THE PLANK AUGUST 3, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A recent dispatch from Iraq by The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller articulated something that has been true for several months now: America has moved on from the Iraq War. Much of the 2008 election was organized around that conflict. Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in large measure by deriding the judgment she showed in supporting the 2003 Iraq war resolution. And John McCain's public embrace of George W. Bush's policies may have doomed his campaign from the start. Few things seemed to exhilarate Obama's supporters more than his firm call for "an end" to the Iraq war. And now, just six months into Obama's presidency, and even before Obama's troop-withdrawal plan has begun in earnest, Iraq has been replaced by Afghanistan as the conflict that will probably define his presidency.
Pinning one's fate on prospects for victory in Afghanistan is daunting enough. It remains unclear, for instance, whether the Obama team has really devised a clear, long-term strategy for success there, or even defined what success might look like. But it may be that Obama will have to try and "win" Afghanistan at the same time he is trying not to "lose" Iraq.
There are two main ways in which Iraq might yet fall apart. The first would be a new sectarian fight: in effect, another round of civil war. The good news is that there is reason to think that sectarianism won't return. The brutal fight war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites didn't end just because of George Bush's "surge" strategy, but because Sunni leaders decided to stop fighting and worked with the U.S. military to drive out al Qaeda. (Al Qaeda attacks, like the 2006 bombing of the Shiite al-Askari Mosque at Samarra, were specifically designed to stoke sectarians.) Moreover, some analysts believe that the Sunnis understand that they have been defeated--that the Shiites now control most of the guns and money, and that it's too late to fight them.
But it's wrong to assume that rational actors will be making the decisions in Iraq as America withdrawals. The killings of the past few years have surely left a deep appetite for revenge. As the military analyst Stephen Biddle recently told NPR, "You cannot reasonably expect that people who were killing each other in large numbers and deathly frightened of one another will simply become tolerant of each other overnight, or even within two years of the most intense phase of the ethno-sectarian conflict." Sunnis have recently been chafing at the central government. Members of the 100,000-strong Sunni Awakening, who worked with U.S. forces against al Qaeda, have recently clashed with Iraqi Security Forces over claims that the Sunnis aren't getting their paychecks--a proxy for deeper distrust among Sunnis for the Shiite-led regime in Baghdad.
The Obama White House is clearly sweating over a potential second civil war. When Vice President Joe Biden, recently tasked by Obama to keep a closer eye on the country, visited Baghdad last month, he warned Iraqi leaders against that American troops wouldn't stick around to police another round of violent Shia-Sunni anarchy. But even if Iraqi leaders were listening, they do not have a monopoly on violence: A few days later, five Shiite mosques were bombed in Baghdad, killing at least 29 people.
Unfortunately, it's not only a replay of the Shia-Sunni killing spree that Obama has to worry about. There's also the very real concern that Iraq's Arabs and Kurds might go to war with one another. The two groups have never co-existed easily--Saddam expressed his feeling about Kurdish bids for independence by dropping poison gas on them. Since the U.S. invasion, the Kurds have played their cards wisely, impressing the Americans with their cooperation and ability to maintain stability in their northern home. But lately Kurdish leaders have asserted their claims to territory and oil reserves in Iraq's northern areas, particularly around the city of Kirkuk. The newly-re-elected Kurdish president, who commands some 80,000 pesh merga fighters, is scoffing at a United Nations proposal to turn Kirkuk into an automous area. Kurdish forces have recently skirmished with Iraqi troops around the city--and things could quickly get uglier if Baghdad comes to believe, as some suggest, that the Kurds are preparing for their long-sought-after independence. (A Sunday meeting between Iraqi President, Nouri al Maliki, and his Kurdish counterpart, Massoud Barzan--the first in a year--was an encouraging sign.)
Facing this delicate and complex situation is an Obama team that is not only juggling foreign challenges from Afghanistan to Iran to North Korea, but which also lacks the Bush team's depth of experience in dealing with Iraq. Obama's new ambassador to Baghdad, Christopher Hill, doesn't speak Arabic and has a background in Eastern Europe and Asia. The White House's top official focused on the Iraq war, General Douglas Lute, recently had his portfolio narrowed to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some Iraq-watchers say that Obama's designation of Biden to focus on Iraq was an acknowledgement that U.S. policy there was suffering from drift. (Another concern: Biden doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to Iraq. He made the twin errors of supporting the war but opposing the surge, and in 2006 he promoted a plan, widely opposed by Iraqis, that would have divided the country into autonomous Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish areas.)
