Getting Out of a Quagmire: Can Iraq be fixed?

[Vicsun]

Calling Iraq a "quagmire" appears to be the latest trend in the media, and it seems like a fitting catchphrase, too. Every month appears to be 'the worst one yet' - a recently released report by a group of scientists attributed circa one hundred thousand civilian deaths to the invasion. July averaged over one hundred deaths per day, according to official sources. Violence, instead of the usual heart attack/stroke/chronic illness, is the primary cause of death in the country. To put it simply, Iraq really really sucks right now.

So what can be done to improve it? The currently sticky situation could have been avoided with a more competent administration, but it seems to me that regardless of the competence of the future administration little can be done right now to improve the situation.

The two obvious options are to 'cut and run' or 'stay the course' (I'd also like to point out what trite clichés those two phrases are). Cutting and running carries a pejorative connotation, though I'd argue that at times cutting one's losses, no matter how big, is more sensible than dragging on a conflict with no end in sight. And there is no end in sight in Iraq. Timetables keep on shifting and politicians keep on worming their way around questions regarding the time-frame of a possible withdrawal ("When the job is done!"), while things are getting worse. Does that mean withdrawal is a good solution?

I don't personally think so. While turning Iraq into an exemplary democracy is simply not possible at this point, there is an ever-so-slight chance it will be put on some sort of a stable, democratic trajectory, at least. Even if that seems hard to believe, the potential consequences of leaving should be enough to convince anyone it's a bad idea. The civil war that will ensue will be much worse than the current situation - gone are the days of a Sunni insurgency against foreign occupiers; coalition forces are the only force keeping the killing under some control in a sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis. A withdrawal won't make things less violent and poses the serious risk getting other factions involved. Say what you will about the US (I'd probably agree), but I'd rather have them in Iraq than Syria.

Now that I've established why I think both leaving and staying are bad ideas, what are the alternatives? How about splitting Iraq into a Sunni, a Shiite, and a Kurdish state? If we take the very creation of Iraq as a mistake of Britain in the 1920s, and assume the only thing that can keep the country together is the iron fist of Saddam (not really that unreasonable of an assumption) the idea doesn't seem ludicrous. On the other hand, India, Yugoslavia and Palestine didn't turn out too well, so it's not like there's a lot of good precedent. I can certainly envision conflicts over zones of mixed populations.

Other suggestions I've heard involve 'retreating over the horizon' to a neighboring country and attempting to control Iraq from there, or forming a sort of a weak-centered federation with strong regions. Both of those have their pitfalls and none of them are really any easier than what America's trying to do right now - keeping the violence under control while attempting to get the politicians to reach some sort of power-sharing deal.

What do you think should be done to clean up the current mess? Is it even possible anymore?

[fable]

Now that I've established why I think both leaving and staying are bad ideas, what are the alternatives? How about splitting Iraq into a Sunni, a Shiite, and a Kurdish state?

This is what I stated things would tend to back when the US first invaded, and was told to shut up, that the US would find the WMD, and the occupation be brief and successful. But as I noted then, Iraq is really 3 separate cultural groups, all with suspicions of one another. The Shiites in the South naturally gravitate towards Iran, and receive a great deal of covert Iranian support. The US really, really hates the idea of a separate state for them. The Sunnis in the middle feel threatened by the others, and take both pride and unease over having provided the formerly ruling Bathist elite. The Kurds in the north are distrusted by all of Iraqs' neighbors, and the Turks have threatened to invade if they should ever split off to create a separate state.

Left to themselves, all three groups would likely be in a full state of war. At the moment, the US and the UK are more or less keeping the "nation" together with spit and ducktape, in the form of endless bribes and patrolling militia. Once they leave, I think we'll see centrifugal force take over. How this plays out is anybody's guess, since it isn't simply a case of the US and UK dictating terms, but of what Syria, Iran, and Turkey choose to do, as well.

[Vicsun]

Now that I've established why I think both leaving and staying are bad ideas, what are the alternatives? How about splitting Iraq into a Sunni, a Shiite, and a Kurdish state?

