Iraq Study Group Punts –updated below–
cross-posted on Huffington Post

This is what happens when you get a bunch of prominent people together, none
of whom have any Middle East or military experience, and set them loose on recommendations
for something as complex as the Iraq war. You don't get jack back.

They've reach a consensus and will call for a \”major withdrawal of U.S.
forces from Iraq,\” but hey, don't worry about when. No big deal. Just do
it when you feel like it.

It's premature to judge, but coming from The New York Times and Thomas Ricks and Robin Wright, you
have to trust what they're saying for now. This leak about the commission's
direction points to one word: worthless.

The Iraq Study Group, which wrapped up eight months of deliberations yesterday, has reached a consensus and will call for a major withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, shifting the U.S. role from combat to support and advising, according to a source familiar with the deliberations. But the recommendation includes a series of conditions and qualifications that would govern any drawdown of forces, the source said. \”It describes a process by which combat brigades could be pulled out, but there wasn't a specific timetable on it,\” he said. The source demanded anonymity because members of the bipartisan panel have been pledged to secrecy until the report is officially issued Dec. 6. The issue of a timeline for drawing down troops — both a specific date to begin a withdrawal and the pace — had been major points of contention within the panel. The Bush administration has firmly rejected specifying a date for withdrawal, but Democrats have favored setting a time frame as a way to put pressure on the Iraqi government. … Study Group to Call for Pullback But Iraq Panel Has No Timetable

Translation: no one wants to touch this Mesopotamian hot potato. But according
to Ricks and Wright, the ISG took 100 pages to deliver jack, plus some junk.

Thus, even if the combat forces were withdrawn, the person familiar with the group's thinking noted, the recommendation envisions keeping in Iraq a \”substantial\” U.S. military force.

Bwak-bwak-bwak.

Ah yes, it's so much easier doing nothing substantial than actually sticking
your neck out to get us out.

They're already patting themselves on the back for \”reaching a consensus.\”
Well, swell, we've got agreement to do the bare minimum in order to save the
U.S. Armed Forces: withdraw down to 70,000 troops, which is what I've been saying
every day on my radio show for weeks. That's a no brainer.

Meanwhile, we are going to be treated to all manner of we need to make progress
in — submit your monthly allotment here — from everyone else.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results. That's Bush's strategery in Iraq, which the Iraq
Study Group has basically sanctioned, because their suggestions offer no teeth
at all, which was always the predicted outcome.

Absent a serious march on Washington, which there is no indication would have real appeal except to attract wackos who would distract from it's importance, we're going to be stuck in Iraq past 2008, with
the presidential election consumed with this long-term occupation. If John McCain wins,
he'll escalate. If Hillary Clinton wins it will be status quo. Without a significant
anti Iraq war candidate, long-term bases will exist way over the horizon. Right now, that man is Barack Obama, however, I get no sense that he's got the courage to redeploy our troops. James Webb, maybe. I'd call for Al Gore, but he doesn't want the job either.

Democrats, welcome to the moment. Use it or lose it.

UPDATE (12:30 p.m.): Meanwhile, Maliki panders.

Share

The Way Forward in Iraq
guest post by Mash

The talk of Washington is the Iraq Study Group. Everyone, including the Democrats, is waiting for the two beltway sages, James Baker and Lee Hamilton, to rescue them from the chaos in Iraq. You will recall that some time ago Washington was eagerly awaiting a similar sounding group, the Iraq Survey Group, to rescue George W Bush from his temper tantrum in Iraq, although in a different way. The Iraq Survey Group failed to find any Weapons of Mass Destruction (remember them?) buried in the Iraqi desert, so now its successor, the Iraq Study Group will try to dig out George W Bush\’s legacy from the sands of Iraq.

