Shockingly Positive Article on Iraq

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack have published a shocking editorial in the New York Times (here).

These two (especially Pollack who I follow more closely) have been against the war, and more importantly heavy critics, from the beginning. Today, they are reporting success on the ground in Iraq that cannot be ignored unlike the normal garbage at National Review/Weekly Standard.

They credit the new strategy in Iraq for reaching out to Iraqis on a local level (Pollack has criticized the administration for prosecuting a centralized war incapable of reaching out to locals in The New Republic previously), spurring local economic development through initiatives such as microloans, creating a more diverse Iraqi military, and raising U.S. troop moral levels.

It is saddening to think of the way the war was fought from the beginning. We wasted all this time, boat loads of money, and thousands of lives waiting for a coherent strategy. Sad.

Senator Webb Gives a Good Example of How Not to End the War

Note to Senator Webb: You are not the president and Congress is not the Executive branch.

In a 56-41 vote, Webb's amendment would have required troops in Iraq to have time at home equal to time served in theater. While it is a clever attempt to end the war, it is not the province of Congress to control the military. Congress has one true constitutional avenue to end the war: cut off funding. Anything apart from a cut in funding is simply an attempt at usurping power.

I understand the Democrats desire to end the war. Their attempts are simply a reflection of their constituents demands, but that doesn't mean they should do so in a way which will would alter forever how the U.S. engages in warfare. Imagine if congress could have voted on the storming of Normandy, or island hoping in the Pacific? It would have been a bureaucratic nightmare.

The bottom line is that if Jim Webb and his friends on the hill wish to end the war they should have the political courage to simply cut off funding. If they fail they should try again. Then again who ever let the pesky constitution get in the way of a good idea.

Another Defector

Senator Domenici is the most recent addition to the GOP revolt over Iraq. He joins Voinovich and Lugar in just the last week.

This is slightly surprising. I thought they would have waited until the September report. After that they would be able to use it to 'prove' that progress in Iraq is too slow (or whatever else they want to 'prove'). While I am no fan of the Iraq situation, I am miffed by lack of a plan by the defectors. They make empty pronouncements about funding the troops and denounce timetables but what are they for? I haven't heard any coherent plan from them, and definitely not from the Democrats either.

Regardless how we got into Iraq, we cannot simply pull out. In short, it would be a recklessly irresponsible move. Some semblance of order, however slight must be established. What does that mean? It means that an Iraqi citizen can go to the market without wondering if he will return. It means that there is an agreement, however tenuous, which allow for a form of power sharing and oil wealth distribution. It means that foreign terrorists with a singular goal of instability are mostly driven out or contained. It does not mean that Iraq must look like a mini-America, which was the major problem from the beginning. Actually i would argue that is what got us into this mess, but that is another story for another day.

Regardless, exit will not be pretty. It will most likely look like a post-civil war Lebanon. Several groups involved in an uneasy power sharing agreement where each side distrusts the other. Such an arrangement will be fragile and easily disturbed. Read this for a more in depth analysis.

As is life. It is not pretty but its what we will most likely leave. Anything less is unacceptable.

The real problem I have with the defectors is their lack of vision. Actually I take that back. They do have a plan. They plan on winning re-election in 2008. But when it comes to an issue such as this there should be more than politics at play. The world is watching and we will either be more damaged than we already are diplomatically or we will reserve some semblance of legitimacy.

You can't be against the 'war' and be for an alternative.

Good news in Iraq

I haven't said much about the situation in Iraq because I am actively involved in trying to have an analysis of the situation that I wrote published. It wont be in Foreign Affairs or anything of that stature but published is published. We'll see. But writing about it here after reading and writing about it for hours is not appealing in the least. After reading this article in the Washington Post, I decided to write something short.

I'm not sure how long it has been since I have read an article about U.S. policy in Iraq that I liked or agreed with; the long drought is now over. The military is now looking to co-op certain Sunni Arab groups in the fight against al-Qaeda. It is about time.

