Critical Views
Some thoughts about where we go from here.
“In fact, there is a civil war in progress in Iraq, one comparable in important respects to other civil wars that have occurred in postcolonial states with weak institutions. Those cases suggest that the Bush administration’s political objective in Iraq–creating a stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic regime that can survive the departure of U.S. troops–is unrealistic.” Professor James D. Fearon, writing in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs.
There is one problem with Professor Fearon’s thesis–the facts on the ground that I am seeing right now and that he has not seen in person or not seen recently.
Read what J.D. has to say about what is happening in the cities, towns and villages of Anbar. Remember that this is the place that was written off as a lost cause as recently as six months ago.
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross in Baghdad:
Right now our country is embroiled in a critical debate about setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Unfortunately, this is one of the most intellectually impoverished political debates that I have ever witnessed, with both sides often resorting to sloganeering and demagoguery rather than substantive argumentation.
One thing that my time in Iraq underscored to me is that, in looking at the country, many people see what they want to see. I would often think about the stories that journalists might write if they went where I went and saw what I saw. For example, after my first night on patrol—when the civilians we saw were clearly happy to see U.S. troops and felt comfortable around them—a conservative journalist might write a piece countering the stories about Iraqis hating us and wanting us to leave. Fine—but what about polls indicating that a shockingly high percentage of Iraqis think it’s okay to kill American troops? What about neighborhoods where U.S. troops would encounter a very different reception? On the other hand, a liberal journalist could write a very funny piece about the Iraqi army’s sloth and trigger-happy approach to the world, and conclude that we need to leave immediately because the Iraqi security forces are hopeless and at least a withdrawal will put some fire in their belly. Fine—but what about Iraqi soldiers’ improvements? What about the likelihood that pulling out would guarantee the Iraqi army’s failure?
There is some truth to both the right-wing and left-wing narratives above. But policymakers and analysts need to do better than having some truth to their positions. The Iraq debate is so important that politicians and opinion-leaders shouldn’t simply latch onto evidence that supports their pre-existing view. My intention in this report is to provide an objective assessment of a number of critical strategic trends in Iraq—and in that way help to advance public debate beyond where it currently sits.
The whole must-read thing here.
David Patten, PhD Stonybrook, NCO 3ID Baghdad, Is Iraq in a Civil War?
There is no dispute about the dire situation in Iraq. Insurgents, militias, terrorists, and death squads are killing civilians at an alarming rate. Security forces are unreliable, and the Iraqi government is not meeting the needs of the people. Iraq is in a worse state than U.S. policymakers expected it would be three years ago.
However, it does not follow that Iraq is in a civil war. While the government is weak, there is no political force presenting it with a serious challenge. Iraq is, indeed, an unstable nation, but there is little danger of regime change, the ultimate purpose of a civil war. The armed groups most likely to participate in an eventual civil war lack both the capacity and the will to enter into such a conflict in earnest at the present time.
This does not mean that violence will decline … nor does the central government appear able to consolidate power in the short term …
However, unfounded concerns over a civil war erupting could prompt an overreaction from U.S. policymakers. Should they conclude that Iraq is in a civil war—even if they base their determination on political expediency and no clear criteria—the most likely response would be a demand for withdrawal. A premature withdrawal of coalition forces could motivate the Sunni Arab insurgency to unify behind a political program; Sunni Arab civilians would likely lose any remaining confidence in the security forces, and many more would flee their homes. The Jaysh al-Mahdi undeterred would expand its influence and become the government’s rival for the people’s loyalty. Premature withdrawal could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating the conditions for a civil war that do not currently exist.
Whole thing. Read. (h/t Argghhh!!! on this one)
Michael Yon’s Memorial Day message to Glenn Reynolds:
Iraqis have told me many times that the larger part of this war is not about religion. Fanatical groups such as al Qaeda surely have wreaked havoc, but a huge part of the war is about business, influence and resources. The American Commanding General, David Petraeus, has said repeatedly that money is ammunition in this war. The meetings I attend with local leaders around Iraq are never about religion. Religion is seldom if ever brought up. The meetings are about security, electricity, jobs, water projects. The meetings often are about influence, and politics fit for a novel.
Everything I see at these meetings indicates that those Coalition officers who say that money is ammunition in this war, are right. Al Qaeda is proving itself to the Iraqis to be bankrupt morally, and financially. There is a chance to fill the vacuum.
This whole thing comes with pictures, because you’ve been good.
Bing West and Owen West at Small Wars Journal on The Adviser Model:
Now that Democrats have stripped their troop-withdrawal timetable from the war funding bill, it’s clear that American forces will remain in Iraq through 2008. It also seems likely that they will stay much, much longer. The leading presidential candidates in both parties recognize the dangers of a rapid pullout, and achieving stability in Iraq is going to take a decade.
How can U.S. soldiers stay in Iraq and accomplish what needs to be done? Our best hope is the Adviser Model. With the surge still under way, Gen. David Petraeus obviously cannot discuss a Plan B. But given U.S. public opinion, a Plan B for 2008 and beyond is a certainty. Its central feature is likely to be the buildup of a combat-advisory corps as our combat units are drawn down.
Americans need to understand who those advisers are, what they will do, and how many we will need.
Meanwhile, appropos of nothing at all, Azzam the American has some things he would like you to do.
Topics: Iraq
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:05 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2007
2 Responses to “Critical Views”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:21 am
[...] About Iraq. An example: JD in Karma: “In fact, there is a civil war in progress in Iraq, one comparable in important respects to other civil wars that have occurred in postcolonial states with weak institutions. Those cases suggest that the Bush administration’s political objective in Iraq–creating a stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic regime that can survive the departure of U.S. troops–is unrealistic.” Professor James D. Fearon, writing in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs. [...]
May 30th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Creating stable democracy in Iraq before 2008 is unrealistic, but by 2018 (another 11 years) seems much more likely.
Not including time limitations makes the “democracy is unrealistic” argument fundmentally dishonest.
Bush, in not promising a high likelihood of successful democracy within 10 years, is doing the Dem Party a favor.