George W Bush, however, is not so easily saved. Rumor has it that Barney has blessed the "stay the course" strategy in Iraq. While others see civil war in Iraq, Mr. Bush and Barney see a mission in need of completion:

President Bush, rejecting what he called "pessimistic" assessments of his Middle East policy, pledged Tuesday to make necessary changes in Iraq but vowed never to pull out U.S. troops before completing the mission there. … Bush said, "We will continue to be flexible, and we\’ll make the changes necessary to succeed. But there\’s one thing I\’m not going to do. I\’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are "part of a struggle between moderation and extremism that is unfolding across the broader Middle East," he said. "And in this struggle, we can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren."

Apparently, the mission in Iraq has been "accomplished" but not yet "completed".

Save Mr. Bush\’s determination to achieve "victory", the parlor game in Washington is all about when the United States will withdraw and how much damage will be caused, both to the United States and to Iraq, before the withdrawal takes place. Now that the mainstream media has started calling the Iraq Civil War a civil war, we can also now discuss what the possible outcomes of this war will be and what role, if any, the United States should play in that outcome.

In order to not be left out of the parlor game, I offer below my thoughts on the future of Iraq.

Last summer Harvard Professor Monica Toft discussed the three possible ways civil wars can end in an article for the Nieman Watchdog Journalism Project:

Civil wars end in one of three ways: (1) negotiated settlement; (2) partition; or (3) military victory. U.S. support for any of these options comes with considerable costs and only a slim possibility of an outcome that advances U.S. interests beyond what they were at the close of Saddam Hussein’s rule in April of 2003.

She does not see a negotiated settlement as a long term solution in Iraq:

In a negotiated settlement, warring factions agree both to end violence and to become partners in a new government. Although negotiated settlements are the most popular policy option (promising high short-term benefits and low risk), they may not be best if we want a permanent settlement to civil war. … A negotiated settlement is what the U.S. has attempted to implement for the last two years in Iraq and it has failed. The process of writing and adopting a constitution and electing a president and parliament were all designed to give each of Iraq’s different communities a say in the government. Although the Kurds and the Shiites fully participated in the process, the Sunnis did not. … A key factor in the failure of negotiated settlements has been that both sides maintain a capacity to harm each other by force of arms, and because the fighting has not reached a clear outcome, both sides can claim legitimacy in their pre-cease-fire resort to violence. Negotiated settlements by their very design leave a state’s offices divided, both in terms of physical infrastructure and human capital. … The bottom line is that most often civil wars ended by negotiated settlement re-ignite within five years, often leading to escalated violence and destruction (and not inconsequently increasing levels of authoritarianism). This is Iraq today.

She also does not see partition as a viable option in Iraq:

Theoretically, partition is an ideal way to end a civil war and keep it ended; especially when that violence involves identity groups that live in largely separate enclaves. … In effect, Iraq is becoming partitioned today, with the Kurds maintaining their grip on the north and the Sunnis and Shiites consolidating their control over the west and south respectively. The unmixing of mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad is only consolidating the populations into concentrated and mutually hostile enclaves. Concentrated enclaves turn out to be one of the most dangerous settlement patterns of ethnic and religious groups in terms of the likelihood of violence and civil war. Think of Chechnya, which continues to fight Russia for independence. … Partition of Iraq would work only if two conditions held: (1) the parties were consolidated into internationally recognized states and Iraq\’s resources were distributed in a way that made each state economically viable; and (2) the partition into independent states was enforced by a generation of occupation by skilled and politically well-supported troops (preferably Muslims). Given that Iraq’s Sunni minority has been implicated in decades of persecution of both Kurds and Shiites, getting Kurds and Shiites to agree to support creation of a viable Sunni state will be difficult to achieve. Moreover, one can hardly imagine a third party both capable and willing to maintain an occupation of Iraq for twenty years to insure the interests of each of the parties, but this is what would need to be done. … Finally, given the long-standing reluctance of the international community to support partition as a general solution to civil wars, the U.S. is unlikely to find much support for partition from its allies. Regional actors will be even more intransigent: Kurds, for example, currently inhabit four of the region’s states (Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey). These bordering states would steadfastly resist the creation of an independent Kurdistan.

