I Change My Mind On Iraq

Larry Johnson on Iraq:

The delusional happiness reflected in Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's remarks this week to Congress about the so-called progress in Iraq ignores hard facts that point to a debacle. The international media appears to be finally catching on that the Washington spin about the purple thumb as a sign of democratic progress is pure nonsense. It is true that more people in Iraq voted in this election than last January. What Rice and other folks out of touch with reality ignore is that the increased number of Sunnis who voted came out to defeat the constitution. Unfortunately, the fix was in. Vote fraud was rampant. U.S. TV crews caught one Shia on tape casting seven yes votes. That's sort of an old style American politics a la Chicago's Daley machine--you know, vote early, vote often. And, results are now, once again, being withheld to "investigate" the irregularities.

Here is a bold prediction: The Constitution will pass and Shia politicians will have a lock on the new Government of Iraq. Consequently, the civil war currently underway will escalate. As the Iraqi Army grows, comprised mostly of Shia and Kurds, attacks against Sunnis will also increase. And that will put the United States in an impossible situation. If we allow the Shia Army and militias to attack Sunni targets we will continue to be the target of Sunni insurgents. If we intervene to try to aid the Sunnis, the Shia's will turn on us.

Johnson knows what he is talking about. His bio describes him as CEO of a company that "helps corporations and governments manage threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. Mr. Johnson works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs foreign governments on a regular basis on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on product counterfeiting and smuggling."

I cannot find any reason to argue with Mr. Johnson's assessment. Even though I disagreed with the invasion,I've been an advocate of finding better ways to do things in Iraq (my "Twin Wars" posts, links on the sidebar)in the hope of actually ending up with something worthwhile from the debacle created by the Bush cabal. I've written often about the possibilities for new tactics and strategies to turn things around. I ascribed to the "you broke it, you fix it" concept.

But I have to say, I think it is now too late. I have worried over what will happen to the Iraqi people without coalition troops in place as their civil war will undoubtably then heat up. I have wracked my brains for some way to avoid that bloodshed and admit myself stymied. However, when I read that US troops are blowing up important infrastructure, bridges across the Euphrates, to deny them to the enemy I know that the colaition cannot win this war in Iraq. The war is already lost. Staying will mean the difference for the Iraqi people of being in a wok or a slo-cooker...either way they will end up cooked. Meanwhile, more Americans and Brits will die to prevent nothing and accomplish nothing.

The rightwinger and father of the 4th generational warfare concept,William Lind, wrote recently:

The danger sign in America is not a hot national debate over the war in Iraq and its course, but precisely the absence of such a debate — which, as former Senator Gary Hart has pointed out, is largely due to a lack of courage on the part of the Democrats. Far from ensuring a united nation, what such a lack of debate and absence of alternatives makes probable is a bitter fracturing of the American body politic once the loss of the war becomes evident to the public. The public will feel itself betrayed, not merely by one political party, but by the whole political system.

The primum mobile of Fourth Generation war is a crisis of legitimacy of the state. If the absence of a loyal opposition and alternative courses of action further delegitimizes the American state in the eye of the public, the forces of the Fourth Generation will have won a victory of far greater proportions than anything that could happen on the ground in Iraq. The Soviet Union’s defeat in Afghanistan played a central role in the collapse of the Soviet state. Could the American defeat in Iraq have similar consequences here? The chance is far greater than Washington elites can imagine.

Again, I find myself agreeing.

Lind says that the only thing left to do which has not yet been done is to talk to the Sunni insurgents:

the one thing that might allow us to avoid total defeat in Iraq, namely split the Ba'athist resistance from the Islamic resistance. The Ba'ath is still strong enough among the Sunnis that is could probably clean up al-Qa'ida in short order. At present, unfortunately, our policies push the two together, despite the fact that they hate each other’s guts.

We need a deal with the Ba'ath, and the Ba'ath might be open to a deal with us. They need us to stop targeting them while they go after al-Qa'ida, and they need our help on the political level (the draft constitution outlaws them).

Can anyone in Washington or Baghdad’s Emerald City see this opportunity? Are we talking with the Ba'athist resistance? Or is both our political and military leadership so locked in to a failed strategy that opportunities for political maneuver are meaningless?

Unfortunately, Lind wrote the above passage back in September, before the referendum and its fixed result. The opportunity has passed.

I hate what withdrawal will do to the Iraqi people but I have slowly come to the realisation that staying in Iraq will do the same carnage a little more slowly, will continue to create new reasons for conflict and will cost the lives of coalition servicemen.

Its time to begin the process of bringing the troops home. The debate should not be about whether we should do so but about how we do so while minimising bloodshed and disruption for both the present and the future.