If Iraq does seem to be headed back towards chaos as U.S. troops withdraw, what will Obama do? It's hard to say for sure. During the campaign, he was tonally emphatic about ending America's commitment there. But he has always allowed for revisions based on the judgment of his commanders. It's awfully hard to imagine that surge architect David Petraeus would be willing to watch his gains there disappear in a maelstrom of car bombs and sectarian assassinations. If Petraeus says we need to maintain a substantial troop committment, will Obama defy him?
Moreover, the strategic calculus has changed since Obama unveiled his withdrawal plan in October 2007. Back then, American troops were dying as they policed a civil war that looked nearly impossible to resolve peacefully. Today, however, there's reason to think that it's U.S. troops who are the only thing holding Iraq together.
But Obama's Iraq calculus is complicated by something else: Afghanistan. During the campaign Obama vowed that, "[w]hen we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan." It seems clear that the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, will soon ask Obama for more troops beyond the 68,000 troops who will be in place by fall. Jim Jones has warned U.S. generals that Obama isn't keen on sending more troops to that theater. But Obama himself has called success in Afghanistan critical, and few observers think the U.S. has currently committed the manpower needed to beat back the Taliban. With the Afghan army still years away from being able to stand independently, more U.S. troops will almost certainly needed. And the only place Obama can find those troops is in Iraq.
Ultimately what this means is that Obama may be faced with an excruciating choice: Will he use limited American military resources to stabilize Afghanistan?--or to maintain stability in Iraq? It is, ultimately, not unlike the choice faced by George W. Bush, who neglected Afghanistan not out of stupidity, but because he believed that anarchy in Iraq posed the greater threat to American security. Obama has suggested he believes the opposite to be true. If Iraq starts teetering on the brink of collapse, we'll see how firmly he believes it.
--Michael Crowley
14 comments
Excuse me, Mr. Crowley, but there was no threat of anarchy in Iraq until Bush invaded it and removed its government. Bush stupidly neglected Afghanistan in order stupidly and pointlessly to invade Iraq.
- roidubouloi
August 4, 2009 at 12:24am
"And John McCain's public embrace of George W. Bush's policies may have doomed his campaign from the start."
Yes, but not his Iraq policies. His early embrace of the surge was considered a plus.
The 2008 PRIMARIES may have been about Iraq, but not the election. IIRC there are even a few TNR articles about how neither of the candidates were interested in talking about Iraq.
- Simon Greenwood
August 4, 2009 at 12:30am
So, you tell me: Where does George Bush stop and Barack Obama begin in Iraq?
But then that's like asking where Henry Paulson stops and Tim Geithner begin on Wall Street.
Victory?
Since when has that ever been anything other than what those in power say it is? We live in a world where an utterly incompetent pinhead like Bush can set in motion events that result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children...literally millions of lives of crushed beyond all recognition.
And then this mass murderer [like Cheney, a war crinimal] can flit from place to place "earning" a living giving speeches that defend what he did over there. Speeches that will "earn" him tens of thousands of dollars a pop.
God works in mysterious ways, indeed, doesn't He?
Stephen Biddle:
"You cannot reasonably expect that people who were killing each other in large numbers and deathly frightened of one another will simply become tolerant of each other overnight, or even within two years of the most intense phase of the ethno-sectarian conflict."
george:
This is a trcky correlation. The raging thirst for revenge might be quelled if both the Shia and Sunni communities come to recognize how much more responsible the fanatics in Washington were for their plight. After all, didn't BushWorld revolve in large part around neo-conservatives who worshiped their narrative every bit as fanatically as the fanatics over there? The only difference being that the neo-conservatives hired other folks loved ones to do the actual fighting.
In fact, if you were to poll all the neoconservatives in BushWorld and ask them what they have sacrificed to date in the war against terrorism, I doubt it would fill the space on a handful of index cards.
MC:
If Iraq does seem to be headed back towards chaos as U.S. troops withdraw, what will Obama do? It's hard to say for sure. During the campaign, he was tonally emphatic about ending America's commitment there.
george:
Ah, so you're the one everyone is talking about...the one who still goes back to Obama The Candidate and holds him at his word. If Obama were Pinocchio his nose would be so long now NASA could use it as a wormhole to take us to the parallel universe where everything he said he actually believed...and actually had every intention doing in office. No doubt Obama and Hillary Clinton have spent hours debating whether Bill was slicker than Barack.