She sees victory by one of the warring sides as a more lasting option:

A final option is military victory: one side in civil war – rebels or incumbents – demonstrably defeats the other side by force of arms. Military victory is not only the most common type of civil war outcome historically, but also the one which most often results in enduring peace: military victories are far less likely to break down than are negotiated settlements.  … The U.S. can choose to support either the Sunnis or Shiites. Supporting either side to achieve victory would be difficult and costly in terms of time, taking as long as a decade to succeed given Iraq’s porous borders and the support each of the sides receives from across those borders.

Supporting one of the two sides in the civil war comes at a cost of tipping the regional balance of power either toward the Arabs or toward Iran.

Finally, she suggests the throwaway option of pulling out of Iraq and letting the chips fall where they may. She also suggests a way that Mr. Bush could walk away and declare victory:

Having gone to Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, the U.S. has discovered that what the people of Iraq wanted most was to be free of Saddam Hussein; but once free (a negative objective), positive objectives varied. The Shiites wanted representation in the control of Iraq commensurate with their population (and many wanted revenge for the persecution they suffered under Sunni rule). The Sunnis wanted to maintain their preferential status. The Kurds wanted their own state. To the extent that the war in Iraq, under U.S. auspices, has become a civil war, the civil war itself represents the success of a U.S. policy of bringing freedom to the people of Iraq.

Although Professor Toft\’s listing of the three outcomes of civil wars is sound, she only discusses the three options in the context of an American occupation. She does not discuss fully the throwaway option of an American pullout, and what the three possible outcomes in Iraq then look like. To me, the latter discussion is much more interesting and more relevant since the United States has, dare I say, decided to pull out of Iraq.

I think there is a strong case to be made that the American presence in Iraq is fueling the civil war by delaying its resolution. That is not to say that the United States has effective control of the situation on the ground – it does not, but the presence of American troops gives the respective parties cover to arm and consolidate control of areas of the country. Without a doubt, the American presence guarantees that the Kurds in the north are able to consolidate their hold on Kirkuk and beef up the peshmerga. The American presence also allows the Shia factions to consolidate power in the various arms of the government, especially the security forces. The American forces also act as a buffer between the Shia and the Sunni by providing some measure of protection to the Sunni community to arm and consolidate their power in the western parts of Iraq. The American presence has also allowed the systematic ethnic cleansing of Iraq by Shia, Sunni and the Kurds. The ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods in Baghdad and other parts of the country has now effectively drawn geographical battle lines in Iraq\’s civil war. The American presence also holds together a fractious Shia coalition that would otherwise collapse, and probably needs to if Iraq is to survive as a nation.

It seems to me that it is essential that the United States pull out of Iraq. After an American pullout, the Iraqi civil war may start to resolve itself. The Iraqi civil war has regional implications. Those regional forces can, without the constraints of American occupation, begin to pull Iraq toward a resolution.

As cited above, one possible outcome is military victory by one warring side. The conventional wisdom is that if the Americans leave the Shia will prevail in a civil war by virtue of their majority. I do not believe that is likely to occur for three reasons. First, the Sunni Arab countries of the region would see a Shia victory in Iraq as an expansion of Iranian hegemony into Arab territory. Without an American presence, the Sunni Arabs are likely to get significant support from regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria. The risk of a regional conflagration is likely to dampen any hopes of a Shia military victory in Iraq. Second, the Shia in Iraq are fractured between pro-Iranian groups such as SCIRI and more nationalistic Shia such as the Sadrists. Moqtada al-Sadr, like his father the Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, represents an Iraqi nationalist Shia movement. Sadr\’s Shia movement and the Mahdi Army are likely to come into open conflict with the Iranian backed SCIRI and the Badr Brigade when the American occupation ends. Al Maliki\’s Dawa Party sits in the uncomfortable middle between Sadr and SCIRI while being at the mercy of both. With an American exit, the Dawa Party is likely to see its fortunes dwindle. Lastly, the Shia cannot prevail over both the Sunni and the Kurds. Any military victory by the Shia would have to accept an independent state in the Kurdish north.

