Joe Biden’s Folly

The thought of a US imposed partition of Iraq makes me blanch. Hasn’t anybody looked at the history of partitions? Don’t people realize that forced partitions and mass deportations account for some of the world’s worst humanitarian tragedies? They are at the root of some of our most enduring hatred. Isn’t partition just another word for ethnic cleansing? Am I the only person on the planet that thinks this is a bad idea? Well, not the only person. Iraqi Arabs don’t like it either but it’s popular in the US Senate where an endorsement of the idea passed yesterday by a vote of 75-23. No less a personage than Republican Senator John Warner called it the “high water mark” for bipartisan agreement on Iraq this year. To be fair Sen. Biden, the plan’s sponsor, put it forward as the practical acknowledgement of a de facto partition that has already occurred. That is partly true but there are still several million Iraqis living in areas that don’t neatly fit into new lines on the map. The plan would convert temporary dislocation into permanent catastrophe, and it would create ripe conditions for the complete dismemberment of Iraq. That’s why Kurds like it. They finally get their own country. Proponents cite Bosnia as a model for this solution. OK, let’s look at Bosnia. It’s been 15 years. I suspect most of us don’t really remember what happened there. Bosnia-Herzegovina was a newly independent state in 1992 with a mixed population of Roman Catholic Croats, Orthodox Christian Serbs, and Sunni Muslim Bosniaks. Serb Nationalists didn’t like the new arrangement. They wanted to be part of a Greater Serbia. With assistance from fellow Serbs in Rump Yugoslavia, they quickly set up an army and took over about two thirds of the country, driving out most Croats in the process. Weak multi-ethnic government forces were under an international arms embargo and could do little to stop them. Bosnia descended into the worst campaign of genocide seen in Europe since 1945. The UN sent a hapless force of French and Dutch troops to set up Muslim “safe” areas that turned out to be anything but safe. In the single most infamous instance in Srebrenica the Dutch actively assisted Serbs in deporting an estimated 20000-25000 Bosniak women and children, some of whom never made it to government controlled territory. Women and girls were raped and children beheaded in full view of Dutch troops. Over 8000 men and boys along with some women and children were executed. Many were subjected to inhuman torture. In November of 1995 representatives from Bosnia, Croatia, and Yugoslavia agreed to the Dayton Accords, effectively partitioning Bosnia into a Serb Republic and a Bosniak-Croat Federation with special provisions for the capital at Sarajevo. 60000 NATO troops would keep the warring parties apart, about one third of them Americans. The number of NATO troops was cut in half a little over a year later and has continued to decline over the years. In 2005 NATO was replaced by a European command and there are still about 2500 foreign troops there, none of them Americans. So from one view Bosnia looks like a success story that might be replicated in Iraq. But Bosnian Serbs already had the territory they wanted and the ethnic cleansing was largely complete. The killing could be stopped by pacifying a single force, the Serb army. Slobodan Milosevic had the power to negotiate for them. When he agreed to Dayton the deal was done. Once NATO was on the ground in force no Serb Army was going to take them on. We have had a coalition contingent in Iraq for four and one half years now and they are just now coming to grips with a myriad of militias, armed gangs, insurgents, religious fanatics, and interfering neighbors who don’t respect current borders. What makes us think they will respect partition lines? Who is going to keep them apart while we implement the partitions? If they can be kept apart why do we need partitions? Who is going to resettle the Iraqis who would have to move? Americans? Will we play the role of the Dutch at Srebrenica? This is an awful idea. Partitions don’t prevent genocide. They precipitate it, or enshrine it.