As for Afphanistan...and Pakistan...Obama and McCrystal should focus the beams there. The most fanatical and dangerous Islamists in the world are dug in there. So, dig them up; then boot them out. But use the Colin Powell Doctrine this time.
But don't ever expect to achieve that goal until you achieve the goal of making it very, very clear that those who work with us in this endeavor will not be abandoned [again]. Nor will their countries be occupied once the Islamists are rooted out.
george walton
[danny/annie]
- iambiguous
August 4, 2009 at 1:57am
The purpose of the federal government is not to assuage Americans' sense of guilt; it is to secure Americans' independence and liberty. Assume that, absent American occupation forces, Iraqis do revert to sectarian violence: So what? Yes, many Americans will experience a legitimate sense of guilt for so badly screwing up the nation of Iraq and then abandoning it. But again, assuaging personal remorse is not the government's job. So, again, so what if Iraq slides back into sectarian killing? Before we consider what the U.S. government should do about it, we must first consider what threat violent crime in Iraq poses to American security. Will any American be less free if a bomb goes off in Baghdad and no Americans are around to be killed? Will the United States be more dependent on any foreign power if any given group of Iraqi teenagers spends next winter building bomb vests instead of playing soccer?
My problem with speculation like that Crowley both reports on and engages in is that I have not once seen anyone even attempt to answer the fundamental question of "So what?" It is merely assumed that if life becomes less pleasant in Iraq, then America must Do Something About It, and the only question is what to do: completely reoccupy Iraq with a fantom army we don't have and can't possibly equip in time if we did, or just mostly reoccupy Iraq with a fantom army we don't have and can't possibly equip in time if we did?
- rhubarbs
August 4, 2009 at 8:22am
Rhubarbs,
Seems to me the "So What" relates to fears of regional instability and possible terrorism havens that may have measurable impacts on American freedom. I generally agree with your points, but I would also argue that the effects of an unstable Iraq have been frequently discussed, albeit after the initial invasion. If anything, America has often hosted better internal discussions about the effects of foreign intervention than most countries; for example, the significant internal debate regarding our suppression of the Filipino independence movement after the Spanish-American war.
- literatehobo
August 4, 2009 at 10:16am
lit, I don't assume that the answer to "so what?" is "nada," but it frustrates me that the question is assumed rather than asked. And actually I have encountered examples of people more or less accidentally verging on explaining the "so what?" basis of their thinking, but in every case they've either cited the threats of "emboldening" somebody -- which automatically proves that the argument in which that word appears is bullshit -- or of "regional instability." But we're talking about the world's most unstable region, and a region that has become more unstable, not less, as the United States has expanded its military presence in the region. If "regional instability" is really a problem for U.S. security, then prescribing as a solution the return of American soldiers as an occupation garrison is akin to telling a diabetic to drink Red Bull to stave off coma.
The worst-case scenarios in Iraq are low-probability and don't involve territorial threats to any other nation, nor the terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons. The worst-case scenarios in several other hot spots, including Afghanistan, are of higher probability, do involve territorial conflict among nations, and do risk the terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons. So even if one can make a case that Iraqi civil strife passes the "so what?" test, any measures we might consider must be judged in the context of limited resources and much graver dangers.
- rhubarbs
August 4, 2009 at 11:38am
Rhubarbs,
I very much get your point regarding the assumed rather than asked question. Well stated; we would all do well to question our assumptions more often.
Regarding "worst-case" Iraqi scenarios, from my admittedly limited perspective, I would think the greatest chance of regional threats comes from an increasingly chaotic Iraq prompting a more formal push for Kurdish independence. Would that not have the potential to draw in Turkey in some problematic way? I fully admit to not knowing enough nuances to judge the likelihood of that, but it seems to me the most obvious interstate point of conflict from an unstable Iraq.
And regarding US troops, again point well taken, but I can't yet decide whether hated occupations or power vacuums are more dangerous. Solutions to problems are not always the opposite of their cause; I can yet see a case for US military involvement in the region despite the recent past, in the same way that controlled burns are often the best tool for controlling wildfires. Fire itself is not the danger; its management and habitat are.
- literatehobo
August 4, 2009 at 12:10pm
I beg to differ: President Bush DID neglect Afghanistan out of stupidity. It was stupid. Therefore, he did it out of stupidity.
- DC Spence
August 4, 2009 at 12:30pm
Iraq may have been brutal before we invaded, but it was not unstable. The war was oxymoronic (and moronic) in the sense that we destabilized the country for no strategic purpose (there being neither WMDs nor terrorists there) and then have to worry about what we do in the fact of instability.