The real threat in Iraq is al-Qaeda.
Rhetoric surrounding al-Qaeda is often false or overblown. The case is often made that Iraq will become a "safe haven" or "breading grounds" for al-Qaeda if we "fail". Although this could happen a much bigger danger is a wider civil war which involves neighboring countries. This could be a catastrophic event that will greatly overshadow a few extremists planning attacks on the U.S.

How will this catistrophic event be realized? Through flaming sectarian hatred spread by al-Qaeda. They are small and relatively weak, but know how to cause trouble. The Sunni's have tolerated them because of their lack of power after the fall of Saddam (simplistic explanation but will due for now). This is essential because they need local support to operate. It seems that many Sunni tribal leaders have come to realize that a civil war is not in their best interest. Their minority status combined with lack of oil resources on their lands would give the Sunnis immediate underdog status.

Instead some groups have decided that al-Qaeda is the enemy (with the U.S. a close second and Israel a close third). Therefore, we should assist them in exterminating the biggest threat to stability in Iraq. To nobody's surprise the Kurds and Shiites don't like this idea. They claim that we may be arming people who have attacked the U.S. They also claim that these guns may be turned on them later. Both are valid concerns, but the need to defeat (or at least marginalize) al-Qaeda is more important.

Bring em on al-Qaeda style.

An article today in the Times Online makes me want to change my position on the troop surge. In a newly released video Ayman al-Zawahiri is seen mocking the presidents plan to send more troops to Iraq. He likes the idea because he thinks that it is an opportunity to bring the entire evil army into Iraq so it can be destroyed.

“I ask him: why send only 20,000 of his soldiers to Iraq. I ask him: why send only 20,000 soldiers? Why don’t you send 50,000 or 100,000…Don’t you know the dogs of Iraq are impatient to devour the carcasses of your soldiers? On the contrary, you must send your entire army to be annihilated at the hands of the mujahedeen so that the whole world will be rid of your wickedness”

It is probably best described as al-Qaeda’s version of “bring it on”. If I was president it would make me want to bring it on. The more rational step would be to unleash the Shia’s on them. The entire military and diplomatic mission in Iraq for some time now has been to stop the Iraqi army (which is almost entirely a Shia institution) and the various militias (headlined my Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army) from turning al-Qaeda into a distant memory.

Why? Because US foreign policy is largely driven by humanitarian considerations (all Sunni’s would be targets) and the encroachment of Iranian power. Both are important but the latter should be stressed when creating foreign policy and devising geopolitical strategies.

Truth on Iraq

An article by Robert Baer in Time magazine is probably the best I have read in a long time. Being a fan of Robert Baer for some time I was excited to read the article when I saw his name. The brevity, honesty, and clarity of the article met my every expectation.
In case you have a fire to put out or a bus to catch and don't have enough time to read the article, I will summarize it for you.
He is in support of the troop surge. Not because it will bring a peaceful democracy that will be the bedrock of future progress in the Middle East, but because it will allow for a peaceful partition of Iraq.
The reason I like his assessment is not only because i think it is true, but also because he shows a simple understanding about human nature.
People agree to be governed by a powerful central entity because of a desire for security. Without such an entity mans existence is difficult at best, horrific at worst, and hellish, brutish, and short for sure. To elude such an existence man allows a slice of their sovereignty to be invaded. I allow the government to take a portion my private property in return for a system that protects my remaining private property from other citizens (my government has gone far beyond their edict, but thats another story).
This quid-pro-quo system does not exist in Iraq. Iraqi's have no reason to surrender sovereignty to an entity that cannot provide them with security. Therefore they have sought security through tribal association. Baer's assessment of the situation couldn't be better. I have thought that a partition would be the best situation since the start of the war, and having the American military in place will allow for a semi-peaceful partition unlike what happened in Yugoslavia.
The real problem with all of this is that Sunnis in Iraq are the clear losers because their portion of the country lacks large known oil reserves. This would lead me to believe that, at some point, there will be renewed fighting to "reclaim their rightful lands" (their rightful lands will coincidently be rich in oil) and they will enlist the help of friendly Sunni states.
We shall see.