Iraq the Long View

It is now apparent that George Bush has won his fight to stay in Iraq. Senate Democrats don’t have the votes to force a capitulation and, since Bush isn’t running for reelection, the doomsayers in the press have little influence. It may have been the last major battle of the war, and one of the most significant. As more people begin to realize it I’m seeing a subtle shift in the debate. Presidential candidates are trying to leave themselves enough wiggle room to deal responsibly with Iraq just in case they find themselves in the catbird seat come 2009. It’s no longer so much a question of how quickly we should withdraw as how long we should stay and what a long term presence should look like. I’ve even begun to see estimates of what a Korea style military commitment would cost. The implications are profound. Iran and Syria will both have to consider how they will deal with a strong and stable neighbor and just how many bills they will have to pay for their meddling. The prospect of a prosperous Iraq with firm ties to the US must give them nightmares. It is having a big effect already on the dizzying array of factions jockeying for power inside Iraq. A lot of that has been caused by a life and death struggle to end up on the winning side. As government security forces grow stronger there is a tremendous incentive to jump on the band wagon. I wonder if that isn’t what’s really behind the remarkable turnaround in Anbar province, and the decision by the thuggish Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to call off his militia dogs. Even France has been mending fences in Washington. Europeans are a lot more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than we are and historically France has sought to counter US influence in the region. They wouldn’t want to abandon the field if it looks like Americans are about to prevail after all. It is the global Long War where the effect may be the most significant. Al Qaeda invested heavily in recruiting volunteers to serve as suicide assassins in Iraq, most of them foreigners. As Mohammed Hafez documents in his book Suicide Bombers in Iraq, these people don’t just show up on the scene and ask for directions, they need help. That means al Qaeda had to rely on networks and connections established primarily in Afghanistan before 2001. Those networks have been heavily damaged and without a safe haven they may be difficult to reestablish. Hafez points out that the motives for volunteering are complex and so are the motives of the organizations that employ them but the prospect of success has to be high on the list. If the tactic has failed it loses some luster. More important, most of the victims in Iraq have been Muslims, a very unpopular strategy, so much so that AQI has largely stopped claiming responsibility for them in a bizarre attempt to blame them on a Zionist conspiracy. But of course the idea is to provoke retaliation and create a complete collapse of civil order. The offended community has to know whom to retaliate against. The whole concept may be discredited in the eyes of many Muslims. I don’t know that the Korea model for a six decade plus major military presence applies in Iraq, but if anything our interests in the region are more compelling, and the consequences of an abrupt departure could be devastating. The only serious argument that has been made for leaving is that continued efforts are futile. That argument was never valid and is finally beginning to fall apart. Maybe now we can begin a genuine discussion about what sort of Iraq we can expect might emerge over the next few years, and what sort of relationship we would like to see.

All the Bad News That’s Fit to Print

The 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit left Iraq earlier today. I know because I got an email from Mike Roberts. He has a new return address aboard the USS Bonhomme Richard, one of the ships that will bring them home. Mike flies AV8B Harrier jets and would have been among the last from the MEU to leave Anbar province. You might think that given all the debate about the relative significance of their departure, news of the actual event would be all over the wires. I can’t find it. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. The Dallas Morning News features a front page article today on how bad life is for ordinary citizens in Baghdad. They lead with the story of a 28 year old man who was wounded by a car bomb and is now terrified of traffic jams. He has traveled the region seeking treatment. The article doesn’t mention that all the hospitals in the region have been rebuilt and equipped by Americans. It does quote Mr. Bush as saying that “Many schools and markets are reopening” but only to challenge the truth of that. The article notes that electricity is available only a few hours a day in some neighborhoods and tap water is often unfit to drink. That has been reported more times than I can count but you will have to go to the pentagon web site to find news of new water plants, school renovations, or thriving shops in areas with improving security. I rarely see any of that in the traditional media. As with today’s article, most of the news pieces I see are written “from wire reports.” I presume that means reporters on the scene are still restricted pretty much to their hotels or the safety of the green zone. I’m left to wonder what makes them think they know what’s really happening in the more dangerous neighborhoods. One thing I would really like to know is what has happened to the millions of Iraqis who have been driven from their homes. The estimate I usually see is 2 million have left Iraq, mostly to Jordan and Syria, and an equal number displaced inside the country. I don’t get the impression anybody has reliable data but surely there are a lot of them. Where are they? Why aren’t our television screens filled with scenes of pathetic children in squalid camps and roads jammed with refugees carrying all their belongings? It wouldn’t be like the fourth estate to pass up some really tragic imagery. They’ve got to be somewhere. Am I the only one who thinks something is missing here? That 2200 sailors and marines of the 13th MEU are returning to their base is news. That they don’t need to be replaced is unequivocally good news. I expect a lot more of that in coming months as Iraqi forces take more and more responsibility for their own internal security. I don’t expect much coverage. The article from today’s DMN continues on the inside where a full page is devoted to Iraq, most of it to point by point rebuttal of recent suggestions there are signs of progress. It’s part of a relentless propaganda campaign to paint a picture of failure. Of course Iraq isn’t a failure, not yet. Failure would be withdrawing before Iraqis can stand on their own. That isn’t going to happen on Mr. Bush’s watch and I don’t think it will happen under his successor. For now many in the media want a catastrophe and they will do everything they can to produce one. If they don’t get it they will make one up. In the meantime the Iraqi army continues to gel and the local if not national police get stronger. By this time next year I expect we will see a much more manageable situation there. Somehow it will still be a failure and it will all be George Bush’s fault.

