A Surge of Podcasts

Brian Katulis from the Center for American Progress and Ilan Goldenberg from the National Security Network talk with some members of the press about the risks that the "Awakening" movement in Iraq will undermine the prospects for political consensus and national unity there. Here's a paper by Goldenberg and another one by Katulis going into greater depth about the issues they're discussing.

To boil it down, though, what we're basically seeing is an increasing fragmentation of political power and weapons and thus a multiplication of the real and potential lines of conflict.

Comments

The best chances for the United States in Iraq - and these chances are poor both in the sense that their result is not good and also in the sense that even worse results are more likely - would be for Iraq to evolve into a situation much like the pre-1745 Scottish Highlands.

In those pre-Culloden days, the Crown kept the unruly clans, such as the MacDonalds and the MacGregors, in check by securing the aid of other clans, such as the Campbells and the Gordons.

So read Rob Roy and hope for the best.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | February 13, 2008 3:14 PM

What about the risks that a premature American withdrawal will "undermine the prospects for political consensus and national unity there"? This sounds like a set-up for a "stabbed in the back" defense. In the event Democrats listen to their base and pull the plug on Iraq, and Iraq deteriorates into an all-out sectarian war, Democrats will claim that the policies that dramatically reduced sectarian conflict in 2007 were responsible for the deterioration, not the precipitous American withdrawal.

Posted by Juan | February 13, 2008 3:27 PM

"Democrats will claim that the policies that dramatically reduced sectarian conflict in 2007 were responsible for the deterioration, not the precipitous American withdrawal."

And they will be right - because the sectarian conflict has not been "dramatically reduced" due to US policies, but a convergence of Iraqi actions. These include the more or less completion of sectarian cleansing from most areas, as well as the stand down of the Mehdi Army for al-Sadr's own reasons, as well as the "Awakening" movement which is little more than the Sunni insurgency taking advantage of an American "welfare program" for their insurgents while they regroup, rearm and prepare to try to seize the Iraqi government.

None of this is sustainable, and that is beginning to become apparent as violence begins to increase again in Baghdad and elsewhere, the "Awakening" Councils are beginning to throw their weight around against the Shia authorities, and al-Sadr contemplates whether he will extend his cease fire against the advice of many of his associates.

I don't see there being any multiplication of the factions (other than al-Sadr having lost control of a certain percentage of his movement). The same group of factions are still exactly where they were this time last year. The Shia are still in charge of the government, with the (grumbling) assistance of the Kurds. The Sunnis are still pissed and still confident they can regain control of the government - especially now that they have a 100,000 strong movement in the "Awakening" Councils, as well as the rest of the insurgency. al-Sadr and some other nationalists are working toward capturing the parliamentary elections in 2009 with an eye to overthrowing the US puppet government and kicking the US out, possibly with the assistance of the Iranian-backed Shia parties.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is on the run, but still viable and may well come back, since if the "Awakening" Councils don't get what they want, they've said they will stop working against AQI for the Americans and go back to being an official "insurgency".

Anybody who thinks a $300/month "welfare program for insurgents" is a viable strategy for the long term - or even long enough to produce some sort of "reconciliation" - is on crack.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 14, 2008 2:10 AM

There's plenty of room for criticism of our clumsy performance in Iraq over the last eighteen years, but the solution is not going to be pulling out, closing our eyes, and hoping it goes away. Iraq is the keystone in a region of vital national interest as established in offcial US policy since Jimmy Carter. Until we have a legitimate alternative to cheap Persian Gulf crude as the energy source underlying the entire industrialized world's economy, we need to persist in our attempts to bring a reasonable level of stability there.

The interests of the US, and by extension of the civilized world, do not require that Iraq become some sort of civic nirvana. A reasonably democratic, reasonably stable state or states in any of several configurations that's at peace with its neighbors, not beavering away on wmd's, and pumping oil is not an impossible expectation. We won't get that by ignoring history and economics in the name of self-congratulatory narcissism on the part of narrow partisans of either leftist utopianism or simple isolationism.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 14, 2008 5:07 AM

Powell, shut the fuck up with your "cut-and-paste" renditions of "national interests", "ignoring history" and the rest of your crap.

Nobody buys it here - and probably no where else except Rush Limbaugh's site.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 14, 2008 5:17 PM