goal, it's how you ACHIEVE a goal.

The goal is domination of the ME and control of the oil.

To do this, you have to attack Iran and Syria as well as Iraq. That's obvious. The little problem of the insurgency in Iraq and the collapse of the Iraqi state is a minor issue to people like Cheney and Bush.

Like I keep saying, these guys DO NOT DO STRATEGY. They do INTENTION. They don't care HOW things get done, all they care about is that "somebody" DOES them.

Everybody knows Rumsfeld was, to quote Colonel Hackworth, an "arrogant asshole". And that was why he overrode the Pentagon advisers who said we needed more troops.

Well, so are Bush and Cheney. They DO NOT CARE that an attack on Iran will cause major problems for the US military, for the US economy, for the region, or anything else.

They have a specific set of interests that have to do with money and power. That's it. Nothing else is relevant to them. If they get push back, they find a way around it.

Remember when somebody told Cheney that Congress might pass a bill preventing authorization for war with Iran? Cheney said, "That won't stop us."

That is how these people are running things now.

Rapier has it exactly right. There is no "strategy" - only intention. People who keep pondering what the "strategy" is are WAY behind the curve. Like that administration guy said, they're part of the "reality-based community" that "reacts" while Bush and Cheney are the people who act.

He's right. The problem for the rest of us is that Bush and Cheney do not care how their actions affect the rest of the world.

Get it through your heads: THEY DO NOT CARE. All they care about is money and power. Period. End of story.

But very few people are willing to deal with the cognitive dissonance of having elected a bunch of war criminals and war profiteers to run their country and have power over everybody. So they deny it and search endlessly for some meaning to it all. The pundits like Matt all scratch around in chicken entrails trying to figure out why Bush and Cheney are doing what they're doing when the simplest, most obvious answer is that they WANT TO FOR THEIR OWN REASONS - which reasons are purely and simply MONEY and POWER.

Get a goddamn clue. We're screwed. Deal with it.

Well, here are the civilian casualty figures for October - four times the official Iraqi figure which was 200-plus:

Deadly month in Iraq dulls US claims of progress
887 Iraqis killed in October, up from 840 in September
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=86454

While that IS close to a 50% drop compared with the highest totals for the year, which were averaging 1500 or more most of the year, or even August which was around 1700, the uptick doesn't bode well.

I'm also not sure the figure is correct, since I listed more than 200 each on two separate four-day periods over the last week or so. Based on that sample, the figure should be closer to 1,500-1,600 which would be in line with August. I'm too lazy to try to backtrack the figures for the whole month of October.

Thursday figures:

At least 61 Iraqis were killed and 45 more were wounded during a series of bombings in the capital and elsewhere. Also, three American service members were killed in separate events.

Bottom line: extrapolate the 40-60 casualties a day times 30 days, and you get 1,200 to 1,800 any way you look at it. Which is not a 50% drop except in the sense that the high figures were probably under counted, too.

And that figure doesn't count the underreporting caused by bodies that aren't found, are buried immediately with no death certificates or reporting, and the like. Assume at least ten percent more than is reported, if not more.

All of which is irrelevant to any claimed "progress" anyway. Get the figures down under 100 or even 200 and it might be reasonable to claim progress - or at least "exhaustion" on the part of the killers...

And none of which is relevant to the basic civil conflict - the Shia and Sunnis are still locked in a struggle, regardless of the casualty rates. The best any drop in casualties would indicate would be the suggestion that "exhaustion" on the part of one or both parties has set in.

As I said before, only the empowerment of the lesser side - the Sunnis - in terms of numbers or strategic advantage somehow - or exhaustion will halt the civil war. And only the engagement of the Sunnis in the government - in other words, giving them a sufficient cut of the action - will halt the insurgency at all.

The civil war and the insurgency, remember, are not the same thing. The civil war is between Sunnis and Shia. The insurgency is between the Sunnis and the Shia government and the US occupation. Solving the civil war doesn't solve the insurgency, at least against the US. However, solving the insurgency is unlikely without solving the civil war, as the Sunnis will continue to fight the government until the Shia make an accommodation with them.

And if an accommodation is made, then both sides will turn on the US and force the US out. That is a dead certainty, no matter what else happens.

Permanent bases in Iraq simply aren't going to happen, no matter how much Bush and Cheney wish for it.


Comments closed November 15, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.