RSS
Using PayPal
Leon Hadar: Iraq: The Shape of Things to Come
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Saturday, Jul 30 2005, 1:19PM
From One State to Three "Virtual States"
If only grandmother had four wheels: If you believe the front-page report from Iraq in Thursday's Wall Street Journal that "U.S. opens door for big pullback in Iraq next year," then I'll sell you a bridge over the Euphrates. The news from Baghdad, highlighting one of those "surprise visits" by the Secretary of the Department of Regime Change, Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad, quotes him and U.S. Commander in Iraq George Casey saying, suggesting, implying and hinting that the U.S. was laying the groundwork for a "substantial" withdrawal next spring. Mm... Let me see. Isn't that when the midterm election campaigns are beginning to gain momentum? In any case, Casey, according to the Journal added several conditions or "qualifications," stressing that the U.S. military in Iraq would be able to take those "substantial reductions" if "the political process continues to go positively" and if "the development of the security forces continues to go as it is going [and how is it going? LH]," while Rumsfeld, according to the New York Times, said that troop withdrawal "hinged" on the following: The size and strength of the insurgency; the level of cooperation from Syria and Iran; the ability of the Iraqi security forces; Iraqi public support for the new government; and, oh, yes, on whether Courtney Love and Paris Hilton join a convent... Which recalls an old Jewish saying: If my grandmother had four wheels, she would be a carriage... And not to forget that the Bush Administration had already been able to fool Congress and others with the commitment to pursue diplomacy and not to go to war against Iraq "if" Saddam would only did this or that. So don't hold your breath. American troops will be "over there" for many years to come, and I'm not talking here about the new FX series (BTW, thumbs down for that show as far as I'm concerned; I would have switched to "CSI: NY" but it was a repeat).
Here is what's going to happen in Iraq: First, neither the Americans nor the insurgents are going to win a 'victory' in Iraq. Second, a political 'solution' to Iraq that would maintain its territorial integrity under a central government is not a realistic option. American policymakers should consider the above as political axioms and come up with an interim agreement that could provide Iraq with an opportunity to bring some stability to the country and begin its economic reconstruction. So the best-case-scenario should be based on the recognition that the least costly option will be to freeze the status quo in which Iraq is gradually being divided into three mini-states -- a mostly Kurdish region in the north, a mostly Shiite area in the south, and the Sunni Triangle .
The Kosovo Model: Consider the reality in post-war Kosovo - with its Albanian majority and Serbian minority - which has been transformed into an international protectorate, although it still remains part of Serbia. Kosovo cannot achieve the status of an independent state - since Serbia and its ally Russia backing the Serbian minority in Kosovo will oppose such a move and also because concerns that an independent Kosovo would ignite pressure for secession of the Albanian minority in Macedonia and produce momentum for the establishment of a Greater Albania. At the same time, the return of Kosovo to full Serbian control is rejected by the Albanian majority and their supporters in the West. Hence the willingness to accept the current arrangement of a 'virtual' Kosovo mini-state. It’s not a permanent 'solution' but Serbs and Albanians are not killing each other and there is some effort to establish political stability and to economically reconstruct Kosovo.
The Hadar Plan: The conditions in Mesopotamia resemble those in the Balkans under which three Kosovos could emerge in Iraq. Such a scheme will not resemble the Bush dministration's let's-make-the-Middle-East-safe-for-democracy fantasies, and will require that the US launch a process of diplomatic detente with Iran, one of the three major regional players in Iraq - the two other being Turkey and Syria. Hence negotiations between the US, Iran and the Iraqi Shiite leadership whose members have close political and religious ties to the regime in Teheran could lead to an agreement in which Washington and Teheran could provide security to the Shiite region under an informal Iranian-American condominium. A similar accord between the Kurds, the US and Turkey could allow the Kurdish region to continue to maintain its political autonomy while giving Ankara guarantees that the Kurds will not demand full political independence, will share control of oil rich Kirkuk and will grant full rights to the Turkoman minority. Finally, when it comes to the troubled Sunni Triangle, the US could encourage the members of the Arab League, led by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Syria to police the country and its borders and help establish a new Iraqi-Sunni leadership. The United Nations and the EU could also provide peacekeeping troops to help maintain order in the Sunni region. As part of the arrangement, the oil resources of Iran could come under the control of an international trust which the three Iraqi communities will be represented. The creation of three 'virtual' mini states in Iraq should be regarded as an interim arrangement that will lead to a separation of sorts between the three contending players and create conditions in which foreign investment could start flowing into the country, while oil will start flowing from Iraq into the global markets and some of the American troops could start withdrawing from the country. After a transition period of, say, five to ten years, during which Iraq would become more stable and prosperous, the Iraqi people will have an opportunity to decide whether they want to re-establish a central government or to divide the country into two or three sovereign states.
