SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Sectarian Specter In Iraq, Cont'd

THE PLANK AUGUST 10, 2009

The Sectarian Specter In Iraq, Cont'd

Eli Lake has an important and troubling scoop this morning: 

A report to be published this month by the U.S. government's
prestigious National Defense University warns that the Iraqi army and
police are becoming pawns of sectarian political parties -- a trend
that it calls "a recipe for civil war."...

The paper, made available to The Washington Times, carries particular weight considering its author.

Mr. al-Jabouri was the police chief and later the mayor of Tal Afar, a
city in Ninevah province, in 2005 and 2006 when he and then-Col. H.R.
McMaster waged a counterinsurgency campaign that became the model for
the strategy that was successfully employed in 2007 and 2008 throughout
Iraq. In a March 20, 2006, speech, President Bush singled out Mr.
al-Jabouri, saying the U.S. was "proud to have allies like Mayor
Najim."

 As I've mentioned here before, some smart Iraq-watchers believe that sectarianism--Shiite vs. Sunni violence--has played itself out, and are now more concerned about the volatile Kurdish north, where disputes about land and oil still fester. But this report is further evidence that we may not have the luxury of focusing on the Kurds--a point underscored by a new series of terrible bombings near Baghdad today.

All of which comes just as credible analysts are talking about sending another 45,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

--Michael Crowley

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 6 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

6 comments

I don't believe that we can keep the Iraqi state glued together. It is an artificial state created by British colonial interests after WWI. We need to look at other ways to protect American interests in the region. If we have to get our oil from Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Sunnistan, so be it.

A lot of Americans have this silly idea that we must midwife a United States of Iraq. How narcissistic! How would it benefit us? Would the benefits be greater than the costs in American blood and treasure? We don't have endless national power, wealth and resilience. We must use it more carefully.

- amidut

August 10, 2009 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have been expecting a racheting up of sectarian violence as the drawdown of American troops continues. How bad this will get is anybody's guess but hopefully, we will not return to the levels of carnage of a few years back. By the way, Michael, you may have missed my post on Friday, given that you might have left for the weekend but I thanked you for all the years of your superb reporting at The New Republic. Thanks again.

- liberal reformer

August 10, 2009 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sunnistan has no oil and that is a major problem for a unified iraq.

- liberal reformer

August 10, 2009 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"We may not have the luxury ..." Again, all I ask is that it be demonstrated, and not assumed, that sectarian violence in Iraq is (A) a significant problem for U.S. national security and (B) a greater problem for U.S. national security than whatever other problems we will have to let fester elsewhere. Not mandatory, but highly suggested, is (C) why should we believe that any U.S. military solution to Iraq's sectarian violence will be any more lasting after, say, eight years of occupation than it is now after six?

For extra credit, I would also throw in the deliberately provocative (D) doesn't history suggest that the most lasting solution to any civil conflict is for one side to win, and so Iraqi security services taking sides and killing the bomb-building sumbitches and their friends may in fact be a good thing from a ruthlessly strategic point of view?

- rhubarbs

August 10, 2009 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Liberal Reformer: "Sunnistan has no oil and that is a major problem for a unified iraq."

True, Iraqi Sunnistan has no oil. I overstated my case there. That is why they have exploited and brutalized the Kurds and the Shias for decades. They are the only group that benefits from a unified Iraq. They will have to find a way to live with their current oil-less reality. They do have powerful patrons in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Sunni Arab countries. They are not helpless. They are not our concern.

It is possible that Iraqi Sunnistan will merge with Sunni Syria liberated from minority Alawite dictatorship.  

- amidut

August 10, 2009 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Uh oh. I can see the unsettling future firming up in my crystal ball. In some dystopian tomorrow, everyone shall have a blog for fifteen minutes. Can't we leave this to the talented, such as Michael Crowley, Martin Peretz, Andrew Sullivan, Richard Posner,  et al.? Further, Modest Mouse is so overrated. They come from my neck of the woods but they will never ever come within a billion light-years of Nirvana or Pearl Jam, bands that also emanated form here.

- liberal reformer

August 10, 2009 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close