I agree with Rhubarbs, Afghanistan and the Afghan/Pakistan border area is a much greater threat to us than anything likely to happen in Iraq. As for Kurdish independence, it is inevitable. The only questions are when and how. So far, the Kurds have not overplayed their hand by looking too scary to the US. After we are gone, they will loosen their functional ties to Baghdad and at some point declare a state. If they do it little by little, Turkey will not react, much.
- roidubouloi
August 4, 2009 at 12:35pm
And we will be hard-pressed to explain why Soviet Republics, Bosnia, Kosovo, Pakistan should be independent states but not Kurdistan -- as promised way back at the end of WWI.
- roidubouloi
August 4, 2009 at 12:37pm
rhubarbs -
I understand your (surprisingly conservative) point about limiting American interventions to situations that directly affect American interests, though I don't know that I agree in all cases. However, even limiting ourselves to that narrow motivation, what part of:
- a civil war
- between a potent Sunni minority and a beleaguered Shiite government
- which is already known to be clandestinely illiberal, even vicious, toward non-Shiites
- and who is next door to an emerging regional power
- that has a long history of warfare with this neighbor
- and is governed by an authoritarian, illiberal, Shiite ruling party
- which has itself recently become chaotic and factionalized
- but who is well-known for its support of regional terrorist organizations
- and has made no secret of its wish to interfere in this neighbor's affairs
- and, above-all, continues with its quest to achieve nuclear status
leads you to believe that "the worst-case scenarios in Iraq are low-probability and don't involve territorial threats to any other nation, nor the terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons"?
I haven't even mentioned yet the whole "Greater Kurdistan" problem for our ally to the north of Iraq, which admittedly may happen whether we stay or go. I think that civil war in Iraq could very well turn out to be a major headache, maybe even a real danger, for us here in the States. And that has nothing to do with whom we may or may not "embolden".
- dhauck
August 4, 2009 at 1:06pm
lit, I suspect that I do not actually disagree with you about anything! Let me return to my analogy: In some cases, slamming down a Red Bull actually could stave off an approaching diabetic coma. But in addressing the acute crisis, it would worsen the underlying condition of which the crisis is a symptom. And I tend to be an interventionist: I'm generally in favor of doing what it takes to solve the present, acute crises, and worry about unintended consequences later. You might call it a "Burn that bridge when we get to it" approach.
The problem with Iraq is that we're now talking about, depending on when you start counting and what you count, the potential third or fifth outbreak of the acute crisis to which U.S. military force is said to be the solution. Which is to say, we're long past solving the particular acute problem; if occupying Iraq had actually been a solution to that problem, then by definition it would no longer be a threat to recur. (Or if it's a threat to recur now, there is no rational basis to believe that after continuing the occupation for any arbitrary number of years, the threat will cease to be a threat to recur.)
As to the thing about the Kurds and Turkey, I would just point out that during the U.S. occupation, Turkey has already invaded Iraqi Krudistan. I'm not sure what more proof anyone needs that U.S. military presence in Iraq is not the solution to that potential problem than the fact that that particular problem actually happened during the height of the Surge. Is a conflict between Turkey at Iraqi Kurds a problem for America? I suspect not really, but even if it is, the solution offered has already been proven insufficient to prevent the problem!
- rhubarbs
August 4, 2009 at 1:59pm
Is this an intentional non-sequitur?
"is an Obama team that is not only juggling foreign challenges from Afghanistan to Iran to North Korea, but which also lacks the Bush team's depth of experience in dealing with Iraq"
Perhaps if the Bush team had this "experience" thing, we would be best served without it?
- Nari224
August 4, 2009 at 1:59pm
The leftish Party Line, as summed up nicely in roi's first post, is both true and completely irrelevant.
On Rhubarb's "so what?", we have been fighting in Iraq more or less continuously (if at varying levels of tempo) for nearly two decades. It is more than three decades since Jimmy Carter officially designated the Persian Gulf region an area of vital national interest. This long-term, bi-partisan reality did not evolve because of "Bush lies" or stupidity. All of the concerns listed by dhauk are legitimate, and the realization of some combination of any of them (as well as some others he didn't mention, and some that were precluded by the invasion), would likely return us to oil prices accelerating towards $200/bbl.
You may want to speculate on the impact of this on a world economy that's still teetering on the brink of a potentially unprecedented collapse.
- Robert Powell
August 5, 2009 at 1:02pm