Bye, bye: And now before leaving for Iraq and other world capitals to implement this great plan, I want to thank Steve Clemons -- he is Washington's most original "Policy Entrepreneur" -- for hosting me on his blog for two days and also to thank Dave Meyer for making this thing work. Perhaps one of these days I'll launch my own blog. Meanwhile you can contact me at LeonHadar@aol.com. And please get a copy of my new book (well, buy one), Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. I hope to get your feedback.
-- Leon Hadar
« Previous Article - Doug Bandow: A Dignifiied Foreign Policy» Next Article - Charging RINO: Further Word on Linc Chafee
I wouldn't underestimate the possibility of a forced US withdrawal.
So then, according to Leon the troop levels aren't going to diminish.
And according to the Administration (on most days) the troop level don't need to be increased.
I guess we have the absolutely perfect number of boots on the ground there. The best of all possible worlds as Candide would have it.
Unless...
You are little like me and think the troop count should be ZERO.
What is it with this country that it so willingly takes on the roll of playing God with another people's country?
Mind you, Leon is brilliant. He is obviously a good-hearted man who is seeking out a real solution. I know this needs to be done, and I can honor his efforts.
And yet, you read this post from another angle and it is all about "playing God with another people's country."
Of course now that we have invaded another man's land--opening that Pandora's Box labeled "War"--someone has got to mend what the Bush-devils broke.
As the proverb sometimes has it--God is all in the details--and Leon is digging deep to itemize possiblities.
But I just wonder...
If you look at history's score card, how many times have the invading devils ever done God's detail work with long term success?
Let's call my above words: Reason 1001 why War is the absolutely last-last-last option (unless your stupid like Bush).
Because let's be frank... if some devil invaded my country and tried to play God, I too would be tempted to act oh-so-human, and shoot the invaders dead with gleeful alacrity.
Which is all to say: Get out of Iraq America. It isn't your country, and you are a proven failure at playing the roll of God.
I don't think your plan is viable. Iraq does not divide neatly along the lines you suggested. Intermarriage, overlap of populations where no group has a majority (Baghdad) secular v fundamentalist tensions within groups- these are all difficult problems to resolve. The Kurds might be happy with your proposal but the rest of the Iraqis would not. Turkey cannot be a guarantor of Kurdish rights when Turkey is close to coming to blows with Kurds crossing the Iraq border into Turkey to kidnap mayors and cause unrest.
No matter what lip service Bush gives to "democracy" what is democracy but the agreements among men on the laws that will govern them. Implicit in democracy is respect for the rule of law. Iraq is the site of an armed insurgency with zero respect for rule of law. The Failure of Bush in Iraq has always been the failure to establish law and order and gain respect for rule of law either through willing agreement, coersion, intimidation and threat of punishment. No "democratic" government can emerge in Iraq without rule of law.
Respect for rule of law in insurgencies occurs only when the parties believe they can gain more under adherence to the rules than they can by fighting. There is no one solution that can be imposed from the outside without overwhelming force. The US has neither the manpower for this effort nor the public support to institute a draft to get the requisite number of troops, the international support to send troops, or the dollars required for this enterprise.
