Running in Circles in Iraq
Posted by Max Bergmann
The New York Times this morning has an analysis of the "fragile, and possibly fleeting" situation in Iraq.
Officials attribute the relative calm to a huge increase in the number of Sunni Arab rebels who have turned their guns on jihadists instead of American troops; a six-month halt to military action by the militia of a top Shiite leader, Moktada al-Sadr; and the increased number of American troops on the streets here.
The Kurdish Deputy Prime Minister described it as "more a cease-fire
than a peace." The point about a cease-fire is that they can easily
cease. Here is the rub:
all of these changes can be reversed, and on relatively short notice. The Americans have already started to reduce troop levels and Mr. Sadr, who has only three months to go on his pledge, has issued increasingly bellicose pronouncements recently. The Sunni insurgents who turned against the jihadists are now expecting to be rewarded with government jobs. Yet, so far, barely 5 percent of the 77,000 Sunni volunteers have been given jobs in the Iraqi security forces, and the bureaucratic wheels have moved excruciatingly slowly despite government pledges to bring more Sunnis in.
One of the major problems with both the surge and "Sunni awakening"
strategy has been their long term sustainability. For the surge, we
never had enough troops to adequately implement a counter-insurgency
strategy over the long term. The ground forces are simply stretched too
thin to make the necessary long-term commitment.
Additionally, the Sunni strategy may have serious unintended
consequences, as we have organized an armed Sunni group that the
Shia-led government is loathe to incorporate. We have armed both sides
in the civil war. And...
it is likely that the old divisions will rapidly resurface as the United States reduces its troop levels. If that happens, extremist Sunnis will renew their assaults on Shiites and Mr. Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia will respond in kind.
What sense did it make to institute a strategy that was not sustainable from the get-go?
The US strategy in Iraq has been from the start to sustain turmoil and conflict, similar to the US long-term Palestine strategy. "No end in sight". Divide and conquer,and maintain a presence. Keep them killing each other. So it may look like a circle but it's a straight line to political and resource control.
Posted by: Don Bacon | December 05, 2007 at 10:27 AM
//What sense did it make to institute a strategy that was not sustainable from the get-go?//
It does seem a bit strange to me that, pre-surge, certain segments of the political population had already decided that the surge could never bring any benefit, was a boondoggle to intentionally make things worse rather than better, and regardless, absolutely had to be limited to a certain troop strength and timeline.
Then, when it does seem to be improving things (mind you, I didn't say working--which I define as fundamental political shift--but improving conditions on the ground), the same folks ask questions like 'Why didn't we implement a strategy that was indefinitely sustainable?'
And we wonder why the Democratic anti-war message is lost on large parts of America, when it should be a slam-dunk. Even the most backward red-stater can see that a man can't stand on both sides of a fence.
Posted by: Howl | December 05, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Max, what do you think of the recent stories about the Shi'ah run Interior Ministry pledging to incorporate the "awakening" militias, at least to an extent, into the security apparatus? More hot air?
Posted by: Luce Imaginary | December 05, 2007 at 12:05 PM
The Sunni Arab side of the civil war was already armed. It is likely that local Sunni Arab groups have become better organized in response to a combination of American coaching and a common enemy.
But it is worth pointing out that the common enemy for the last several months has been the Sunni Arab extremist groups that extended themselves repeatedly over the course of several years to make mass-casualty attacks on Shiite government workers, policemen, and civilians. A renewed civil war in Iraq, like a fire, requires both fuel and a match. The American policy under Petraeus hasn't added a great deal of fuel that wasn't already there, while it has poured water on the matches most likely to be struck.
Under the circumstances, the American tactics are probably the best available. They don't fix the problem, which is fundamentally an Iraqi problem having to do with the profound sense of Shiite grievance directed at Sunni Arabs who have not previously and do not now acknowledge it. Even a sensible response by the Iraqi government to American pressure to put local Sunni groups on the government payroll would not fix the Sadr problem, and whatever Sadr's public pronouncements it is men associated with his organization that have perpetrated some of the worst atrocities on Sunni Arab civilians. Sadr has reduced the exposure of his fighters to the American military during the surge, but as the risk of their being engaged by the Americans goes down his inhibitions probably will as well.
The point is that we aren't looking here at a situation made worse by American tactics, but rather at a problem the best American tactics can't fix. If our concern is about an end to the current conditions of reduced violence and a resumption of Iraqis killing Iraqis, we need to be honest enough to acknowledge that this is Iraqis' responsibility.
