Steve Simon has a great article in Foreign Affairs putting things like the "awakening" strategy in a proper historical and strategic context, arguing that rather than a success in a state-building mission in Iraq we're bolstering the centripetal forces that are tearing the country apart: "The problem is that this strategy to reduce violence is not linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state. If anything, it has made such an outcome less likely, by stoking the revanchist fantasies of Sunni Arab tribes and pitting them against the central government and against one another. In other words, the recent short-term gains have come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq."
« Margin of Victory | Main | Guard Your First Born! »
Brewing Instability
19 Apr 2008 11:03 am
Comments (20)
Divide and conquer
Who said that our long term goal was a stable, unitary Iraq? You don't invade and occupy countries that are no threat to your own, unless you mean to conquer and rule. And you rule another nation by dividing it into warring factions, not by uniting it.
don't you mean "[centrifugal] forces that are tearing the country apart"?
(/obnoxious pedantry)
"The problem is that this strategy to reduce violence is not linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state.
It is linked to a sustainable plan to hand the next administration the dirty diaper, though.
And the demise of a unitary Iraq is deemed an acceptable price to pay to achieve that result.
mercurino,
If I remember my college physics aright, there is no such thing as centrifugal force. The affect is actually due to inertia. Centripetal force is what counteracts the tendency of the object in circular motion to fly off.
This said, centripetal force would be a good thing, actually holding the country together.
(/more obnoxious pedantry)
Tactics that cause short-term declines in violence but will lead to long-term instability will make it much easier to blame the defeatocrats for "losing" Iraq, since the consequences will really start manifesting during the next (presumably dem) presidency. Having Iraq completely fall apart during a dem administration is a feature, not a bug.
Also,
http://xkcd.com/123/
Anyone who uses "revanchist" in a paragraph certainly is well on their way towards persuading me.
Tactics that cause short-term declines in violence but will lead to long-term instability will make it much easier to blame the defeatocrats for "losing" Iraq, since the consequences will really start manifesting during the next (presumably dem) presidency. Having Iraq completely fall apart during a dem administration is a feature, not a bug.
Also,
http://xkcd.com/123/
Don't worry, Scott. We'll be sending over goons to beat you with objects in circular motion.
Ahem. I can't get all that excited about this article. Our strategy is counter-productive? Dog bites man.
Urbell, if the GOP can pin failure in Iraq on the Dems I will move to Sweden, claiming to be a refugee of a failed state.
I won't be surprised if the Democrats take the fall, because they're setting themselves up for it. Instead of pointing out that Bush's objectives for Iraq aren't realistic, they are claiming those objectives will actually be achieved by withdrawal.
Be nice if Simon would do his own research and not rip, without citation, the work of others on Iraq. i.e. the interference of trade networks along highway 10 as a basis of the "Sunni awakening." Read MERIP, summer 2007.
Hedley,
If the Democrats end up getting blamed for Iraq's state, and the people accept this, then really, America isn't a failed state, but a perfect fulfillment of democracy a la Mencken, that the people will get what they want, and they will get it good and hard.
So?
Who needs a "unitary Iraq"?
Good lord, this is news?
Anyone who read their Max Weber or Charles Tilly (1992), or failing that, read Nir Rosen's piece in a recent Rolling Stone, knows this and saw this coming.
You don't arm and fund subnational violent actors when trying to raise the capabilities of the center.
Well, Robert, Iraqis who happen to live in the "wrong" sectarian neighborhood might like to see a unitary Iraq, as the alternative from their perspective is either fleeing or being killed. That's what the creation of separate statelets by means of ethnic cleansing involves.
Of course, if you look at it purely from a U.S. strategic perspective, a fragmented Iraq is not ideal, compared to an Iraq with a strong pro-U.S. central government, but it is not necessarily a disaster. Certainly better than letting some anti-imperialist populist nationalists take over.
Things look much rosier if you simply don't place any value on Iraqi lives. It's almost enough to make me envy your perspective, Robert.
One thing I've never heard said- the US policy of building concrete walls around neighborhoods with a single checkpoint (which contributed to the reduction in casualties) is likely to have terrible consequences for decades to come.
The consensus among sociologists is that the high-rise low-income housing projects of the 60s/70s were a disaster partly because to enter or leave you had to take the elevators. Making everyone pass through a choke point meant that a small gang of thugs who hung out near the elevator could control who entered or left the building- enabling them to dominate the building, intimidate the other residents, extort money, etc.
The walled neighborhoods, unfortunately, will have the same effect leading to crime and warlordism.
Sadr today gave the Iraqi government "one last warning" - either stop harassing his people or it's "open war until liberation".
Iraq is about to explode. And the US will caught in the crossfire.
America's allies in Iraq under pressure as civil war breaks out among Sunni
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americas-allies-in-iraq-under-pressure-as-civil-war-breaks-out-among-sunni-811801.html
U.S. warns of wave of bombings in Baghdad
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=133727
GIs in Sadr City caught between warring Iraqi sides
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/34185.html
Money Quotes:
Three times that day, the Iraqi army unit just up the road from the house was told to hold its fire because its erratic shots were hitting the house that its American allies occupied.
Three times, the Iraqis kept right on shooting.
"They told them to stop shooting," Lt. Adam Bowen, the platoon leader, told his men of the 3rd platoon, Bravo Company, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division, from Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.
More shots rang out.
"Well, that lasted," said Sgt. David Stine, 28, of Iola, Ill., laughing.
Whatever the origin of Iraq's latest violent convulsions, American soldiers appear to have been dragged into the fight, backing the Shiite government against the Shiite Sadrists.
"It ticks you off it all started as an Iraqi offensive and now . . . it's definitely linked to Basra," said Lt. Col. Dan Barnett, the commander of the 1st Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, who's heading the American efforts in Sadr City. "I don't think it's over."
Bowen's 3rd platoon soldiers liked what they were doing in Taji, but in Sadr City, residents view U.S. soldiers as occupiers and worry that wherever the Americans are, trouble will follow.
"Before we came out here, I considered us peacekeepers, but now we're considered the bad guys," said Staff Sgt. Travis Evans, 33, of Seattle.
The platoon was supposed to stay just 96 hours. Now there's no end in sight.
"I guess we didn't expect this much resistance for their cause," Evans said.
Duh!
"Who needs a "unitary Iraq"?
Posted by Robert Powell | April 19, 2008 3:03 PM"
What war do you think it is you're supporting? The Iraqis want a unitary Iraq. The Sunnis don't want to be cut off from the oil wealth. The Shi'ites want revenge by ruling over the Sunnis. The Kurds want independence, but we don't want to piss of Turkey. The Surge (C) that you support was meant to create the space for political reconciliation to ensure that Iraq would be unified for the foreseeable future. What dimension of reality do you live in?
Powell doesn't believe in reality - only propaganda. He's paid to bullshit on Web sites. See every post he's made here for months now. Same shit every day - he barely changes the wording.
Comments closed May 03, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Tactics unguided by an overarching strategy are doomed to failure? You don't say.
OK, OK. I'll go read the article. I love Foreign Affairs. But geez, haven't we seen this film over and over again since 2001?
Truly, everything King Anti-Midas touches, turns to shit.
Posted by r€nato | April 19, 2008 11:10 AM