So forget about trying to impose your solution or any other outside solution on Iraq. What is needed in Iraq is an 'honest broker" that can bridge the gap between the Shia majority and the main body of Sunni insurgents. That agreement must need to contain a concerted effort to move against Jihadis, foreign troublemakers and criminal elements out for personal gain. It should involve, collecting and garrisoning the large stores of armaments widely distributed throughout Iraq that underpin the insurgency. Finally, the US needs to butt out because we are not an honest broker. The US could serve as guarantor of Shia safety, but not a guarantor of the new Iraq.
IF ONLY REASON COULD PREVAIL......
This type of plan might have a chance if there were any statesmen in the current power structure. The people in place would rather eat glass than admit any need to negotiate with Iran of all parties. With big Dick's office planning for the irradiation of Persia, somehow I think reason is taking a big back seat.
On that subject, what on earth do those jokers think the reaction of the downwind nations and the rest of the world might be???????
You have missed the key determinant of whether the U.S. will pull out of Iraq next year. That determinant is the effect of the war on the Republican prospects in November 2006 and later.
Actually, the deal has already been established - but not with Washington. The Shiite-dominated government will soon be asking the U.S. To pull out. The Republicans will breathe a sigh of relief and do so in late Summer of 2006, near enough to the election to take credit for 'winning' in Iraq and too near for the results of pulling out to be clear to our tame and non-internationl press.
Then the insurgents will step up their activities in an effort to overthrow the Shiite-dominated government. The Iraqi government will then call in Iranian support to put down the Sunni insurgent rebellion, and by the way, retake control of Kurdistan. Iran and Turkey will both heave a sigh of relief at regaining control of Kurdistan.
As a side action, there will be a purge of Sunni and Kurdish troops in the Iraqi army as soon as the U.S. troops are reduced to numbers that can't prevent it. This will eliminate much of the current security weaknesses in the Iraqi military.
The result is going to be Shiite domination of both Iran and Iraq with essentially theocratic fundamentalist governments in each.
The only two alternives to this are (1) an international pacification force (extremely unlikely) or (2) for the U.S. to remain until the Sunni insurgency is pacified. This latter really is a decade away, and the political damage to the Republicans in the next few American elections makes this an impossibility.
My bet is that the Iraqi government already has the outlines of this scenario planned for, and the deal with Iran is already worked out. I'd look to see how the Iranian military is training and equipping the troops to be used, and to what degree they are training Iraqi Shiite troops.
In short, the U.S. is gone from Iraq. It is merely a question of when. The uselessness of the war and the incompetence with which the Bush admininstration has fought it make it unsupportable by American voters. The result will be the Lebonization of Iraq - as in civil war - with the Iranians then playing the part of Syria when they come in to stop to civil war.
Leon, I've really enjoyed you writing. Thanks
for contributing to Steve's blog.
As to political detente with Iran, it would be
difficult. I think that there is a whole generation
of people in the US who do not like Iran.
I have always been against the war in Iraq and I
oppose US adventures in the middle east. But
I have what can probably only be classified as an
irrational dislike of Iran. I vividly remember
the hostage crisis and the actions of the Iranians.
It is hard from me to forgive them for these actions,
just as I find it difficult to forgive Jimmy
Carter for his incompetence in taking any action
against those who took our diplomats hostage.
I know that given the actions of the United States
in Iraq, as a US citizen, I don't have much moral
ground to stand on. So as I wrote, just put it
down to an irrational dislike of Iran.
I'm not advocating military action against Iran
but unless the Iranian state changes in some
drastic fashion, I don't favor warmer relations.
As far as I'm concerned the Iranians are a
barbarian state and they should remain in the
outter darkness.
One of the massive ironies of G.W. Bush's actions
is that the major beneficiary of the hundreds
of billions of dollars and thousands of lives
that the US has spent in Iraq is Iran. Iran
is emerging as a nuclear power and it appears
that Iran and Iraq may form a power block. Obviously
none of this would have happened if Saddam was
still in power.
The other irony is that if a government emerges
in Iraq it will probably resemble Iran more than
say Egypt or Turkey. So the US will have put
in place an Islamic semi-republic. Good going
Mr. Bush!
My right wing colleagues always retort "Would
you rather have Saddam still in power?" when
I point out that there are no WMDs in Iraq.
