Reflections on the Surge and the Future of Iraq (Part 3) Posted by Shadi Hamid

Lawrence Korb, in his recent TNR debate with Reuel Marc Gerecht get this right: “Our continued unconditional support of this government, not to mention sending additional troops, means endorsing Shia repression.”

The Sunni world has much to worry from the impending Shia domination of the Middle East. There must be a counterbalance. The problem, unfortunately, is that nearly every Sunni government in the Middle East is illegitimate (i.e. does not have the consent of its people) and therefore ineffective. Cowardly authoritarian regimes are not the best of allies in times like these. This fact, which few have acknowleged, does a lot to undermine realism's "attraction."   

However, Saudi Arabia, notwithstanding its status as a most despicable regime, has expressed willingness to contribute troops to Iraq. Turkey, one suspects, might also be willing to play a larger role, considering it has much at stake as an emerging regional power (and the ideal counterbalance to Iran). Beyond this, we can’t really ask either Egypt or Jordan to contribute anything to the war effort, because, again, they can’t afford to anger their people any further (again, this is what happens when we prop up paper-thin governments which would likely fall if it wasn’t for US support. They simply can’t be counted upon). With that said, I want to tie in the points above with those I made in "part 2" - if I was in any position to suggest an “alternative” approach for Iraq, then these would be my (very) rough suggestions:

1. Begin a gradual troop reduction, to demonstrate to Maliki that we're serious about holding him to certain standards.
2. Maintain indefinitely a significant number of troops on the ground (i.e. a “rapid-reaction force”) to protect against ethnic cleansing of the Sunni minority. The US cannot tolerate a repeat of Rwanda on its watch. 
3. Encourage Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Sunni Muslim countries to play a more constructive role in Iraq. If our autocratic friends are unwilling to play such roles, then we should consider using our leverage to convince them otherwise (yes, I know that sounds a bit “realist,” but if we’re going to support crappy dictatorships, we might as well get something out of it).
4. Work out a deal with Iran where we give them “something,” if they agree to: a) play a more active role in restraining the Sadrist Mahdi Army and other Shia militias; and b) pressure Maliki's government to pursue a bold, far-reaching reconciliation program, reaching out to moderate Sunni groups.

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

The Sunni world has much to worry from the impending Shia domination of the Middle East.

The impending Shia domination of the Middle East?! Talk about your crazy paranoid domino theories. Are the Shia about to overrun the Arabian peninsula? Egypt? Turkey? Afghanistan? Aside form those countries in which the Shia actually constitute a majority of the country, where is this wave of Shia domination about to crest?

However, Saudi Arabia, notwithstanding its status as a most despicable regime, has expressed willingness to contribute troops to Iraq.

This so-called "willingness to contribute" that the Saudis have expressed is actually something much more akin to a threat. The Saudis know very well that the unilateral insertion of Saudi troops into Anbar province, in the absence of any sort of broad-based regional and internationally supervised peacekeeping framework, is a nightmare scenario, and they know that most planners in the uS would view it as such. The Saudis are clearly very eager for the US to stay in Iraq to serve Saudi interests in containing Iran, and their message to the US for the past several months now is "you need to do more to stabilize Iraq and protect Sunni interests, or we will do it ourselves." They have even gone so far as to threaten to encourage - or look the other way on - the passage of young Salafist jihadists across the border in the event of a US departure, claiming that they will no longer be able to control them. This isn't just a "willingness to contribute". It's a blackmail threat to intervene and further destabilize the region.

The sudden brushfire of Washington and mainstream media concern that Sunnis in Iraq are on the verge of being overrun and slaughtered by the Shia is a ridiculous piece of organized propaganda by Sunni monarchs and despots who are not really worried about any genocide of Sunnis in Iraq, but who are worried about diminished power, and are now trying to enlist the US into some ridiculous Sunni-Shia Cold War in the Middle East. In this they have found they have a temporary consilience of interests with the Israelis, who have their own local problem with Shia in Lebanon.

I am really astonished by how easy it has been for the Saudis and their potent Washington public relations machine to get broad segments of the pundit class in the US to buy into this absurd Saudi-centric view of the situation in Iraq. Although if their diplomats are working with Israeli diplomats, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Have they reached out to touch you as well?

If the Saudis intervene - or some combined coalition of the Saudis, Turks, Jordanians and Egyptians - whom do you think will protect Shiite interests in Iraq? The Iraqi government with its non-supplied, non-functioning non-military? The militias with their small arms that are no more potent than the stashed arms and bombs possessed by the insurgency? Do you think we should be similarly encouraged if the Iranians step up and express a "willingness to contribute troops to Iraq?" on a unilateral basis?

You say the US should "maintain indefinitely a significant number of troops on the ground (i.e. a “rapid-reaction force”) to protect against ethnic cleansing of the Sunni minority. The US cannot tolerate a repeat of Rwanda on its watch."

