Belfast on the Euphrates

Alex Massie has some very interesting thoughts on the light Northern Ireland's recent history sheds on the situation in Iraq. The bottom line, to me, is that if achieving a decent outcome in Iraq is possible, the path to that outcome involves what I would consider unacceptable costs for an unacceptably large amount of time. I'd say there's a reason the Iraq War is always sold as something that'll end in just another Friedman Unit or two -- if people had a sense of the duration being contemplated to execute our policies there, they'd have a fit. And rightly so.

In earlier Iraq/Ireland analogy blogging, I'd recommend this (it's at the end) and especially this from Kieran Healy.

Comments

And there are plenty of reasons why the UK decided to retain Northern Ireland and spend the vast amounts of money and effort doing so that are completely nonexistant in US/Iraq: that the UK has had a history in Northern Ireland for 800+ years, that an once-absolutely integral UK industrial site (Belfast's shipbuilding yards and port)existed in Northern Ireland, that having a Maoist IRA control territory only a few miles from the UK proper was unacceptable, that a sizeable percentage of the Northern Ireland population did at least theoretically want to remain in the UK and plenty of other at least semi-plausible reasons.

Posted by burritoboy | December 12, 2007 2:08 PM

Isn't comapring Ireland and Iraq the same kind of mistake as when the Neocons were comparing Germany/Japan with Iraq. Isn't one big reason we are in this mess the fact that we completely ignored the particular nature of Iraq's culture, politics, and history when making our "plans."

And Just because we have a lull in the violence, doesn't mean anything is settled. The reason we have civil war is that the equilibrium between the three main political factions was disturbed by the removal of Saddam. Until the issues of power and resources are settled, either through violence or politics, there can be no return to equilibrium. Our policing the country and building walls temporarily prevents movement towards equibirum (I really like that word), but it does nothing to solve anything. And I perrsonally believe that there is way more at stake in terms of oil money and tribal lust for revenge for this to be settled by politcs. This is not Ireland.

Posted by cw | December 12, 2007 2:11 PM

This would be more meaningful if it specified the costs and the harm to be prevented. Try this: two divisions permanently deployed in Iraq and 100 U.S. casualties a year (this is about half current levels, so it certainly might happen); 3 million dead (this is Cambodia, which did happen the last time any one listened to the residents of the Upper West Side) and a government which permits terrorist camps in Iraq, from which operations are launched that cost 3000 U.S. lives per decade (this is Afghanistan). Yglesias should say openly that preventing the latter is not worth the former, though I for one would start asking at that point what the army is for.

Posted by y81 | December 12, 2007 2:15 PM

It should be noted that the Troubles didn't end because the insurgency was crushed. It ended because of a political power brokering; power sharing agreements is the lynchpin of it all. And in case you haven't been following it, the power sharing that ended the Troubles nearly fell apart this year. When a minortiy of the population controls 90% of the public offices, including the police department, that is a problem that will lead to "troubles" and will be fixed only through political means. So maybe the lessons that Iraq pundits should learn from this is that, just as the Baker/Hamilton report stated, the key to stopping the insurgency is through diplomacy.

Posted by freddiemac | December 12, 2007 2:26 PM

"a government which permits terrorist camps in Iraq"

Y81,

Why would a Shiite or Sunni-dominated Iraqi government permit Al-Qaeda terrorist camps in their country? Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization, which makes it a threat to a Shiite-dominated government, and Al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq consists of foreign fighters and jihadists who have no stake in a stable Sunni-run Iraq, which makes it a threat to the interests of a Sunni-dominated government.

Besides, it's time for you to update your talking points. After all, didn't the surge succeed in turning the Sunni Iraqis against Al Qaeda, making them our partners in destroying AQI? How can Al Qaeda then succeed in setting up terrorist training camps in Iraq down the road, when even the Sunni Iraqis are opposed to their presence?

Posted by eltoro | December 12, 2007 2:29 PM

"...3 million dead (this is Cambodia, which did happen the last time any one listened to the residents of the Upper West Side)."

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Now we are comparing Iraq to Cambodia. It's this kind of amature thinking in the whitehouse that got us into this mess.

Posted by cw | December 12, 2007 2:37 PM

Y81,

I've got news for you; millions would have died in Cambodia, whether or not we stayed militarily involved for the last 30+ years in Indochina's civil wars between Communists and anti-Communists. Didn't it ever occur to you, while you were loathing your peacenik Upper West Side neighbors, that the bombings we conducted on Cambodia were killing lots of people other than the bad guys? Didn't it occur to you that the same sort of people that the Khmer Rouge killed were also being killed by our bombs? Didn't it occur to you that while we were killing good Cambodians through our bombs, that the Khmer Rouge bad guys were able managed to emerge virtually unscathed (they were very good at hiding in tunnels), and came out stronger every time we bombed? Didn't it occur to you that our ham-fisted intervention in Cambodia's civil war actually created conditions that strengthened the hands of the Khmer Rouge, and paved the way for their genocidal takeover? Finally, didn't it occur to you that genocide happenned in Cambodia because the Khmer Rouge were monsters who betrayed the very people in whose name they fought for, not because we didn't commit our troops to participating in a 30 year civil war that would have sapped our military power the way Afghanistan sapped the militar power of the Soviets?

So unless Pol Pot was one of those upper West Side neighbors of yours, you have no good cause to blame them for the evils perpetuated by the Khmer Rouge.

Posted by eltoro | December 12, 2007 2:54 PM

Another pertinent fact to bear in mind about the Northern Ireland & Iraq comparison; Northern Ireland is officially part of the UK (i.e. the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland), while Iraq is officially a sovereign country that does not belong to the US. Therefore, while the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland regards the British as being a foreign occupier, the Protestant majority do not. On the other hand, in Iraq the Americans are viewed as foreign occupiers by all Iraqis, even by the steadfastly pro-American Kurds.

