Petraeus, Iraq and the Lebanon Analogy
Gen. Petraeus is clearly convinced that Iraq needs US troops to shore up the government and security. He has done the most responsible job yet seen by an American official in Iraq in trying to end the carnage. He has made bazaars no drive zones to stop the car bombings. He has surrounded city districts with blast walls to keep out insurgents. He has reached out to the Sunnis (though alas the Shiite government has not). He has done what he could, but it hasn't been enough. There really is little sign of political reconciliation. And quite inadvertently, his initial disarming of the Sunni Arabs in Baghdad led to a massive ethnic cleansing and the Shiitization of the capital, setting the stage for a future civil war.
Al-Maliki started out with a national unity government. He had Sunnis in his cabinet. He had Sadrists in his cabinet. Islamic Virtue Party. Iraqi National List. All gone. His government is more fractured and less representative than before the surge began!
What if the US military presence is juvenilizing the Iraqis and prolonging the civil war? Over 900 Iraqis were killed in political violence in March, the highest number since September.
Some of the March death toll was from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's abrupt attack on the Sadr neighborhoods of Basra, which was repulsed. But surely al-Maliki rejected negotiations and attacked frontally because he knew that if he got into trouble he could call down US close air support. If the US were not in Iraq, might al-Maliki not have dickered instead?
Might it not be the same between al-Maliki and the Sunnis? Al-Maliki objected vehemently to the US arming the Sunni Awakening Councils. He declines to incorporate them into the Iraqi security forces in any numbers. But his standoffishness comes from knowledge that if the Sunnis give him too much trouble, he can have his American friends bomb them.
If we make an analogy to Lebanon, we can see that a foreign military occupation never resolved Lebanon's problems. Kissinger greenlighted a Syrian/ Arab League force for Lebanon in 1976. Although the Syrians invaded and kept tens of thousands of troops in Lebanon, they either did not want to or could not end the Lebanese civil war, which sputtered on.
The Israeli attempt in 1982 to install a Phalangist strongman failed. The US Marines tried to come in to do peace-keeping after the Israeli invasion, and they faced a still-sullen population, and got hit by Islamic Amal.
The Syrians could not help but play one Lebanese faction off against another.
Only in 1989, after 14 years of fruitless fighting, did the Lebanese agree to end the war. The big clan and sect leaders negotiated an end to the war. Some had been in or associated with the militias that had fought the civil war.
What if Iraq has been lebanonized, but not in the sense that Ambassador Crocker alleged, of heavy Iranian influence? (And by the way, I was in south Lebanon in December, and the influence of Iran strikes me as over-stated in the US. The UN, the EU and other funding sources are also important).
What if the US is playing the Syrians here, and the Iraqis the Lebanese?
In this analogy, the war is not ended by foreign occupation troops. If anything, the Syrian policies just keep the pot boiling.
It is ended by a conference at the resort town of Taef in Saudi Arabia among the big Lebanese politicians, who make key compromises with one another and begin practically disbanding militias.
Maybe the Iraqis need to be left on their own militarily, and maybe what they need is a big conference at Taef.
Maybe the US in Iraq is not the little boy with his finger in the dike. Maybe we are workers with jackhammers instructed to make the hole in the dike much more huge.
Just something to think about.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/09/2008 12:35:00 AM
|
Facebook
19 Comments:
' Some of the March death toll was from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's abrupt attack on the Sadr neighborhoods of Basra, which was repulsed. But surely al-Maliki rejected negotiations and attacked frontally because he knew that if he got into trouble he could call down US close air support. If the US were not in Iraq, might al-Maliki not have dickered instead? '
I cannot imagine that the attack on Basra and now in Baghdad originated with Maliki. He is a US puppet and has been from the get-go. He never would have been allowed to become premier otherwise. The MSM are perpetuating the myth that Iraq "sovereignty" has somehow been achieved.
' Might it not be the same between al-Maliki and the Sunnis? Al-Maliki objected vehemently to the US arming the Sunni Awakening Councils. He declines to incorporate them into the Iraqi security forces in any numbers. But his standoffishness comes from knowledge that if the Sunnis give him too much trouble, he can have his American friends bomb them. '
Do you really think arming the Sunnis is a good idea? Was arming Osama bin Laden a good idea?
Maliki must know that his American "friends" love him as much as they loved Diem in Vietnam. And that the same fate awaits him if he doesn't, for example, do the foolish things he's ordered to do, like attacking other Iraqis at the Occupations behest, like attacking Sadr.
