Iraq Blowback?

I think the hypotheticals and speculation in the second half of the article get a bit out of control, but Douglas MacGregor's basic concerns about where we're really heading with our "sheikhs for sale" approach to relations with Iraq's Sunni Arab community are sensible, and it's interesting to hear from some officers with experience in Iraq who share concerns I've heard from a lot of outside analysts. The basic issue is that it seems likely that sooner or later our new friends will decide that it's time to once again step up activities -- maybe against the Shiite government, maybe against US forces, maybe against the Kurds in Kirkuk or Mosul -- that will create problems for us.

MacGregor spins out a scenario where things get totally out of hand and the American position becomes unsustainable. And that could happen. But I think it should be acknowledged that the military's been pretty savvy about always managing to pivot pragmatically to avoid that outcome, even though it's seemed to be approaching several times (most famously, during the dual Falluja and Najaf insurgencies). That pattern could break down in the future, but it could also hold up. The trouble is that the war's rationale has become circular -- "success" means success at putting the military engagement on a sustainable basis. We're fighting for the ability to keep on fighting. But sustaining that posture keeps making the United States and our position in the world as a whole weaker and weaker.

Still, MacGregor's specific concerns is one of the ways in which that's the case. We're strengthening groups that don't share any particular loyalty to the United States and with whom we don't have any particular deep bonds of culture, values, or interests. That strength could just as easily be directed against us or our friends tomorrow.

Comments

In the Turkish blockbuster Valley of the Wolves Iraq, a small Turkish force heroically battles an evil U.S. military commander and his troops. In Metal Storm, a recent best-selling work of fiction, an all-out war between Ankara and Washington in 2007 is described, a war Turkey wins with the aid of Russian and European support.

Forget about Orhan Pamouk, those sound like Turkish novels I'd like to read. Anyone know if they've been translated into English?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 12, 2007 2:43 PM

Valley of the Wolves you can download here:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/942363
it's just a shoot-em-up where Americans and Kurds are the bad guys.

Posted by abb1 | December 12, 2007 2:52 PM

Patrick Cockburn of the Independent covers much of the same ground.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/revisiting_iraqs_salience.php#comment-965765

Posted by El Cid | December 12, 2007 3:11 PM

The "sheikhs for sale" are yesterdays tribal leaders and by tuesday could got back to being called war lords, insurgents, terrorist, and maybe branded AQ. There is no trust in the sunni bush relationship and this is why it will fail. I think what really scares the sunnis is the speech Sadr gives declaring them colaborators/traitors.

Posted by tin foil | December 12, 2007 3:28 PM

Osama couldn't design a better strategy to keep us tied down in Iraq until we are bankrupt.

Posted by Th | December 12, 2007 4:19 PM

We're fighting for the ability to keep on fighting. But sustaining that posture keeps making the United States and our position in the world as a whole weaker and weaker.

While making a small number of extremely influential people richer and richer.

Oops, I did it again.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | December 12, 2007 4:24 PM

Matt finally references an article I sent him. Will wonders never cease?

I agree that conflict between the US and Turkey is unlikely, as is conflict between the Sunnis and the Kurds (at least until the Sunni-Shia conflict is resolved, if ever.)

But the article's main point is that there simply is no upside to the situation created in Iraq. We have a bunch of Sunni insurgents on "US welfare" while they rearm and regroup and al-Sadr building up his Mahdi Army in preparation for future war against the Sunnis and the US occupation.

And nothing on the horizon even hinting at a resolution of this to anyone's benefit.

To call this a "success" is mind-bogglingly stupid.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 12, 2007 7:35 PM

The military's been "pretty savvy" about pivoting strategically? You mean like last year when we had to send all the extra troops we could find to keep them from being drop-kicked out of Iraq altogether?

Spending a billion a week and having 60,000 casualties after four years is not what I call "pretty savvy". Leaving by helicopter from the rooftops is not a "strategic pivot".

And yes, the local guys will lead us around by the ring in our nose and then kick us in the butt if it makes their audience laugh. It's a tradition going back to Chiang Kai Shek, or even further...

Posted by serial catowner | December 12, 2007 7:56 PM

Important to this discussion is why we invaded Iraq to begin with. Pentagon neocons, who were actually Israel strategists, aimed to trash/destabilize Iraq to benefit Israel and then move on to Iran, Syria, etc. They were, as is ever the case, cheered on by omnipresent war profiteers and hopeful would-be looters (the loot being the $32 trillion oil reserves Iraq sits on). We have achieved the Israel Lobby's purpose but need to stay on our permanent bases to make sure the looters get their oil contracts. Meanwhile the war profiteers keep profiting.

Posted by Sabine Wales | December 12, 2007 10:41 PM

I just don't think Sabine Wales has any evidence for those assertions.

Yes there will always be war profiteers.

"Pentagon neocons, who were actually Israel strategists,"

really? Where's the evidence? Sharon told Bush not to allow the elections to go ahead in the occupied territories but Bush overruled him and Gaza got a Hamas governemnt.

" (the loot being the $32 trillion oil reserves Iraq sits on)."

Oil prices are set by the global market (and OPEC), do you think it's really so simple as an American oil company wanting the "loot" to up their profits and stock prices? They just want to make sure the global economy has a steady, reliable supply of oil.

"benefit Israel and then move on to Iran, Syria, etc."

Syria has been behaving so well lately, assassinating Lebanese politician after politician, and now a general.

Posted by Peter K. | December 13, 2007 10:27 AM

And Sabine completely ignores the Sunni Arab states, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, etc.

They are, ostensibly, pro-Palestinian, but anti-Iranians.

NPR's bureau chief is pessimistic, b/c she sees the Shia government as not willing to reconicle with the Sunni groups.

Saudi Arabia vows to come full-in on the Iraqi Sunnis side if the Americans leave. No doubt that will turn out well.

Posted by Peter K. | December 13, 2007 10:48 AM

Peter K: In the March 24,2003 issue of "The American Conservative," Patrick Buchanan, (in the cover article entitled "Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interest,") writes, "What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel." As mentioned in George Packer's book "The Assassins' Gate" p. 444-445, Colin Powell, upon leaving office, tells Bush that "the Defense Department had too much power in shaping foreign policy," and he specifically pinpointed Defense Dept. #3 official Douglas Feith, whom Powell called "a card-carrying member of the Likud Party." Feith's role in the dissemination of the false intelligence which pushed us into war, and Feith's Israel connections are detailed in James Bamford's book "A Pretext for War."

Posted by Sabine Wales | December 13, 2007 8:46 PM