“…It appears that…advocates of a continued American military presence in Iraq were right to warn of the dangers of withdrawal. The Associated Press reports from Baghdad:
‘June was the second-deadliest month since U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq in mid-December as insurgents exploited the political struggles between the country’s ethnic and sectarian factions. More significant than the numbers was the fact that insurgents appeared able to sustain the level of violence over a longer period than usual. There was a major deadly bombing or shooting rampage almost every three days.…’
With violence levels rising and with Prime Minister Maliki increasingly accumulating dictatorial powers—the two trends are related because the more the political system breaks down, the more likely it is that various parties will resort to violence—the outlook for Iraq is a good deal less bright than it was a year ago when it appeared likely there would be a residual American troop presence past 2011.”—Max Boot, in “Iraq Is Blowing Up.” (Contentions, July 3.)
GHOSTS OF IRAQ HAUNT OBAMA CAMPAIGN
Thomas J. Basile
Washington Times, July 2, 2012
America’s mission in Iraq may have ended but the Iraq War is far from over for President Obama. During his brief tenure in the Senate, Mr. Obama called for a precipitous withdrawal of our forces by the end of 2007. In 2008, he campaigned on a platform of bringing American troops home and closing the book on Iraq. Mr. Obama accomplished the former, but Iraq’s domestic political environment and increasingly close relationship with Iran may inject the war-torn nation back into the American political discourse.…
Dec. 15, 2011, saw an official end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq.… Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s words ring as true now as when he formally marked the end to the U.S. mission in Iraq, stating, “Iraq will be tested in the days ahead—by terrorism and by those who would seek to divide, by economic and social issues, by the demands of democracy itself.” Mr. Panetta also said clearly that the United States “will be there to stand by the Iraqi people as they navigate those challenges.…”
In the days since, Iraq has been thrown to the wolves.
The months following the U.S. troop withdrawal have seen spikes in sectarian violence. Nearly 1,500 civilians have been killed since December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s steady consolidation of power and disregard for a carefully brokered power-sharing agreement has hopelessly divided the parliament. Meanwhile, Iraq’s new regional allies, cultivated during the U.S. mission, are now growing increasingly uncomfortable with Mr. Maliki’s closeness with Iran.
Iran’s influence in Iraq is not a new development. Tehran had been killing U.S. troops, working to equip insurgents and trying to mold the political situation for years. With the United States all but disengaged, that influence has been permitted to increase under Mr. Maliki. Today, Iran is busily calling in favors among its allied factions in Iraq, and exerting its significant religious and economic influence in an attempt to block Mr. Maliki’s opponents from ousting the Shia leader or calling for a vote of no confidence.
Thus far, despite continued reports of human rights abuses being carried out by Mr. Maliki’s henchmen and the continued suppression of free press, the Obama administration has remained silent, hoping the American people won’t notice that their investment in Iraq may end up in the hands of the Iranians.
This is what happens when you make military and diplomatic decisions based on domestic political pressures. It emboldens your enemies and weakens your position.… We lost our voice and our influence the moment we left Baghdad, which, coincidentally, was also the precise moment Mr. Maliki’s son ordered tanks to surround the homes of Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi and two other senior opposition leaders.
The call to take a more aggressive diplomatic stance again on Iraq is growing, though the White House is turning a deaf ear.…
The debate in 2004 was whether the United States should have invaded Iraq. In 2012, the question may be whether we withdrew so precipitously that we’ve endangered everything our brave men in uniform struggled and died to achieve.…
(Thomas J. Basile served as an adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority
in Baghdad from 2003-2004.)
BLIND IN BAGHDAD
Michael Knights
Foreign Policy, July 5, 2012
Something is stirring in Iraq. On July 3, car bombs ripped through mainly Shiite neighborhoods across the country, killing 36 people. It was the latest tragedy in a bloody month—a prolonged political crisis has weakened the government in Baghdad, giving insurgent groups an opening to expand their operations. The consequent surge in violence has led some to fear that the country could once again be descending into civil war.