' Maybe the Iraqis need to be left on their own militarily, and maybe what they need is a big conference at Taef.
' Maybe the US in Iraq is not the little boy with his finger in the dyke. Maybe we are workers with jackhammers instructed to make the hole in the dyke much more huge. '
Do ya think? Do ya think the same goes for Israel and Palestine? That if the US would just stop funding the war there and arming, now, both sides that it too would end?
Do ya think maybe the people in power in the US do not want these wars to end?
I think so. I think that Clinton/McCain/Obama are more of the same. Voting for them is voting for more war. So do it with your eyes open and do not complain when what we all, Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians, Israelis and Americans get is nothing but war, and for just as long as we choose to do nothing about it.
For just as long as we pull on the hash pipe and pull on the Republicrat/Demoblican lever, as long as we keep voting for Clinton/McCain/Obama or the next iteration of straw people eager to hear the band strike up Hail to the Chief, whose job is over on election day, who have nothing left to do but keep a steady course, for just that long people will die and suffer miserably all the world around at the hands of the United States of America. Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
It doesn't have to be this way. Gravel/McKinney/Nader. Don't let us fall another eight years behind.
The Lebanon analogy sounds pretty convincing to me.
As a mother, I would make the "squabbling children" analogy. The parent who interferes at every turn just causes more trouble. The parent who leaves the kids to work it out for themselves eventually comes back to find a settlement.
However you do worry about the weaker child getting tormented or overwhelmed, if the stronger one does not have some self-control.
In the case of the US and Iraq, we did cause the whole mess, so I can see why we seem to feel we have some responsibility to solve it. But clearly we don't have the power to solve it.
Prayer. I think lots of prayer is the only solution.
Reading today's entry really made me shake my head. Petraeus has done a responsible job? All he's done is perform an extremely ill-advised military policy, the surge, that he knew better than to even try at the numbers given. As a good yesman, instead of a good general, he's achieved a PR success for Bush by paying off the folks who were fighting us and by completing the ghettoization of Baghdad. And remember, a year of horror, 2007, would likely never have ocurred
if the US had pulled out instead of surging. It has never changed since the occcupation began that THE OCCUPATION IS THE PROBLEM!!
You speak of the infantilization of the Iraqi government. Well, what the hell do you expect? It's a puppet government and never has been anything else. Of course it has no real authority and therefore no real responsibility.
Would the Shia and Sunni have fought each other had the US not invaded, or had the US at least had something like a responsible plan to quickly restore order and then get out? I doubt it. The strongest Shia group is Sadr and Sadr is a nationalist first and foremost. So are the Sunnis.
Something would have been worked out.
If we pulled out right now, something would be worked out. There might be some violence, but most likely very little.
If Petraeus were a responsible general, he would have told Bush "I cannot carry out an effective surge with the numbers and resources you are giving me and, in fact, a surge is a bad idea in any case" and would have refused the mission.
What's really funny about your admiration for Petraeus is that you not long ago accused Fallon of deserving to be dismissed for playing politics (which he wasn't) and we found out yesterday that Petraeus WAS playing politics (making oil company connections for the Iraqi government, clearly a state department function).
The News Hour debate after the Petraeus/Crocker hearings, between Frederick Kagan and General William Odom was enlightening.
While Kagan staunchly defended Petraeus/Crocker viewpoint, Odom was scathing of political progress in Iraq.
Lessons learned from Basra
MARGARET WARNER:
General Odom, let's pick up on the major point of the focus of the hearing, which was Basra, and what are the lessons of the Maliki government offensive in Basra.
You heard Carl Levin say it showed the incompetence of the Maliki government. You heard General Petraeus say it wasn't well-planned, but it actually showed their willingness to take on the extremists. What is your assessment of it?
GEN. WILLIAM ODOM: It showed how impossible it is to expect anything productive out of the Maliki government. Let me make a key point about this government: When this is all over, the people in the Green Zone now and the Maliki government will not be in charge.
The future successful government in Iraq is not one of our allies. It will be somebody who wins the civil war. And we're trying to ally with all sides to prevent it.
When you say that the Lebanization of Iraq is taking place, yes, but not because of Iran, but because the U.S. went in and made this kind of fragmentation possible. And it has occurred over the last five years.
Another point, as you assess the overall strategy, is that we don't have the forces to continue any significant large presence there indefinitely. We don't have the Army to do anything about Iran if we wanted to, which would be a big mistake, the kind that Kissinger and Nixon made by widening the war in Vietnam in 1970 and '80.
