Bullish on Iraq
Here’s an interesting summary of events in Iraq so far, bound to infuriate those who believe the whole thing is obviously a failed enterprise.
The annoyances begin with its title, “Mission Accomplished,” harking back to that infamous banner on the USS Lincoln (which, by the way, referred to the ship’s mission, which had indeed been accomplished, as it was going home after tours of Afghanistan and Iraq).
Journalist Bartle Bull (love that name!) is using the phrase in the larger sense, however; he believes the Iraq mission has gone rather well—if one had realistic expectations of it in the first place:
Understanding this expensive victory is a matter of understanding the remaining violence. Now that Iraq’s big questions have been resolved””break-up? No. Shia victory? Yes. Will violence make the Americans go home? No. Do Iraqis like voting? Yes. Do they like Iraq? Yes””Iraq’s violence has largely become local and criminal. The biggest fact about Iraq today is that the violence, while tragic, has ceased being political, and is therefore no longer nearly as important as it was.
Some of the violence””that paid for by foreigners or motivated by Islam’s crazed fringes””will not recede in a hurry. Iraq has a lot of Islam and long, soft borders. But the rest of Iraq’s violence is local: factionalism, revenge cycles, crime, power plays. It will largely cease once Iraq has had a few more years to build up its security apparatus.
It’s easy to forget, when one looks at Iraq and the violence there, that much worse might have happened as a result of the war. It’s certainly possible that Bull is being too bullish on Iraq (can’t resist that pun), and that disaster is just around the corner. But Iraq’s growing unity, with increased Sunni cooperation and participation; and the diminution of the violence there in recent months; bodes well for the optimists on the future of that country.
“Realistic expectations” may be at the heart of the matter. Many on the Left and Right who criticize the Iraq invasion describe those who advocated it as unrealistic, and that’s true: there’s no doubt that at least some who were in favor of the Iraq invasion were far too sanguine in their predictions.
As for myself, although I favored the invasion, I considered it inherently risky and requiring a long occupation with a fairly heavy footprint and a lengthy time of violent jockeying for position in that country. That’s probably the natural pessimist in me, which in this case turned out to be correct.
Those who consider the country to be a chaotic failure today, however, are at least as unrealistic as those whom they criticize. The latter are wrong because they expected it to be too easy. The former are wrong because they demanded it.
Neo, USS Abraham Lincoln was the ship the banner was on.
SEE! She can’t even get the right aircraft carrier!
Neo LIED! Typos DIED! Eggs were FRIED! Children CRIED! NSA SPIED! Judges TRIED! Princess BRIDE! cp had a TIRADE! oops, …. never mind. -cp (have a good weekend, Neo).
The situation in Iraq is a tough one for all parties involved. The government is young and has a long way to go. Some young governments have flourished. For example after the Singing Revolution Estonia’s standard of living has improved. I just saw a website about it — http://singingrevolution.com The circumstances are different in Iraq but it doesn’t hurt to learn from other governments.
There are core issues, I would suggest. There is no indication Iraq was ever anything but a failed state ready for fragmentation much the same as other artificial states held together by force. The natural regionalization of Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions might provide the basis for a loose federal system and enable cooperation at some level. Where the mMarsh Arabs or the fighting Shiite subsets fit in is added complexity that may or may not have reasonable solutions. The most effective and stable region is clearly the Kurdish dominated areas and if some agreements can be worked with the Turks, long term stability is ceretain. Although Sunni themselves, the Kurds may not get on well with the Sunni Arabs, and some means of separation would only help, not hinder stability. The Shiites ate the loose cards in this deck unfortunately, and are likely the major vehicle for Iranian penetration. Fortunately, there is no deep affection between the Arab Shiites and the Iranians and that can be a break on Iranian influence. It is a mess, but some stability may be salvaged if regionalism is the basis of stability.
I think your former and latter are mixed up.
Former:Those who consider the country to be a chaotic failure today
Latter:“…those whom they criticize.”
“The former are wrong because they expected it to be too easy.”
I think that’s those being criticized, no? Those who hoped things would go better than they did.
“The latter are wrong because they demanded it.”
And they those who think Iraq is chaos, correct? Demanding clean, neat, quick wars, or none at all…
I think douglas is right.
The lament “you said it would be easy!” always makes me want to shake the person who said it and tell them to use their own brain. Who in their right mind would assume this would be easy or quick? Never mind what someone else said, what do *you* think is a reasonable time frame for a new government to settle down into stability?
Also…
The Kurds are to Arab Sunni…
as the Persians are to Arab Shia.
The idea that the Arab Shia are naturally inclined to want to be ruled by Persians on the basis that they are both Shia is like believing that the Arab Sunni want to be ruled by the Kurds because the Kurds are Sunni.
Remember Synova, doublethink solves all those finicky logic problems as if they never existed.
It doesn’t matter what the position exactly is, so long as you de-evolve the war in Iraq for Donald, then Donald will be happy.
Pingback:War’s Aftermath « Sake White
Ooops! That’s what I get when I try to write a post in a hurry. Corrected.