And who is going to be protecting the Shia from ethnic cleansing and genocide while the US indulges this newfound devotion to the Sunni victims who have been killing our soldiers every day? The ethnic cleansing is occurring on both sides. In addition, Sunni forces conduct successful and more spectacular mass attacks on large numbers of unarmed Shia on almost a daily basis. You are conveniently ignoring the fact that since the beginning of this conflict it is Sunni forces that have been doing most of the killing.

As my son would say whenever I propose something off the wall: "are you on crack"?

Encourage Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Sunni Muslim countries to play a more constructive role in Iraq. If our autocratic friends are unwilling to play such roles, then we should consider using our leverage to convince them otherwise (yes, I know that sounds a bit “realist,” but if we’re going to support crappy dictatorships, we might as well get something out of it).

My understanding is that they are already playing asignificant role, thank you, with money and intelligence assistance - and in some cases actual fighters - flowing into Iraq to challenge the Kurdish-Shia bloc. It's mighty curious how you now suddenly turn "realist" now that the power interests of Sunni Arabs are at stake. It is especially curious that your democracy-promoting idealism is now aligned with Audi Arabia against Iran, given that Iran is actually a far more democratic country than Saudi Arabia.

Work out a deal with Iran where we give them “something,” if they agree to: a) play a more active role in restraining the Sadrist Mahdi Army and other Shia militias; and b) pressure Maliki's government to pursue a bold, far-reaching reconciliation program, reaching out to moderate Sunni groups.

So let me get this srraight. You think Sunni countries should play a more active role in empowering Sunni groups, and that we should welcome Saudi threats to intervene in Iraq, but that Iran's role should be limited to restraining Shia groups, and pressuring the government into a reconciliation program with the people who attack it every day?

And who is going to be restraining the mad car bombers in the insurgency, and pushing them into a reconciliation program? Have you read reports that indicate that a deliverable majority of the Sunni population are eager for this reconciliation, and that the insurgency is asking for it? Again, this is a two way street. We need to involve all of the region's countries in an effort to achieve a balanced resolution of the Iraqi civil war. We should not be aiding and abetting a Sunni Arab power play.

Do you only read news from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan? When did you become a shill for Sunni Arab interests and dominance of the Middle East?

[Zathras]

I don't think Dan Kervick's take on this is quite fair, as the Saudi government is evidently one of those fragile autocracies that is being "propped up" by Washington and would collapse immediately without American support. We can all list the Arab countries whose vile governments are being thus "propped up" by heart: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Libya....

Nothing to do with Arab religion or culture, this. It's all America's fault. Because it is. It just is. Even Condi Rice thinks so, even if she isn't saying so loudly any more. Which doesn't mean that DA liberals and Bush administration neoconservatives have anything in common, by the way. Don't even think such a thing.

But enough. The fact is, Iraq's Sunni Arabs put themselves in the situation they're in now; it is their creation. Zalmay Khalilzad has been trying to "reach out" to their leaders since 2005, and all he's gotten for his trouble is the old Arab two-faced two-step; qualified verbal support for the government, no action against the insurgency. Back in 2003 Iraq had Sistani and the other senior ayatollahs urging restraint and patience; no one is listening to them anymore. Which, to Shadi Hamid, means naturally that Sunni Arabs are victims that American soldiers must protect for the next...however many years. Of course he would think that. It doesn't mean we should listen to him.

Oh, and just for the record: Rwanda has already happened again "on our watch." It happened -- it is still happening -- in Darfur, its perpetrators are Arabs, and I'd bet good money that Shadi Hamid hasn't given it a second thought.

[Cal]

Maintain indefinitely a significant number of troops on the ground (i.e. a “rapid-reaction force”) to protect against ethnic cleansing of the Sunni minority. The US cannot tolerate a repeat of Rwanda on its watch.

Much of the power of this future nightmare scenario is dependent upon Shadi's denial of the current nightmare already taking place. The Lancet study's latest findings suggests that there are over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq since the invasion -- worse than Darfur, and approaching Rwanda (although over a longer time frame.)

Yes things can always get worse, but the violence has gotten worse every year we've been there. (Just in the past year the violence has tripled.)

BTW, the Lancet study was dismissed, but it's based on the same methodology they use to determine deaths in Darfur, and it's the best evidence we have:

The Washington Post, perhaps most damagingly to the study's reputation, quoted Marc E. Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, as saying, "These numbers seem to be inflated."... Mr. Garlasco says now that he hadn't read the paper at the time and calls his quote in the Post "really unfortunate."

...The reception of the Iraqi mortality study by scientists has been far friendlier than by the news media... "That's a classical sample size," says Michael J. Toole, head of the Center for International Health at the Burnet Institute, an Australian research organization... "I just don't see any evidence of significant exaggeration," he says.

[Zathras]

I hate to raise a merely methodological point with respect to such a grim subject, but the suggestion upthread that the high-end estimate of excess deaths in Iraq is worse than the death toll in Darfur during a similar period overlooks the fact that the population of the Darfur region was several times smaller than that of Iraq to begin with, as well as the likely fact that a much higher proportion of excess deaths in Darfur were unarmed civilians. I qualify this last observation only because the Sudanese government has effectively restricted media access to the area; we therefore have only an approximate idea of the human toll imposed by Khartoum's war against civilians in Darfur.

