What's next in the Iraq War

The story of the Iraq War consists of wave after wave of unfulfilled promises, unrealized hopes. The latest bubble to pop is the "military surge" tactic adopted by Central Command, a plan that, to begin with, was desperate in its simplicity--overwhelm the insurgents with a massive influx of troops. That plan has failed to achieve its goal--US forces currently control only 146 of 457 Baghdad neighborhoods (cf. BBC News, 6/9), and casualties continue to mount. The current administration has treated this war as though it were a simple regime change, casting America as the mighty liberator, uniting the joyful masses against a minority of violent insurgent groups. The situation in Iraq defies any such classification--by any reasonable measure, America now finds itself embroiled in a bloody civil war, in which the various factions neither desire political compromise, nor see any reason for it.

Is the Iraq War primarily a civil war? The answer is, increasingly, "Yes." First, some background...The tensions in Iraq cut across multiple fault lines, particularly religious (Sunni vs. Shia), and ethnic (Arab vs. Kurdish), with immeasurable internal strife fragmenting those larger categories, as well. How did such chaos find itself bound into a nation? The responsibility (and, perhaps, the blame) lies with imperialistic arrogance--after WWI, at the Paris Peace Accords, the Western powers simply drew lines on the map, creating "spheres of tutelage" under the administration of colonial powers. In Iraq's case, the British were to help prepare the former Ottoman territory for independence. Unfortunately, Europeans did not understand, nor care to learn, the intricacies of Middle Eastern cultural realities. The Sunni/Shiia bitterness transcends any national concerns; the Kurds have long cherished hopes for a Kurdish state to free them from Turkish/Arab/Persian oppression. Thus, to a great extent, Iraq is a nation without a people--if we had forced Capulets and Montagues to live together, would we have felt shock when fighting broke out?

Iraq's conception left tensions simmering beneath the surface; Hussein's dictatorship brought them to a boiling point. He turned the Shiite majority into second-class citizens; he carried out ethnic cleansing against the Kurds. Hussein's dictatorship was like a dog-fighting ring: bloody, gruesome, unspeakable. Yet, imagine the chaos if the master leaves, and the cages are opened. We Americans plaintively demands that the fighters, their wounds fresh, with hate in their eyes, sit quietly, and make friends. History suggests that this third option, which we insist on pursuing, does not exist.

What began as a limited operation bent on the overthrow of a corrupt dictator has become a bloody civil war--the American troops did not realize just what they were freeing. The Sunni insurgentsa fight against the American occupation, but they fight to establish a radical Islamic state, a state of renewed Sunni hegemony. Thus, their guerilla tactics target both American soldiers, and Shia civilians; they bomb armored trucks, and crowded mosques. Shias have responded by forming militias to defend themselves by intimidating Sunni communities with thug tactics. The Shia-dominated government headed by Maliki is increasingly complicit in the street-level violence: militiamen often arrive at Sunni mosques in government trucks, or attack people in the streets wearing police uniforms.

There have been more than 50 civil wars since 1945 with a death toll of 1000+/year; by that conservative figure, the Iraq War is the 9th deadliest civil conflict since 1945. Moreover, the average duration of a civil war is 10 years: if Iraq is only typical, it is not even halfway into its bloodshed.

Civil wars are very rarely ended by political compromise, and even less frequently by outside intervention. Generally, one side must wear out another by attrition, or achieve an outright military victory. Over time, the balance of power shifts in such a way that the losing faction grants concessions to the winning.

Right now, America can accomplish little by sheer military force: the Sunni insurgents can likely sustain their guerilla war almost indefinitely, especially supported as they are by al-Qaeda. (As a side note--the current division within the insurgent ranks between pro- and anti-al-Qaeda fighters likely bodes ill, not well, for American forces. Iraqis display an almost infinite ability to fracture; the mere fact that the most divisive elements are currently our enemies does not bring Iraq any closer to unity.) Further, in its support of the current Iraqi government, America is increasingly in danger of complicity in an ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis of Baghdad and elsewhere. Ironically, our alliance with a pro-Shia regime in Iraq aligns our interests in Iraq with the likes of Iran and Hezbollah; we could find better company to associate with in the region.

America ought to begin an immediate, phased withdrawl of its forces from Iraq--our military operations only force our soldiers to confront a faceless, nameless, cowardly enemy, while serving as a crutch for a corrupt, unrepresentative government. A measured withdrawl would provide America with some diplomatic leverage over the Iraqi government--we could promise military assistance in return for real improvement on the part of the government towards working out some sort of political compromise, for real efforts to strengthen the military and the police. Currently, our response to Iraqi military and diplomatic incompetency is to send more American soldiers to fill the gap; this policy rewards corruption and ineptitude, and pays for it with American lives. This cannot continue...

Withdrawing from Iraq will allow America to concentrate its efforts in Afghanistan, where a resurgent Taliban, and a re-organized al-Qaeda pose a much greater threat than Hussein ever did. It will improve America's image in the eyes of its allies, ensuring greater international cooperation in fighting Islamic extremism. It will force Iraq to come to terms with itself--a puppet regime, planted by American bayonets, will not flower. Above all, it will save American lives.

(Much of my information on this subject came from an illuminating essay, titled "Iraq's Civil War," by James Fearon, published in Foreign Affairs in April of this year.)