What’s Wrong Today:
Mr. Obama did not call for air strikes in Iraq in his announcement today. That was not what Senator McCain (R-AZ) wanted to hear. McCain wants US airstrikes in the region, if for nothing other than boosting Dick Cheney’s morale.
It is possible, but not likely, that surgical strikes might restore some stability to Iraq, at least near Baghdad, but hope is not a sufficient basis for a foreign policy decision. Iraq is trying (unsuccessfully so far) to cope with its sectarian divisions. It may have acted as a nation in its war against Iran, but that ended in 1988, and it doesn’t feel like a nation any more. As Jim Kunstler asks: “Have they tried diversity training?”
Probably not.
This is not the first time we have heard from Mr. McCain on Iraq. Regarding the potential challenges of a conflict in Iraq, here is a quote from 2002:
Regarding at least part of the reasons for war, consider this 2003 statement by McCain to FoxNews:
This was his view yesterday from The Hill:
McCain said yesterday that political reconciliation between Islamic groups in Iraq is key to peace, but, that it can’t be a “prerequisite for military action”.
Whatever.
We need a comprehensive debate about our strategy in the Middle East and specifically, in Iraq. The debate should be explicit and public, since if/when Iraq descends into chaos or breaks up, there will be further recriminations from our opportunistic politicians and pundits, and the question of “who lost Iraq?” (As if it is ours to lose) will drive our political discourse for many years.
McCain could start by answering the question: Where do airstrikes fit into our overall strategy? Does he have an answer other than there is the big money to be made building drones and Hellfire missiles to blow up Toyota pickups filled with jihadis?
After 8 years, $2+ trillion dollars spent, 4500 American lives sacrificed, 50,000 wounded (plus those of the Iraqis), can the sum total of what was achieved by the US in Iraq be this harvest of ashes?
It might be. Our 8-year nation-building experiment achieved little of substance. Tactical strength on the ground did not overcome strategic weaknesses in the form of Iraq’s demographic divide, its geographic location and porous borders.
Another question is: Which of the following options should we choose?
(a) Stand aside and watch the most virulently hostile anti-American force in the world carve out a swath of territory in Iraq and Syria to use as a base of operations; or
(b) Re-establish a “coalition of the willing” and insert a level of direct military force into Iraq in order to aid the Baghdad government. The peacekeepers should be mainly comprised of soldiers from Arab countries in the Middle East.
Staying out may allow circumstances to unfold which later compel intervention against a direct security threat, like in Afghanistan in 2001.
From a regional geo-political perspective, it is important to note that Israel supports the Kurds. Turkey and Saudi Arabia support ISIS. The USA supports “moderate” Jihadists in Syria. The Obama administration wants a regime change in Baghdad, giving Nuri al-Maliki the boot. Imagine, we want to bring about TWO regime changes in Iraq in 13 years. A coalition of the willing might suffer from the same sectarian divide that is already seen on the ground.
Neither course is certain to meet our Middle East goals. Either course will result in creating more anti-American anger among a large number of dangerous people. If America supports Maliki directly while he declares emergency powers and cracks down on certain groups, it will re-establish our old pattern of US support for antidemocratic strongmen.
That has not served us well in the Middle East.
It appears that the partition of Iraq is about to become a fact on the ground, if not in the minds of some in Washington. The Malaki government cannot retake Anbar Province without outside help, from Iran or the USA. This January, ISIS took over Fallujah (in Anbar Province), 40 miles west of Baghdad, and has held it ever since, despite artillery and air counter attacks. Below is a map that outlines the approximate borders of the sectarian groups in Iraq:
No matter what course we choose, our actions will be seen as insufficient by one side, and an atrocity by the other.
No peace will be gained, but much enmity will accrue to our image in the Middle East.
Let’s close today with a quote from a blog post by Brian Dowling in 2006:
As you see, NOTHING has changed in the intervening 8 years.
Sorry, but if Iraq devolves into 3 states who wage a low-grade war among themselves, so be it. If one of those states creates a haven for anti-American jihadists, we will deal with that when we must.
Our choice today is not between a unified postwar democracy and chaos. Some form of Iraqi democracy has emerged, but a unified democracy does not exist, and may never exist.
It is not a choice between victory and defeat.
It is a choice between a foreign policy based on ideology and hormones, and one based in reality.
Even though elections have been held in a number of states in the middle east over the last decade, not one of them has created a situation where the loser walks away without thinking revenge and the winner understands that he must govern the loser. it may be that such urges only exist amongst people whose cultures derive from the openness of western europe. it is not racism to think so, it is simply to recognize the deep hold of culture on all of us.
This is a succinctly expressed analysis of our REAL choices and clearly stated proposal for strategic decision. From your page to Obama’s ears!
Indeed, I plan to forward this post to many of my politically alert friends to my representatives in Washington and to the White House.