This is what I stated things would tend to back when the US first invaded, and was told to shut up, that the US would find the WMD, and the occupation be brief and successful. But as I noted then, Iraq is really 3 separate cultural groups, all with suspicions of one another. The Shiites in the South naturally gravitate towards Iran, and receive a great deal of covert Iranian support. The US really, really hates the idea of a separate state for them. The Sunnis in the middle feel threatened by the others, and take both pride and unease over having provided the formerly ruling Bathist elite. The Kurds in the north are distrusted by all of Iraqs' neighbors, and the Turks have threatened to invade if they should ever split off to create a separate state.

Left to themselves, all three groups would likely be in a full state of war. At the moment, the US and the UK are more or less keeping the "nation" together with spit and ducktape, in the form of endless bribes and patrolling militia. Once that leaves, I think we'll see centrifugal force take over. How this plays out is anybody's guess, since it isn't simply a case of the US and UK dictating terms, but of what Syria, Iran, and Turkey choose to do, as well.

So what do you think should be done? I agree the situation has been handled horribly so far, but it seems to me that right now there's no right way to handle it anymore.

[VonDondu]

What do you think should be done to clean up the current mess?

It doesn't matter what I think. Some ideas might be better than others, but the Bush administration is not going to pursue the best options.

So what can be done to improve it? The currently sticky situation could have been avoided with a more competent administration, but it seems to me that regardless of the competence of the future administration little can be done right now to improve the situation.

I think you have answered your own question. There isn't anything that anyone can do to improve the situation in Iraq right now. It will get a lot worse before it gets any better.

Now that I've established why I think both leaving and staying are bad ideas, what are the alternatives? How about splitting Iraq into a Sunni, a Shiite, and a Kurdish state?

I agree with Wonkette.com on this one:

A Powerful Reminder Of What Happens To Really Awful Presidents

That was meant to be snarky of course, but seriously, think about it. We will abandon the Kurds like we and everyone else have always done. We will be forced out of many parts of Iraq by the Shiites, especially when (not if) we go to war with Iran. And if we set up a Sunni state, what better leader could they have than Saddam Hussein? He's the only one who could ever keep things under control, and most of them want him back. He could be useful to us again when we go to war with Iran. He was always a useful ally before we turned on him, especially when we were at odds with Iran (like we were before Reagan decided it was a good idea to make friends with Iran and arm them in exchange for whatever it was that Reagan got out of the deal). How could that be any worse than "staying the course"?

You asked for the "best" solution, you know. I didn't say you would like it.

[Mr_Snow]

America will not "cut and run" from Iraq, regardless of which party is in Washington.
America is now setting up 4 permanents bases to have a prescence in the region (and they are not set-up solely for the current conflict).

As for Iraq splitting into seperate areas ala Yugoslavia, it's very doubtful that's going to happen, especially since countires like Turkey have publiclly stated that they will not allow a Kurdish State on their borders.

What I see happening on the ground regardless of western opinion is that the current strife will only calm down once the Shi'ites either brutally suppress the Sunni insurgency or that inuergency slowly peters out with gradual strengthening of the current Iraqi government and armed forces (that will take time but to avoid a slaughter that'll make the current situation look like a petty squabble then it needs to happen).

Remember also you have Iran, Syria & Turkey all putting their fingers in the pie and aggrevating the differing factions. But one thing I do reakon the Iraqi government has to do in stomp on the Medi army, a functioning government cannot allow a factional militia to control areas of the country. Moqtada al Sada is causing more problems than he's helping fix. And short of a bullet I can't see them sorting him out.

Also saying the country is in strife is in my opinion a bit of a exageration, a small area does not make a country. large parts of Iraq (in fact over 60% of it) are settled and in productive peace, the media focus's on the areas like Baghdad that are in turmoil and broadly attribute that across the whole country, which is not true to the facts on the ground.

The former Sunni bathists need to get over the fact that they were deposed and won't get back into power again, the Al'queda factions need to realise there is never going to be a taliban style muslim theocrity running the country, and Iran, Syria need to stop trying in influence the factions on the ground trying to have some type of say in running Iraq.