[Cal]

Obviously the atrocities being committed in both the Sudan and Iraq are horrible, and there's little point in debating which is more intense or goddawful.

Shadi is saying we need to stay in Iraq to prevent ethnic cleansing, and I'm merely pointing out that we're incapable of stopping it. 12% of Iraqis are currently refugees, and the Pentagon expects the violence to get worse this year (according to Bob Woodward).

It's unserious -- if I may borrow a liberal hawk term -- to say we should cut our force in half while preventing what has already happened.

[J Thomas]

I said elsewhere that I didn't see any benefit to US troops in iraq. But that isn't quite true. We can't do anything useful to stop ethnic cleansing in iraq. The best we can do is invade areas that are being ethnicly cleansed and attack the defenders, or intrude on big firefights and shoot at anybody who's shooting, or maybe do random airstrikes.

But we can work to stop invasions by foreign nations. This is something we might be good at. Our demonstrated competence is in invading other nations, but we're probably good on the defense too. Probably better, When they're moving in the open it's like duckhunting season.

So the obvious place for our military in iraq is to stay in hardened bases ready to repel foreign attack. Inside our hardened bases we should be impervious to attacks by iraqis, and we should also be ready to weather concentrated missile attacks by iranians etc. We'd want bases in the north to stop turkey invading and bases in the southeast to stop iran from invading. Of the two, the bases in the north are more critica. Our ally turkey claims the right to invade kurdistan to stop their aid to kurdish terrorists in turkey. Their logic in that is precisely parallel to our justification to invade nations that harbor terrorists against us. But they surely wouldn't attack the USA and they'd have to do that if we were defending kurdistan.

It doesn't particularly make sense that iran would invade shia areas of iraq. Shia iraqis might easily consider that an unfriendly thing to do. Better to have their gratitude than have to occupy them. But we could be ready to stop such an attack anyway.

50,000 US troops living underground in hardened bunkers for the indefinite future. Giant bases that can repel attack, with giant stockpiles of everything needed to attack or defend. It isn't a big role for US troops in iraq, but it's something.

[Don Bacon]

1. The Iraq fiasco is Bush's war, which was lost long ago but no one wants to admit it. The Dems want to keep it that way so they pass a nonbinding resolution saying they don't like the "troop surge". Simply carping.

2. The troop level in Iraq, surged or not, is a military secret. Perhaps the Pentagon doesn't know how many troops are in Iraq. They definitely wouldn't tell the truth about troop levels even if they knew. Take any figures with a grain of salt.

3. The whole issue of troop levels is a political one, not a military one. It is being raised by neocons merely to put the Dems on record so they can be blamed later with "losing Iraq" and all that oil. Our oil.

4. The President, according to the Constitution, is the commander of the military and as such can't be told by anyone how to conduct an agreed-upon military campaign. Bush is correct on this point. So suggestions for redeployments, reductions and rapid reaction forces are merely that--suggestions. The commander is in charge.

5. Considering the above, the Dems are left with two alternatives: (A) Go along with Bush's war, while holding meaningless committee meetings and sending the commander meaningless nonbinding resolutions, and (B) Tell Bush to stop the war and cut off the funding of it. Unfortunately they seem to be going with (A).

[cheap angels online gold]

I am so happy to earn some angels gold. In fact at first sight I have fallen in love with angels online gold. So no matter how much I have spent to buy angels gold, I never regret. My life changes because of cheap angels online gold.

[Bell & Ross replica watches]

we don't think it is reasonable to spend hundreds thousands dollars to buy a decorating watch. you can use those money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit.
here you just need to spend 100-200 dollars to buy a replica rolex watches.
Bell & Ross replica watches are made by the rating 1:1 according to the original watches, and you can't distinguish the original and the fake watches when you look at the surface of the watches.

[cheap priston tale Gold]

he usually buy priston tale Gold to start his game

[wonderland online Gold]

Once I played wonderland, I did not know how to get strong, someone told me that you must have wonderland Gold. He gave me some wonderland online Gold.

[cheap Atlantica online Gold]

Because cheap Atlantica online Gold.You can also save your Atlantica online money in the game.

[shaiya money]

Do you like playing the game where you need to use shaiya gold, when you do not have shaiya money,

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[movado watch]

Thanks for your sharing,and you will enjoy the sunshine service. Let's abandon all the worry, omega watch and enjoy the happy shopping travel.All the are most in fashion boutique this year. show your chaming temperament. In addtin, the and the other make you mold your unique glamour this winter. The swiss have the high quality but low price. nd have all the style and cheapest price Chanel Watch Enjoying the fun of net purchase! We will supply you the perfect service and after sale support system. Our honest will bring you absolute satisfaction. Aslo and are so good for you.