Therefore, while it would make sense for the UK to engage in an indefinite military occupation of Northern Ireland, it doesn't follow that it makes sense for the US to engage in an indefinite militar occupation in Iraq. The UK occupation of Northern Ireland is akin to a US occupation of Hawaii, if Hawaii experienced an extended period of sectarian violence. The US occupation of Iraq, however, is akin to the involvement of Hapsburg Spain in the Protestant/Catholic sectarian wars that occurred in the German states during the Protestant Reformation.

Considering how the Thirty Years' War helped to sap the strength of imperial Spain during the 16th century, our indefinite involvement in Iraq's sectarian civil war doesn't bode well for our future as a world power.

Posted by eltoro | December 12, 2007 3:17 PM

A minor quibble eltoro, but the Protestants don't hold a majority in Northern Ireland. Though I would imagine the fact that they outnumber Catholics in N. Ireland would be a source of ire in the region (pun intended).

To frame it back to Iraq, one might understand why the Kurds are trying to wrest control of Kirkuk from the Sunni majority, considering history and all.

Posted by freddiemac | December 12, 2007 3:34 PM

Just to clarify, eltoro, I was a peacenik Upper West Sider in the early seventies, when we were pulling out of Southeast Asia. And I don't loathe my Upper West Side neighbors, or I wouldn't live here: I think they're sweet, in their insular, provincial, clueless little way, like hobbits.

Posted by y81 | December 12, 2007 4:10 PM

My heart swells with pride at the knowledge that my government is only 1/3 as bad as Pol Pot.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | December 12, 2007 4:28 PM

Let's take this nonsense point by point:

"two divisions permanently deployed in Iraq and 100 U.S. casualties a year (this is about half current levels, so it certainly might happen)"

No, it will not. Current levels cannot be projected into the future. Also, the longer the US remains, the more resistance against its presence will be generated - unless, for some reason, the two divisions NEVER kill anybody or do ANYTHING to piss ANY Iraqis off. In which case, why are they there?

This is just pure speculative pablum.

"3 million dead (this is Cambodia, which did happen the last time any one listened to the residents of the Upper West Side)"

You have one million dead and two to four million displaced already. If the US pulled out and the civil war resumed, you might get three million dead. If the US remains and the civil war resumes, you get three million dead plus another 3,000 or more US soldiers dead on top of what we have already.

The benefit is where? The presumption that the US is preventing a civil war has been discredited completely. Also, as indicated before, current levels of violence cannot be projected into the future because it is clear that both the Sunnis and Shia are simply regrouping for future conflict at this time. The US presence is almost irrelevant in this process.

"a government which permits terrorist camps in Iraq, from which operations are launched that cost 3000 U.S. lives per decade (this is Afghanistan)."

As others have pointed out above, neither Sunni nor Shia are likely to permit significant numbers of Al Qaeda in the country. Even if they did, what is the cost benefit of putting 160,000 troops - or even two divisions - if they can't do anything about it - as in fact they were unable to do so until recently when they put the Sunni insurgents on "welfare" and let them do the job? This approach is not guaranteed to work in the future.

You expended three thousand US military lives to prevent three thousand civilian lives - except you didn't. You expended three thousand US lives attacking the wrong country AFTER you lost three thousand civilian lives by being FOCUSED on the wrong country. And when you DID attack the "right" country, you bungled that and let everybody concerned escape.

"Yglesias should say openly that preventing the latter is not worth the former, though I for one would start asking at that point what the army is for."

This is a stupid non-sequiter. First you assume the conclusion. Second, there is no evidence you could prevent terrorist attacks launched from Iraq if you HAVE 160,000 troops there (other than the likelihood that Al Qaeda would focus on killing the US citizens closest to them - I guess this means from your comment about "what the army is for" is that they're expendable cannon fodder or bait instead of US citizens.)

Meanwhile, of course, the guys who DID kill three thousand US civilians continue to do what they do because there aren't enough troops to find them (not that the troops could do that anyway because those guys are in Pakistan and our troops are not and can't be for good reasons.)

Not to mention that there WERE NO "terrorists" in Iraq prior to the invasion - which really makes the operation look stupid to anyone with a brain.

"We invaded a country with no terrorists so we could stop those nonexistent terrorists from killing three thousand civilians every ten years by killing three thousand of our soldiers every four years."

Right - I'll buy that for a dollar.

Only if you could prove ANY of your assertions that the US military can do ANYTHING to prevent terrorism ANYWHERE could any of your notions be considered seriously.

As it stand, it's a joke shop concept.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 12, 2007 7:55 PM

Reposting from the earlier Iraq/Ireland thread:

If you could make Baghdad into Belfast as it is now, that would be a miracle. Belfast's got low levels of crime even by the standards of the rest of the UK.

If you could make Baghdad into Belfast as it was during the worst of the Troubles, that would still be a miracle. Even at the worst times, the majority of the population lived a relatively normal life. The electricity and water worked, the police came when you called them, you didn't have to dodge snipers, etc.

Come to that, if you could make Chicago or Los Angeles or Washington or Detroit into Belfast as it was during the Troubles, you'd probably be hailed as the greatest city police chief in US history for your triumph over violence. You'd also have achieved a massive reduction in the number of privately-held firearms.

Also, A minor quibble eltoro, but the Protestants don't hold a majority in Northern Ireland. Though I would imagine the fact that they outnumber Catholics in N. Ireland would be a source of ire in the region (pun intended).

True in religious terms (45% Protestant, 40% Catholic, 1% other, 14% none) but not in "community background" terms - 54% from Protestant backgrounds.

Posted by ajay | December 13, 2007 7:42 AM