How's this going to happen? By toughing it out in my opinion, just saying it's all to hard and/or not my country's concern is not good enough when the bad-stuff hits the fan after the West has left and millions die because of Foreign influence (Iran etc) and civil war.
How can the West claim compassion and when it looks like getting too tough, leave and let millions more die than wouldn't have if they had stayed. In my opinion they can't.

[Lady Dragonfly]

America will not "cut and run" from Iraq, regardless of which party is in Washington.
America is now setting up 4 permanents bases to have a prescence in the region (and they are not set-up solely for the current conflict).
.............

How's this going to happen? By toughing it out in my opinion, just saying it's all to hard and/or not my country's concern is not good enough when the bad-stuff hits the fan after the West has left and millions die because of Foreign influence (Iran etc) and civil war.
How can the West claim compassion and when it looks like getting too tough, leave and let millions more die than wouldn't have if they had stayed. In my opinion they can't.

According to the September 2006 Congressional analysis, the US is not building permanent military bases in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the local population distrusts America's long-term intentions.
Instead, the report reveals that the US accelerate construction of so-called semi-permanent support bases in and around Iraq and Afganistan.
The fact that the bases (semi or not) are being built at all in the region indicates that Bush and Co. are planning a long stay indeed.

The question is whether the US can afford to stay that much longer since according to the same report this war is costing the taxpayers $2 billion a week (20% more than last year).

The GOP media is screeching ad nauseam that the terrorists want the Democrats win the elections because "then the US would leave". I heard that again a few days ago on Fox News. I think it was Pat Buchanan.
The "moral choice" is clear to conservatives: elect GOP and keep "liberating" Iraq until the Doom's Day.
Last Christmas our President said: "...there are only two options before our country: victory or defeat."
With this 2-bit mentality there is no room to any maneuver. Win or die trying. The latter outcome is more likely.

[Mr_Snow]

Lady Dragonfly:
Your 2006 congressional in would be much more recent than that I saw (a PBS Frontline episode where they mention 4 bases were being setup to be permanent.)

Though that being said when a government says it'll "pull out" may not necessarily mean every last US personnel will leave

But I still don't think the US/UK will withdraw even if the opposition get in in either country.

(as an aside, did the Congressional paper mention about the US base in Uzbekistan, cause I know the Chinese & Russia are trying hard to force them out of what they see as "their" territory)

[Magrus]

IMHO, I don't think it can be "fixed". Maybe it is my own past experiences that leads me to this view, but not all people are peaceful. Not all people can live together in peace either, and there is a difference between the two. Sooner or later that situation is going to end up with the three attempting to seperate and the new groups being hammered by foreign forces. Then again, maybe they will attempt to avoid that and seek to co-habitate. In which case, one group will offend another, and someone will injure or kill someone between the groups. Which will set off a retaliatory effect, and then it will escalate into larger and more violent reprisals.

I am more likely to believe that one of the three groups will establish dominance over the two others once the US pulls out. At that point, the other groups will recall poor treatment when another group was in control. They will seek to unseat that group and establish dominance themselves in order to see to it they get better treatment. At which point you will have constant scrambling for control, and a circular 3-way civil war. Possibly until the population is thinned out enough for the three groups to shift apart to seperate sides of the country and form three distinct provinces or something within the country.

[Xandax]

<snip> How about splitting Iraq into a Sunni, a Shiite, and a Kurdish state? If we take the very creation of Iraq as a mistake of Britain in the 1920s, and assume the only thing that can keep the country together is the iron fist of Saddam (not really that unreasonable of an assumption) the idea doesn't seem ludicrous. On the other hand, India, Yugoslavia and Palestine didn't turn out too well, so it's not like there's a lot of good precedent. I can certainly envision conflicts over zones of mixed populations.
<snip>

A problem with splitting up the country which haven't been mentioned is the lack of natural resources in the "Middle" part of Iraq. The oilfields - which are the primary source of income, are located in the south and north, and thus the part which get "stuck" with the barren wasteland might not be so content, leading only to further problems in the area.