The other possible outcome of a civil war is partition. However, any partition of Iraq that leaves the Kurds with an oil-rich independent country in the north of Iraq will be fiercely opposed by Turkey, and to a lesser extent by Iran and Syria. Turkey has between 25 to 30 millions Kurds who have been long persecuted. Any Kurdish country to Turkey\’s east will endanger Turkish territorial integrity and will be a non-starter. The Sunnis in the west and center of Iraq also cannot form a viable country without having access to the oil rich north and south of Iraq. There is no three country map that can be carved out of Iraq that does not deny one of the group\’s much needed oil revenue.

The only remaining outcome for Iraq is then a negotiated settlement. The negotiated settlement may however come after an attempt at all out military victory is fought to a stalemate. The negotiated settlement will happen not because it is the preferred outcome, but because it is the only viable outcome. A negotiated settlement will certainly have to include the major regional players such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. The negotiated settlement will come after realization by the Arab states, and acceptance by Iran, that Iraq is, and historically has been, the Arab bulwark against Persian influence. Iran will find once again that the Iraqi Shia are not Iran\’s fifth column in Iraq. An American departure from Iraq will eventually lead to a restoration of the balance of power in the region between the Arabs and the Iranians.

The Kurds of Iraq will once again be denied an independent homeland. But that denial will likely come at a price for Turkey. Turkey may be forced to give autonomy to its Kurds as a condition for Kurdish guarantee of Iraq\’s territorial integrity.

The Iraq that is likely to emerge through the meat grinder of civil war will owe its stability to a regional need for stability, not to some gift of freedom given by George W Bush. Ironically, Mr. Bush is likely to see this precarious yet stable Iraq emerge from the ashes of his failed policy. Yet, it will emerge because Mr. Bush will finally have left it alone, and not because of his efforts at playing puppet master to the Arabs.

Share

Clumsy.

Talk about sending a message before a meeting. Mr. Bush is nothing if not obtuse.
But I guess when you've lost all credibility and most of your power in the Middle
East, you might as well act like an ass. What have you got to lose?

Bush is now finding out.

According to MSNBC, the Maliki summit has been postponed. Obviously, Maliki
has to make sure he's not being undercut from both sides, Sadr and Bush. Wait until Baker – Hamiliton comes back and puts Iran into the mix. Mr. Bush is likely to unravel even further.

Here's part of the memo, which The New York Times printed online. It's stunning.

Despite Maliki’s reassuring words, repeated reports from our commanders on the ground contributed to our concerns about Maliki’s government. Reports of nondelivery of services to Sunni areas, intervention by the prime minister’s office to stop military action against Shia targets and to encourage them against Sunni ones, removal of Iraq’s most effective commanders on a sectarian basis and efforts to ensure Shia majorities in all ministries — when combined with the escalation of Jaish al-Mahdi’s (JAM) [the Arabic name for the Mahdi Army] killings — all suggest a campaign to consolidate Shia power in Baghdad. (snip) His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change. But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action. (snip) There is a range of actions that Maliki could take to improve the information he receives, demonstrate his intentions to build an Iraq for all Iraqis and increase his capabilities. The actions listed below are in order of escalating difficulty and, at some point, may require additional political and security resources to execute, as described on Page 3 of this memo. Maliki should: ¶Compel his ministers to take small steps — such as providing health services and opening bank branches in Sunni neighborhoods — to demonstrate that his government serves all ethnic communities; ¶Bring his political strategy with Moktada al-Sadr to closure and bring to justice any JAM actors that do not eschew violence; ¶Shake up his cabinet by appointing nonsectarian, capable technocrats in key service (and security) ministries; ¶Announce an overhaul of his own personal staff so that “it reflects the face of Iraq”; ¶Demand that all government workers (in ministries, the Council of Representatives and his own offices) publicly renounce all violence for the pursuit of political goals as a condition for keeping their positions; ¶Declare that Iraq will support the renewal of the U.N. mandate for multinational forces and will seek, as appropriate, to address bilateral issues with the United States through a SOFA [status of forces agreement] to be negotiated over the next year; ¶Take one or more immediate steps to inject momentum back into the reconciliation process, such as a suspension of de-Baathification measures and the submission to the Parliament or “Council of Representatives” of a draft piece of legislation for a more judicial approach; ¶Announce plans to expand the Iraqi Army over the next nine months; and ¶Declare the immediate suspension of suspect Iraqi police units and a robust program of embedding coalition forces into MOI [Ministry of the Interior] units while the MOI is revetted and retrained. Text of U.S. Security Adviser’s Iraq Memo Â