But just as Iraqi politics heats up, the United States is rapidly losing its ability to decipher events in the country. “Half of our situational awareness is gone,” an unnamed U.S. official told the Wall Street Journal in June. “More than half,” a serving U.S. military officer told me when I asked about the accuracy of that statement.
To Iraq experts, these statements ring true: At the height of the “surge,” the United States collected fine-grain data from the 166,000 U.S. troops and 700 CIA personnel in Iraq, as well as a network of 31 Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Now, U.S. embassy staff enjoy very limited freedom of movement—hemmed in by a suspicious government in Baghdad and a still-dangerous security situation. According to the Journal, the CIA station in Iraq may be reduced to 40 percent of its peak levels because the Iraqi government is extremely sensitive about its intelligence work with the Iraqi security forces. The information vacuum has led Iraq experts and officials in U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration to increasingly argue over basic facts.…
What a dramatic reversal from just a few short years ago. When the U.S. presence was at its zenith, the U.S. government developed what the Germans call Fingerspitzengefühl—fingertip feeling. Read the hundreds of cables from Provincial Reconstruction Teams released by WikiLeaks and you will be astounded by the granular knowledge the United States developed on Iraqi personalities and local conditions.…
[However], U.S. awareness in Iraq began to decline as soon as the U.S.-Iraq security agreement that determined American troops’ departure date was signed in November 2008, and it accelerated as the slow drawdown of forces commenced. By the summer of 2011, U.S.-collected Significant Activity (SIGACT) reports on militant attacks were becoming ragged—lacking detail, containing erroneous geospatial data, and only partially covering key parts of the country and certain classes of activity. In fall 2011, whole provinces began to “go dark” as the last U.S. forces left. And at 11:59 p.m. on Dec. 15, 2011, the U.S. military incident reporting system issued its last SIGACT report. As ordered by its political masters, the U.S. military turned off the lights and locked the doors behind them. The truth is that the United States is now flying blind in Baghdad.…
So what is really happening in Iraq?… It appears that Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence has essentially replaced attacks on U.S. forces. A Washington Institute for Near East Policy dataset…shows that the overall number of incidents [in Iraq] has stayed remarkably flat since fall 2011, a period that saw the final U.S. military withdrawal.… Although there was no meltdown, there was also no drop in violence as U.S. targets disappeared. The reason for this is clear: Average monthly reported Iraqi-on-Iraqi attack events were 18 percent higher from March to May 2012 than June to August 2011. If other categories of violence (such as militant-related murders and kidnaps) were counted for both sampling periods, the growth rate in Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence would be higher—probably around 20 to 25 percent.…
[Accordingly], Iraq is not truly stabilizing. The toxic political environment is functioning as a life support machine for militant groups that should be on the verge of extinction by now.… Iraq is stuck on a plateau of insecurity, particularly in western Baghdad and in the predominately Sunni Arab provinces of Nineveh, Salah al-Din, Diyala, and Anbar, as well as in multi-ethnic Kirkuk.
In Iraq, everything is about momentum: You are either going forward or going backward. Iraq’s politics and security are inseparable; security stagnation has occurred because sectarian reconciliation has stalled, the Iraqi security forces have given up on population-focused counter-insurgency, and the political crisis has tempted politicians to use toxic sectarian and ethnic identity-politics to solidify their followings. If current trends continue, the predominately Sunni Arab provinces could ossify into sullen, violent regions that are perpetually under armed government occupation. Stagnation is not a win. It is not even a draw. In fact, it could establish the preconditions for a major surge in violence, and start slowly edging Iraq toward the loss column.
The time to get Iraq back on track is now—before the bottom falls out of the security situation.… Iraq should once again be viewed as one part of a broader U.S. strategy in the Middle East.…
SNAP ELECTIONS WILL NOT RESOLVE IRAQ’S PROBLEMS
Editorial
Gulf News, June 30, 2012
A reported plan by the Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al Maliki to call an early election is insignificant…[as it] surely will not solve Iraq’s problems.…
The real problem of Iraq is the attempt of one political faction to dominate the political landscape shutting everybody else out. This seems an unfortunate characteristic of today’s Arab politics. The recent upheaval in Egypt started after the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to control parliamentary committees and the constitutional assembly. That led to the dissolution of the parliament. The same thing happened in Kuwait.