So any way you look at it, it's grim. The idea that they will aggregate these groups of awakening communities up to a central government without great conflict -- I don't see any prospect -- I don't know any historical precedent for that.
"http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june08/iraq_04-08.html
I agree that the future government of Iraq will be the winner of the eventual civil war.... inspite of everything America does!
I've lived in Lebanon and in Iraq and I was always worried that America's invasion would turn the country into another Lebanon only 15 times the size. The ONLY solution is to let countries sort out their own problems.
Yes, if the U.S. left, Maliki would surely think twice about another Basra operation. There is a kind of 'moral hazard' to the U.S. presence that encourages recklessness and, frankly, a dependency on bailouts. Juvenility may not be the best term, but it is close.
And maybe the U.S. is fighting the Iraqi nationalists because the have ulterior motives.
Something I heard today seemed to make sense to me. The current administration could also be unwilling to draw down the troops also for political reasons.
If the democrats win elections and the soldiers have not started to return then it will become the new administrations problem. Which will hurt the image of whosoever is in the White House as it is bound to be a complicated process with setbacks.
The troops might also start coming home right before November elections and the current administration can use that to sway disgruntled voters who have been calling for return of troops. The general public has such short term memory that this might actually work.
Having seen how the Iraq war was sold to public, what happened in 2004 election and the mentality of Senator Crocker and the Bush administration in general, no trickery seems beyond belief.
Incredible that Crocker claimed that resentment for the Iran Iraq war was turning the Shia against Iran but failed to mention that Maliki's allies Hakim and his Badr organization fought on the Iranian side in the war and was founded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Iran during that war.
How does he get away with framing the events in Basra and Sadr city as Pro American forces fighting Pro Iranian forces? The SCIRI and it's Badr militia has always been closer to Iran then the Sadr movement is. It's really a power struggle between 2 anti-American pro-Iranian groups.
As usual Juan, incredible. Thanks again.
.
Dr. C,
you observe that there is little sign of political reconciliation.
I think Ambassador Crocker would respond that you are focusing on national reconciliation,
and overlooking local reconciliation.
Now, it would be fair for you to point out that this amounts to changing the goals
since the initial goals of national reconciliation cannot be achieved.
OK.
It would also be fair to point out that there is very little progress toward local reconciliation.
OK. He gets it.
But the Ambassador will take whatever progress he can get.
....................
Members of this forum correctly pointed out a couple of years ago that this "local reconciliation" approach will take a very long time before it reduces the level of violence.
They pointed out that, by rebuilding social order from the bottom up, starting with families and then progressing to what I called "Model Communities,"
with the authentic indigenous local leaders of small, discrete communities
being empowered to secure and stabilize their own communities,
the immediate result would be a patchwork quilt of medieval fiefdoms,
with zones of potential conflict at every border between adjacent communities.
OK. It's not ideal.
But under such an arrangement individual people can feel safe in their homes,
can send their children to school,
can go to the market,
and can go to work.
Until these bare minimums of stability can be delivered by some national governmental instrumentality,
the people need their local government to deliver them.
....................
Give these tribal and militia leaders a little credit.
They will work out pacts and reciprocal agreements with their neighboring community leaders.
They need commerce.
They need to be able to sell to other markets, and to bring in goods from outside.
These are the guys that are going to rebuild Iraq, from the bottom up.
I think this is how human society first evolved,
in this same region,
over 15,000 years ago.
They can do it again.
It's a little ridiculous for Crocker to claim any credit for what little progress has been made at the local level,
in view of how the US disrespects and undermines local leaders at every turn.
It's presumptive for him to be speaking of a role for the foreign oppressor in "bottom up" reconstruction.
Except that he and MNF-I can step back and help this local process along.
Props to J Hess and others who have contributed to the refinement of the approach.
Keep those cards and letters -
and suggestions for improvement or refinement -
coming.
There's an outside prospect that MNF-I ACofS Strategic Effects is going to fund a trial of the approach next month.
your avid student
.
Wise, as usual. My own take of the Bush Petreaus death dance:
General Petreaus says significant progress has been made toward stabilizing the country. Could be better, mind you, but we're on the right track. Deaths are down, suicide bombings are down, mortar attacks are down, now up...but we can’t leave no matter what and we don’t know when we can leave. Aside from the Bush team’s penchant for fixing facts around the policy, it seems George Bush is trying to keep his deadly house of cards (Iraq) upright until he leaves office and if the Democrats do win the presidency, and the US leaves the place, he can blame the ensuing chaos on them, --if the new President does leave and if there is, indeed, chaos.