Posted by: Zathras | December 05, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!
Posted by: cheap coach handbags | January 28, 2010 at 09:43 PM
The Sunni strategy may have serious unintended consequences, as they have organized an armed Sunni group that the Shia-led government is loathe to incorporate. They have armed both sides in the civil war.
Posted by: Cross Country Home Services | October 07, 2010 at 06:24 AM
The Sunni strategy may have serious unintended consequences, as they have organized an armed Sunni group that the Shia-led government is loathe to incorporate. We have armed both sides in the civil war.
Posted by: designussion.com | October 08, 2010 at 07:25 AM
nice template and great article.thanks this is great information, well they don't fix the problem, which is fundamentally an Iraqi problem having to do with the profound sense of Shiite grievance directed at Sunni Arabs who have not previously and do not now acknowledge it....
Posted by: Mykalai Kontilai | October 12, 2010 at 04:16 AM
Sadr has reduced the exposure of his fighters to the American military during the surge, but as the risk of their being engaged by the Americans goes down his inhibitions probably will as well.
Posted by: seniorfacility.com | October 20, 2010 at 05:52 AM
It is likely that the old divisions will rapidly resurface as the United States reduces its troop levels. If that happens, extremist Sunnis will renew their assaults on Shiites and Mr. Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia will respond in kind.
Posted by: SEO content | October 30, 2010 at 03:07 AM
Even a sensible response by the Iraqi government to American pressure to put local Sunni groups on the government payroll would not fix the Sadr problem,and whatever Sadr's public pronouncements it is men associated with his organization that have perpetrated some of the worst atrocities on Sunni Arab civilians.
Posted by: Fed Mod | November 09, 2010 at 05:10 AM
he wars in Iraq have proven that traditional lines have broken down from front lines....Under the circumstances, the American tactics are probably the best available.
Posted by: clocksallaround.com | November 09, 2010 at 05:13 AM
Sadr has reduced the exposure of his fighters to the American military during the surge, but as the risk of their being engaged by the Americans goes down his inhibitions probably will as well.
Posted by: J Hass Group | November 16, 2010 at 02:34 AM
On the other hand, here we are, fighting in a highly divided country with no recent tradition of republic government while attempting to build one for them. One wonders how we got as far as we have in Iraq.Thanks for the information on blog. This information made my study easier.
Posted by: Richard Dabrowski | November 18, 2010 at 12:49 AM
The Americans have already started to reduce troop levels..
Posted by: Gatehouse Academy Reviews | November 24, 2010 at 01:29 AM
Only 5 percent of the 77,000 Sunni volunteers have been given jobs in the Iraqi security forces.
Posted by: Gatehouse Academy Reviews | November 25, 2010 at 02:03 AM
The American policy under Petraeus hasn't added a great deal of fuel that wasn't already there, while it has poured water on the matches most likely to be struck.
Posted by: Trent Jordan Vancouver | November 25, 2010 at 03:42 AM
I think one of the major problems with both the surge and Sunni awakening strategy has been their long term sustainability.
Posted by: Johnson City Toyota | November 29, 2010 at 05:02 AM
his is a great blog posting and very useful..The Sunni insurgents who turned against the jihadists are now expecting to be rewarded with government jobs.Thanks for sharing with us..
Posted by: Baby Nursery Accessories | December 01, 2010 at 05:36 AM
If their concern is about an end to the current conditions of reduced violence and a resumption of Iraqis killing Iraqis,they need to be honest enough to acknowledge that this is Iraqis' responsibility.
Posted by: Buy Me Private | December 04, 2010 at 03:41 AM
I hope Iraq runs in line. The war should be avoid.
Posted by: seo-vancouver | December 10, 2010 at 02:41 AM
This post was interesting.The Kurdish Deputy Prime Minister described it as "more a cease-fire than a peace." The point about a cease-fire is that they can easily cease. Here is the rub..Thanks for sharing with us
Posted by: San Diego Oceanfront rentals | December 18, 2010 at 02:01 AM
Well its true, the risk of their being engaged by the Americans goes down his inhibitions probably will as well,Thanks for the information...
Posted by: Watch | December 28, 2010 at 12:35 AM
Thanks for the post. There are several things I need to know via this discussion.
Posted by: Vật liệu cách nhiệt | March 10, 2011 at 04:06 AM