Maliki has been described by friends and foes as a control-obsessed leader who would not tolerate opposition or accountability. His ruling coalition is dominated by his Dawa party, which led to the alienation of the majority of Iraq’s Sunnis. They feel discriminated against and denied access to decision-making positions despite Maliki’s continuing rhetoric that claims otherwise.
Iraq’s problems will continue to escalate unless its current leaders really believe in a genuinely pluralistic democracy. Snap elections are not the remedy. They are a smokescreen to avoid addressing the real issues: one-party rule which is rapidly descending into a little dictatorship.
“AND WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SAY TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE?”
(& EVERYONE ELSE IN THE MIDDLE EAST)
Barry Rubin
GLORIA Center, July 5, 2012
…I’ve been interviewed a number of times…by Iraqi journalists. But recently there was a different kind of question at the end of an interview. That last query was the journalist’s asking me what message I had for Iraq’s people. For a moment, I was speechless. I’ve been waiting more than 30 years for that kind of opportunity. What should I say that wasn’t just special pleading or an obvious exercise in hasbarah (public diplomacy)?
But let me start at the beginning. Not long ago I wrote that Iraq might be the best model realistically available right now for the Arabic-speaking world. Iraq dropped out of the seemingly endless and futile race by countries to conquer the region; moved away from radical and disastrous ideology; developed a measure of democracy, pluralism, and federalism; defeated an internal terrorist insurgency that was being helped by its neighbors; and seemed to be pursuing a pragmatic path.
Unfortunately, though, there has been steady deterioration. Prime Minister Nouri Maliki is grabbing for supreme power; Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi has fled, pursued by al-Maliki’s charges of terrorism. President Jalal Talabani was thrust into the middle. What’s important to keep in mind is that the first man is a Shia Muslim, the second is a Sunni Muslim, and the third is a Kurd. So while these are personal rivalries…such disputes also represent communal rifts and could reignite a bloody civil war in Iraq.…
So the whole sad tragedy may be starting again.… And what are the diseases of the Middle East that refuse to go away?
-The belief that one country—nowadays mainly Egypt, Iran, and Turkey—think they can dominate the whole region and a willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure to do so.
-Instead of fixing problems, hate is focused on scapegoats.
-The assumption that one ideology—formerly Arab nationalism, now Islamism—can conquer everyone and everywhere.
-The conclusion that one can only be a leader by being a dictator.
-The rejection of pluralism, freedom, pragmatism, and the emphasis on political power maneuvers over socio-economic development.
Whatever its shortcomings, Europe overcame these maladies. Many in Asia are doing so, as are some leaders and countries elsewhere. In the Middle East, though, while there are hints of enlightenment, outside of Israel it cannot really be found enthroned elsewhere.…
And so that was the theme of my message to Iraqis: Does it make sense to plunge back into conflict at a moment when the region is descending toward an international struggle between Sunni and Shia blocs that will last decades? No country can suffer more from that battle than Iraq.
At a time when revolutionary Islamism is adding additional bloodshed and misery for millions, is this the direction Iraq wants to go in? After sacrificing so much of its wealth to no less than three avoidable wars—Iran-Iraq (1980-1988), Kuwait (1990-1991), a war provoked by Saddam Hussein’s breaking sanctions (2003)—followed by a horrible civil war, isn’t that enough?…
Are Iraq and the Middle East really doomed to plunge into another 60 years of horror?…
Unfortunately, the West is not going to save Iraq from this and America, at least under its current leadership, won’t help it. On the contrary, the Obama Administration is rewarding the radicals, pushing the Islamists, and neglecting its friends. People in the region are well aware of this reality; Western “experts” and governments are not.
Several people lately have asked me what I think of Israel’s future. My answer is that I’m extremely optimistic. But as for everything else for a thousand miles or so in every direction, things look grim. Please wake up and don’t do it all over again. This is your chance to escape from the water-boarding of history, from the grim cycle of war, hatred, and death. Choose life, democracy, moderation, pragmatism, and prosperity.