If an nuclear armed Iran emerges, closely allied
with an anti-US Iraq the the answer could be
that yes, US interests would have been better
served if Saddam was still in power. And
all that the US has spent in Iraq will amount
to something worse than nothing.
Ian
Ian, I am sorry to hear that cannot put Iranian politics in the past and still have an enmity for the Iranian people. FWIW, I have numerous Iranian friends, many of them opponents of the current government. Certainly they are no friends of the theocrats in charge of Iran but they also resent the support of the US for a corrupt and brutal dictator, the Shah and the US meddling in Iranian internal affairs that in part led to its near complete break with the US. I understand that YOU feel humiliated by what the Iranians did to our embassy and our public servants. However, imagine that the Iranians feel the same humiliation you feel but 10 times over for having to put up with a US installed dictator. Call it even and work to build a future of mutual respect where each nation can have its own self determination.
Iran is liberalizing, driven by the youth of the country. The US can welcome this liberalization and nurture Iran into a more mature politics. Or the US can threaten Iran, alienate the Iranian youth and squander the possibility of liberalization in Iran for some time to come.
Iranians are Persians. Iraqis are Arabs. The two are not the same. While it is possible that the Iranians might intervene if their allies in Iraq were threatened, Iranian takeover of Iraq is not likely. For one, Iran is not large enough, a nation of about 60 million while Iraq is 20 million. In addition, even if the US pulls out of Iraq, the Iranians would still have US troops sitting right on their border with Afghanistan although I understand the Uzbekis are tossing our ass out. Iran does not want to subjugate the Kurds or fight a war in the mountains. They probably would appreciate it if Iraq were not a base for insurgent operations across the Iraqi border.
A US pullout of Iraq would most likely mean years of civil war in Iraq until the factions can come to some agreement on power sharing. The US is not an honest broker. The US disbanded the Baath Party and has forbidden most of the potential Sunni leaders from any role in a new Iraq government. The Sunnis believe they can only negotiate a fair deal once the Americans leave. The Shia have shown remarkable constraint against atrocities committed by the Sunnis and insurgents. If the Americans withdraw and atrocities continue, there will be little to keep the Shia militia from rampaging against the Sunnis. Withdrawal by the US without political engagement from the Sunnis would be a bad idea. However, with the corrupt and incompetent Bush administration, any degree of FUBAR is possible
I recommend the forum in the Nation for those interested in Iraq:
The best solution is for all external forces to leave now. Physical, political and economic force is going to produce another Palestine 2005, with the side backed by the US trying to genocide those whose land will be taken, in order to control the whole region.
It is safer to have a victory for Arabs, Kurds and Persians that keeps them in control of Iraq's resources than to have the US and Israel befoul it. We are a lazy country, dependent on our military might to sway people. Israel is what the South wanted the US to be after slavery, and backed by the might of the US.
I distrust any group of people who would fight another group to deny them their independence.
bakho, I agree that the problems caused by an American pullout will be horrendous. The problem is, the Bush administration operates on an entirely political basis. John Diluio, former Bush domestic policy advisor, pointed out that the White House has no policy mechanisms, just political ones.
They will consider the effect on the next American election and take action based on that. They will depend on the absence of American international reporting, on their own ability to spin the problems in the short term, and on the proven ability of the American public to forget what seemed important last week.
We will be effectively out of Iraq by late Summer of 2006. Our only influence in Iraq after that is going to be rebuilding money we give them.
There will not be a takeover of Shia Iraq by Iranians, but there will be a strong alliance. That will include military alliance. as a side point, since it is still a good bet that Ahmed Chalabi is an Iranian covert asset, we shouldn't be too surprised to see him with a very powerful government position in Iraq when the Americans leave.
As for the American troops in Afghanistan, It is probable that a combination of the damage our military has taken in Iraq, the lack of reserves, and a feeling among the American people of something similar to the unwillingness to use American troops after we pulled out of Vietnam (Vietnam syndrome), they aren't going to be considered too much of the threat to Iran. We are due for a decade or more of military rebuilding after Iraq, much as we were after Vietnam.
Reader Comments (11) - post a comment