While the politicians dawdle and try to avoid the blame game, the death and destruction continues to rise. Hasn’t out presence in Iraq become rather hopeless ? Hasn’t it become obvious that this country cannot repair the pottery that was once Iraq and by staying is only creating more chaos? The time is long past for us to leave.
I think youre confusing the "good" that Petreaus has done with the actual good that Fallon has done. I'm sure meeting with the parties involved and being diplomatic has done alot more towards peace than building bombshelters...
The way I see it, Petraeus is trying to treat the symptoms and keep his job, while Fallon is looking for the cure and worrying about doing the right thing.
The proper name for rhe "Model Communities" in the comment by avid student is Cantonization. It is what the Zionists have been trying to do in Palestine, and in Iraq after the invasion.
Cantons are OK in a country like Switzerland which is not under threat from other. Iraq and Palestine need all the nationalism they can muster in order to combine their forces and protect their nations from the outsiders. They also need very strong central authority to protect the nation after the foreigners are driven out. Fragmenting the country works for the outsiders, not the country.
As for local level reconciliation. It is meaningless because the ordinary people did get on all along. The Sunnis did not in fact reconcile with the Salafis, they kicked them out to achieve peace.
Few people outside Iraq noticed that the vast majority of Iraqi cities never saw any GIs until long after the fall of Baghdad. During those days or weeks, there was no looting or crime, let alone secterian violence.
The Iraqi police and Army were in fact ordered by Rumsfeld to go home, way before Bremer. So these cities had no security forces of any kind, but were peaceful. The men would grab plastic chairs and sit around at night chatting but holding their AK47 to protect their street only. No leaders.
As soon as the "liberators" moved in, looting and killing would start in earnest. Falluja and Mosul are good examples because the mayhem was shown on US TV networks, but they never asked why there was none just before.
So, if the Americans leave very rapidly, the violence will be between the political mafias and will not involve the people. Personally, I think such violence will be very useful and should be encouraged to punish the scum at least, but also to weaken them.
Lewis Mumford writes : “Historians two or three centuries hence may interpret the ‘seemingly invisible’, expendable thousands of maimed and dead experienced each year as a result of automobile accidents ~ as a "ritual sacrifice" that American society freely made because of its extreme reliance on highway transport and automobile-centric culture.”
. . .I was going to write about the incredible folly of "biofuels" = sorry you're hungry, kid ~ but we needed that farmland to grow gas; And as well our passive, inevitable acceptance of "ritual sacrifice" required to sustain extraction geo-politics; e.g., ‘petro-culture’, etc... but imho : I state the obvious :
1,000 KIA + 10,000 WIA / year "ritual sacrifice" Over There is peanuts ~ whether in historical retrospect or, relative to the "ritual sacrifice" to ‘petro-culture’ freely accepted by American society Over Here. The ultimate, hideous 'spin' on ‘IRAQ’, et al. : will be that there is Old Glory found in this "New Kind of War".
Gen. Petraeus has been at least pratly responsible for the continued destruction of iraq and Iraqis, so why should I care a nickle for him? I just want us out of Iraq.
What if the unstated goal of the Bush administration is not a unified, pliant, democratized or stable Iraq? Maybe, by creating a chaotic situation in the first place; and, applying measures that ensure further (and endless) chaos is the unstated goal. The Bushies and their corporate leeches seem quite content to maintain the status quo. As W's mommy said, "It's all working out quite well for them."
The tenure of Gen. Petraeus may be no longer than that of Bush. Surely a new president can put whomever he/she wants in charge of the Iraq debacle, including someone like Adm. Fallon, who opposed the surge. I would have liked to see Obama and Clinton, or their supporters in either of the chambers, emphasize that Bush cannot (not "ought not" or "should not") tie the hands of a future chief executive. Indeed, at the rate they are going in increasing exponentially the presidential powers, the next office-holder can do any damn thing he/she pleases with no consultations, laws, or confirmations. Nor need we fear the loss of US credibility internationally if we "just say no" to the last five years: that vanished into the same black hole as Iraq's infrastructure and cultural institutions.
"I cannot imagine that the attack on Basra and now in Baghdad originated with Maliki. He is a US puppet and has been from the get-go. He never would have been allowed to become premier otherwise."
This of course is spot on, John Francis. Maliki is the perfect puppet as he has virtually no support, other than of course the US. Both Maliki and Bush know that there time is limited, and both are engaging in a stalling game so as to 'kick the can' down the road. W. walks away from another mess that someone else has to clean up, and Maliki walks away with a looted treasury. Neat trick.
Post a Comment
<< Home