But I know that plea probably won’t work. I feel a grim sense that the watchword of the day is: Here we go again.
A PRIMER FOR AMERICAN MILITARY INTERVENTION
Mark Helprin
Wall Street Journal, July 4, 2012
In either 2013 or 2017, a new president will take office. The economy notwithstanding, the world will remain a dangerous place, and military intervention may yet be necessary. Of late America has not fared well in this, and the new president should wipe the slate clean, making sure that we do not fight wars that we need not fight, or lose those that we must.…
We might have done and can in the future do better by taking heed of certain durable principles. These are usually ignored in our failures, but in our successes they almost always shine through. To forget them is to risk bloodshed and defeat that can echo through the centuries.
Maintain overwhelming reserves of military power. Wars take place in uncontrolled environments. Rather than efficiency, as in business, immense floods of “uneconomical” power deter or end them quickly, proving far more frugal than, for instance, 10 years of blood and treasure expended in vain. The Revolutionary War was the last major conflict we fought merely by pluck, outmatched except in strategy, ingenuity, and daring. Since then, we have relied upon our massive industrial and technological powers. To foreswear them in the cause of thrift is not only self-defeating but unnecessary in light of the fact that military spending often serves as an organizing principle of and decisive stimulus to the economy.
Make the argument, speak the truth, and strike with maximum consensus. Without believing as a nation that we go to war justly, we cannot succeed.… America as a whole must support feasible war aims presented to and approved by Congress. And to sustain an always fragile consensus, the government cannot obfuscate, lie, or manipulate, lest it find itself in opposition to the people upon whom it relies and to whom it is sworn. The consensus need not be international. The more allies the better, but America is a sovereign nation and we have the right to strike our enemies even if we must strike alone.
Strike in time. Recent examples of this in the breach are Iran, to which the feckless West may allow nuclear weapons…and the civilized nations’ decades-long passivity in the face of terrorism. Had we hit the terrorist infrastructure almost 30 years ago…today the world would be a different place.
Strike with overkill in relation to the objective. For fear that our scale of our effort might offend Norwegians, French socialists, and perhaps even the enemy, we hold ourselves back and commit inadequate force that then leads to long, indecisive wars. Half-hearted efforts suggest that rather than convinced of the justice of our cause we are embarrassed by it—if so we should not fight—and serve to keep the enemy alive until he can outlast us. If you strike the king, you must kill him, and not take a generation to do so.
Abstain from nation-building, transformation, and counterinsurgency. In Japan and Germany, nation-building and transformation succeeded after the war was won but were not employed as a means of winning it (the great mistake in Iraq and Afghanistan). And counterinsurgency rarely works. If with our material aid a government cannot defeat an uprising, we tend to take its place, turning civil war into war against an occupier who, by definition, will go home. This dynamic has sustained many an insurgency that otherwise might have faded. It is best to intervene only to support a party that barely needs it, to do so decisively, and withdraw quickly. We cannot back every just cause, and sometimes the virtuous will fall, but only a fool does not choose his battles.
Approach war with the mind of a general, but the heart of an infantryman. It is not necessarily true that (to paraphrase T.E. Lawrence) all of Iraq and Afghanistan are not worth the life of a single American soldier. Military action and the tragedy that follows are often necessary to defend our genuine interests or for humanitarian reasons, but never must we sacrifice a single life without wrenching consideration, or merely to show resolve. Attempts to veil the incoming fallen at Dover Air Force Base were beneath contempt.… The nation must not under any circumstances turn away from the sacrifices of its soldiers and their families, but only make sure that if sacrifice is to occur, sacrifice cannot be avoided.
With the heart of an infantryman, the president must feel what Churchill called “stress of soul” for each of the wounded and the dead. And thus, with the mind of a general, he must make sure that when we do take to the field we are canny, swift, decisive, and victorious. This is his first responsibility, because, in case anyone has forgotten, war shapes and reshapes a nation more than even a faltering economy.
