Senior pundits are moving from talking about how to prevent civil war in Iraq to talking about how to manage civil war in Iraq...
Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack for Brookings:
http://tinyurl.com/2njmlh
James Fearon in Foreign Affairs:
http://tinyurl.com/yqf62m
The Brookings piece is long, but even the summary is worth reading. The FA piece is manageable. Both are worth a look.
This comment from Fearon interested me:
As in Lebanon, there will probably be a good deal of intervention by neighboring states -- especially Iran -- but it will not necessarily bring them great strategic gains. To the contrary, it may bring them a great deal of grief, just as it has the United States.
I suspect that this is true. It's often assumed that a US withdrawal would leave Iran in a dominant position in Iraq, but that's debatable. They may try to swallow the place, but it's quite likely that they'll choke on it.
Steven,
It's often assumed that a US withdrawal would leave Iran in a dominant position in Iraq, but that's debatable. They may try to swallow the place, but it's quite likely that they'll choke on it.
It is amusing to see that you have adopted many of my positions from the Neocon vs. Expatriate thread. It is nice to know that you have learned something from your time here at openDemocracy. Send a check to:
J.F. Texas
804 County Road 339
Crawford, Texas 78786
For example:
Now Steven, you may hate the Bush rhetoric, but it might serve a purpose here. It may just instill the idea in Middle Eastern tyrants that this guy is just crazy enough to do it. He doesn't care what the world thinks, and he hates you if you don't allow your people to vote or you won't cooperate with the international community. Remember the "Mad Bomber" campaign that the Nixon administration played on Vietnam? The American admin at the time wanted the Vietnamese to believe that Nixon was crazy, and he would blow them all straight to hell if they didn't sit down at the bargaining table. (True, they didn't, but that is the problem with using indiscriminate warfare--or sanctions--against the populations under authoritarian regimes. They have no means to protest and change policies that bring harm directly to them. Here we are directly threatening the leadership, not the entire society. That is quite a potent and achievable threat.) So, force can work here if it is merely implied, and it was the use of force that supports the implication. Jay
Sort of reminds you of that quote you made about it being advantageous for Bush to show up with "some straw in his hair", and making outrageous threats, eh?
The southern Iraqis may be Shi'ite, but they are Iraqis foremost. I do not think that Iraqis want to be dominated by Iran any more than they want to be dominated by America. They will of course accept Iranian money and training, but then again, so would I. Send it all to my bank account, Ahmedinijad... I consider the Iraqis to be somewhat proud, and not willing to submit to anyone. I do not believe that Iraq "will become the next Taliban type Afghanistan". I think that the Iraqis will turn on the foreign fighters in their midst when their goals are no longer the same, and the Iraqis will dismember this set of invaders also. Jay
Sounds like what you are saying now. Make damn sure I get a footnote in your next Foreign Affairs article!
What dismal analyses these are. They are akin to saying "I wouldn't start from here" which may be an accurate assessment but somewhat unhelpful.
There probably needs to be an end game planned of three federal states whether the current Iraqi government likes it or not. The Kurds would vote for it given the chance. A federal arrangement could still work out a method of fair distribution of oil wealth. Generous compensation should be paid to anyone wishing to, or feeling they have to, move to their ethnic state and some federal body would have to ensure that there was nobody unduly benefitting from the vacated property. The level of violence now is such that many ordinary Iraqis would leave Iraq given the opportunity so surely many would opt for this as a viable option. Perhaps there is a reluctance to press this given the stance of establishing a democracy, but the time may be ripe. Maybe they should have a referendum and organise this relatively peacefully. The way things are moving it could go this way anyway but accompanied by many deaths and enforced ethnic cleansing.
This may be naive but at least it is positive.
What dismal analyses these are.
Yes, it's a dismal situation and dismal situations tend to produce dismal analyses.
There probably needs to be an end game planned of three federal states whether the current Iraqi government likes it or not. The Kurds would vote for it given the chance. The Kurds would vote for it given the chance. A federal arrangement could still work out a method of fair distribution of oil wealth.
Maybe, but who gets to make that call? It's not something that can simply be decreed by the US, the UN, or any outside force. The Iraqis have to do it, and that's what they may eventually do, after they kill each other for a while.
It sounds easier than it is. Who gets Baghdad? Who gets Kirkuk, Mosul, and the associated oil? Sure, a Federal arrangement CAN distribute oil wealth "fairly", but who decides what's "fair"? The three dominant groups are likely to have rather divergent opinions on what constitutes "fairness".
Anyone can plan an endgame, but at this point nobody has the capacity to put their plan into effect with a reasonable probability of success. That's why the analyses are so dismal.
The United States is not managing the conflict which it set off in Iraq. It's participating in it.
Yes, we know that. The articles I referenced discuss possible ways to disengage and possible options for containing the violence that is likely to follow diengagement.
That's why it's so deadly.
Have you any reason to think it will become less deadly if the US ceases to participate?
The articles I referenced discuss possible ways to disengage and possible options for containing the violence that is likely to follow diengagement.Steven Rogers
Leaving the scene of the crime and maintaining impunity for US crimes is not a prospect that will satisfy the world community. On the contrary.
Leaving the scene of the crime and maintaining impunity for US crimes is not a prospect that will satisfy the world community.
Weren't you saying, not so long ago, that the world community should have welcomed Saddam Hussein back into its fold?
What's the difference?
Not that it really matters much, since when you get beyond rhetoric the "world community" doesn't really seem all that displeased with the US.
Steven,
This is great reading; thanks for posting it. I have been reading the Brookings piece for the last two hours and am still only half finished, so it will take me a while to join any discussion on the articles.
This is exactly the type of information that I am always looking for.
You must not be looking very hard. A broad range of serious magazines can be found in Borders/Barnes&Nobles type bookstores
I rather like bookstores, but there's really no need to go to one: every one of the "serious magazines" you speak of has a website, and much (if usually not all) of the content is free. In addition, much longer pieces (like the Brookings report I linked to) are available online that you will probably not find in bookstores. Of course there's a lot of trash on the internet, but that's equally true of your average bookstore.
It's the 21st century...
