It's time for the Bush Administration to consider history and compare its nation building agenda in Iraq to what did and did not work before. That review will reveal why their objective is a fool's errand and that the situation requires something radically different, nation razing. Only then, can nation building begin.
Iraq is an artificial entity, a facade, created earlier this century by Western colonial powers. There is no legacy Iraq(i) people or country. The respective north, central and southern factions, Kurd, Sunni, and Shia consider their ethnic and sectarian loyalties paramount, leaving no common nationalistic base upon which to build a unified nation. What makes it even more challenging, all would rather secede.
The ingredients to constructively nation build in Iraq therefore don't exist and never will. The warring cultures, no democracy history, and no interest in being unified present huge impediments. Iraq is held together by the gun (us), and not very well, and when the gun leaves, any artificially built nation will disintegrate. Everything has a natural order and a unified Iraq is not one of them.
Nation building is a constructive approach when people collectively seek it. This is not the case in Iraq. At best, the Kurds want nothing to do with the Sunnis, while the Sunnis and Shias want even less to do with each other. In fact, they want segregation. Why then force national integration when the necessary polarity and democracy underpinnings to bring that volatile mix together don't exist. The brutal regime of Sadaam Hussein ruthlessly controlled that chaos through terrorizing force. That is not us, and never will be, making our strategy appear naive and doomed from the start.
The lone viable strategy is to let nature take its course, as it ultimately will anyway. Why then delay the inevitable. If that means civil war, and it does, let it happen and be done with it. The U.S. had to painfully and necessarily endure its own to exhaust our burning hatred before we could (re)unify, and Iraq needs to similarly extinguish its own before it can peacefully separate.
Imposing anything, much less a structure or value system on another is a trigger for even greater rebellion; evidence the exploding insurgency, which is being fed by our presence. It too becomes chronic, not curable if we stay. Ironically, our withdrawal and civil war being the only cure.
The parallels between Iraq and the former Yugoslavia are evident, replete with lessons learned. Iraq was a western concoction, born from the spoils of European conquest of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The British forced the three regional interests noted into the geographic entity we today call Iraq. The glue to hold it together was to be a completely unfamiliar monarchy style government. That imposed structure soon prompted revolt and insurrection. While the entity Iraq survived, the monarchy was replaced by a more familiar totalitarian regime.
Turning to Yugoslavia, it too was an artificial entity, comprising several disparate country pieces, requiring an iron hand to forcibly hold it together. With the death of its leader - Tito, the country quickly fell into civil war and disintegrated to its natural order, that being half a dozen or so separate ethnic based independent countries. Over time, that new order found its co-existence equilibrium and the fighting ceased. It's time to look at Iraq the same way.
The democratization we seek is as unfamiliar to the Iraqis as was the monarchy imposed by the British. Time may have lapsed but attitudes, tradition and culture clearly have not. We are experiencing the same as the British did, and with very clear messaging, leave and don't forcibly hold this entity together. Rather than just promote democracy, it is time for us to respect it. The three factions have spoken.
The Sunday Sept 17,2006 Star Ledger, specifically the front page of the Perspective Section provides the opinion of Prof Eric Davis, Professor of Political Science and member of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University. In his piece, he takes the view that democracy is the only logical option of 3 available to the U.S. The other two being phased withdrawal and dividing Iraq into 3 "statelets".
Never does he suggest a fourth – civil war. In fact, his democratization approach suggests we remain until the (Iraqi) government stabilized.
The point however being made in this article, is that Iraq can't be stabilized and won't last, that is as the "Iraqi" government.
Senator Biden has too gingerly proposed the formation of a politically mandated three state-like ("statelets" ala Prof. Davis) Iraq. Gingerly, from the standpoint that while it's the right direction, he falls far short of the right solution, which requires a strong stomach. The answer is not unification through separation as he proposes, but rather separation through de-unification, which can only be achieved by that which he too avoids, civil war. The fundamental flaw therefore to both his and Prof. Davis' plans or solutions is that the Iraq entity remains. For a successful solution to take hold, it can't.
The only sustainable structure is one not dictated to but rather decided by the three factions. That will only happen after we leave the country and/or withdraw to remote bases, and the hate is exhausted vis a vis civil war. The ensuing bloody conflict, albeit mitigated with Arab nations provoked from their current content position on the sidelines to intervene, will finally lead the three factions to constructively negotiate their own cooperative terms. Since Iraq won't exist, rather than Iraq or Biden, call it the Arab (Tripartite) Solution. The agreed, rather than imposed outcome being one lost and three new independent self governing additions to the United Nations.
Author's Note: While civil war is all but inevitable, if not already to some degree taken root, the author still strongly advocates from prior articles, an immediate "3 for 1 and Done" controlled withdrawal exit strategy. We started this and we need to promptly finish our part honorably and immediately complete the liberation mission.
Agree with your comments that Civil war is inevitable. However, don't agree that American should leave just yet.
Reality check is that in the US absence, Iran will move into the south of Iraq, unite the Shias, and that crew will slowly push north and finish off the Sunnis.
Turkey does not want a Kurdish nation to the south of them, so there is a good possibility that Turkey will encourage the Shias to control the Kurds.
End game: Iran controls the oil wells of Iraq. Not a good thing for the US, and exactly what the world does not want to see.
Better for the US to keep a strong presence in Baghdad, and stand close by while the Shias and Kurds gain political control over their territories (A controlled civil war).
If the US then decides to leave, there are at least two oil producing politically stable entities to the north and south of Baghdad that will accept migration into their territories out of central Bahgdad.
And, if the territories to the north and south of Baghdad stabilize, the Sunnis will be begging the Americans to stay, for no other reason than they'll be skinned alive otherwise - giving the Americans a toehold in the Middle East - and in a position to control Iranian ambitions.
... what a mess...
Ken.
by
ken (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, October 27, 2006 at 12:13:02 AM
We at least start and end at the same conclusions - civil war in Iraq is inevitable........and it's a mess.
Starting with our mutually agreed conclusion, I would suggest your arguments perhaps might not be consistent with that outcome, and your insights on what to do, do not prevent but merely delay that inevitability. Trying to overlay 21st century rational western logic as you've nicely done, upon a centuries old disparate sectarian conflict, the principles who view us as irrational as we view them is likely not going to yield the outcome "we" think is the right one. The right outcome, whatever that may be (and may if not likely be very different then your vision), will be determined solely by "them".
As for Iran, I would submit that what you hope to deter has already occurred in large part, as they've already infiltrated and defacto taken deep root in southern Iraq, and why the Brits are now so anxious to leave as they apparently see firsthand that influence incursion/onslaught as a tidal wave unstoppable without an army (and intelligence community infiltration) many, many times what the coalition has now - and which I think all will agree, has absolutely no plans to build to.
As for "controlled civil war", I would respectfully suggest that is a dysfunctional oxymoron akin to "organized chaos". Chaos is chaos. Civil war is civil war, regardless of any noble attempts at candy coating. Both suggest and for good reason, a situation out of control.
If civil war in Iraq is as we both agree, inevitable, the point becomes moot - we provide no long term stabilization value by staying in current force makeup one extra day, month, year or decade. Where we do benefit however is on the shorter time side in the form of saving American lives, which are currently positioned in a shooting gallery environment, likely to if possible, only worsen over time.
The real solution however, in sympathy to some of your comments is something between complete withdrawal and staying forever in current form. I address this in my next OpEd piece "It's WAR-SAW Time".
Respectfully,
CitizenMV
by
Matt Vrabel (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 61 comments)
on Sunday, October 29, 2006 at 8:47:32 AM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