Changing Perceptions on Iraq

Des Browne and David Miliband have an interesting take on the anti-government insurgency in southern Iraq. There isn’t one. There is “intense political competition between longstanding rival Shiite movements, too often spilling over into violence” but there is no insurgency, and very little sign of al Qaeda. A fine point maybe but they should know. Browne is defense secretary and Miliband foreign secretary for the UK which of course has coalition responsibility for the region. British commanders expect to transfer full security control in Basra province to Iraqi authorities sometime in the next few months. They already did that with three other provinces. So far American forces have transferred four and plan to take that step in a fifth soon. Together they will make up half the total of 18 provinces in the country. That’s the best measure of progress, a government strong enough and stable enough to take responsibility for its own security. One of the reasons I continue to be optimistic regarding the ultimate outcome in Iraq is that conditions on the ground are never as bad as the picture painted in the American press. Over the past year media declarations of defeat reached a peak just as it was becoming apparent that internal Iraqi security forces were beginning to gel. Just over a month ago senate democrats staged their disgraceful all night attempt to force an early withdrawal. A week later arm chair generals at the Dallas Morning News devoted their entire editorial space to their own “Plan B.” Their idea is to pull American troops into secure bases, watch the borders, and leave Iraqis alone to slaughter each other. But then a funny thing happened. We began to see more and more positive commentary and not just from British ministers with policies to defend. Sunni tribal leaders in some of the most al Qaeda friendly areas have been turning on terrorists and cooperating instead with American and government forces. Police and army recruiting are up. Corruption is down. Local mayors are taking control. People are returning to homes they left a few months ago. Even a number of prominent democrats here have been acknowledging progress on security. Of the leading presidential candidates only Barack Obama advocates abandoning Iraq completely. Of course all of this could turn again but for now the tone of criticism has shifted perceptibly toward the apparent lack of resolution to major political issues dividing Iraqis. Now we are measuring benchmarks. That is a very different debate. Words like defeat and debacle just don’t have the same ring to them against the backdrop of an Iraq that is steadily if slowly beginning to stand on its own. That’s what’s happening. Looked at over the twelve months from June of 2006 to 2007 the progression has been remarkable and that doesn’t account for the events of this summer. There is still plenty of bad news and no shortage of cynics to point it out. I can’t imagine that changing any time soon. Still, security has always been the critical factor. Tough political compromise may be impossible in a climate of fear and the question of just how committed Americans are has been at the root of the most difficult sources of instability. Nobody wants to be caught betting on the wrong horse when so much is at stake personally. But as Iraqi authorities take control and prove able to keep it, the issue of American stamina becomes less relevant. Winston Churchill once said of Iraq the place was ungovernable. If he meant Westerners couldn’t govern he was right, but today we want nothing more than for Iraqis to govern themselves responsibly. There is no reason it can’t happen.