So the next time Bush complains about leaks perhaps he should police his own. This was destructive. If it was intentionally leaked it was just plain stupid.

Share

Bush is a Punk –updated below–

James Webb is my kind of Democrat.

Webb, a decorated former Marine officer, hammered Allen and Bush over the unpopular war in Iraq while wearing his son’s old combat boots on the campaign trail. It seems the president may have some lingering resentment. At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing. Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb. “I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source. Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, but of course didn’t. It’s safe to say, however, that Bush and Webb won’t be taking any overseas trips together anytime soon. … Son also rises in testy Webb-Bush exchange

The senator-elect should have slugged him. It might have done Bush some good. Lord knows it
would have made the world smile.

Webb for v.p. in '08! And I'm only half kidding.

UPDATE (10:10 a.m.): The Congress is a co-equal branch of government to the executive. That's why he's a valuable asset to the Congress. He's a Democrat, but he's an American first and doesn't genuflect to anyone. Independence from the executive branch is what the Founders had in mind. Webb gets it. It's why I and so many others fought tooth and nail to get him elected. Webb makes me proud.

\”I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall,\” Webb said in an interview yesterday in which he confirmed the exchange between him and Bush. \”No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is.\” In Following His Own Script, Webb May Test Senate's Limits

Share

That Uppity Democratic Muslim!
cross-posted on Huffington Post

First we had Glenn Beck, now it's Dennis Prager. Rep. Ellison wants to take
his oath of office with his hand on the Koran. Now all hell has broken loose
among the wingnuts.

Multiculturalism is coming! Multiculturalism is coming!

This has nothing to do with multiculturalism. It has to do with religious freedom
and equal respect among all religions. Oh, and the Constitution. The last time
this came up was in a North
Carolina courtroom in 2005, when the judge in that case refused the request,
which ended with the state's highest court also throwing out the lawsuit that
followed.

Via
Mahablog, here's a run down of what
presidents swore on and when they didn't.

Here's what the Constitution has to say:

Article VI. – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Republicans are continually heading straight on into what our Founders meant
for this country. The GOP doesn't much like our Constitution, whether it has
to do with the First Amendment, or unlawful domestic spying. Republicans basically
want to police the world to make it in the image they see fit for the rest of
us. It's now reached full throttle.

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization. First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book. … Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's “Mein Kampf,” the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office? Dennis Prager

This is just the beginning.

I don't know if you saw “Hardball” today, but Ed Rogers insinuated
that Barack Obama is Muslim, through the use of his middle name, which is Hussein.
However, when Rogers threw it out he said it like it were profane. C&L
has the video. There is going to be racist swiftboating of Barack Obama
like we've never seen if he decides to run in '08, but the religious bigotry
now on parade is equally heinous and anti-American. For future reference, what
Republicans intend to do is blast Obama's full name across airwaves hoping that
average Americans will be turned off by “Hussein,” playing the religious
bigotry card on top of everything else they'll throw at him. But the real reason
Ed Rogers did this today was to send a warning shot across Obama's bow. Beware,
Senator Obama, we've already got our robo-calls and push polling lined up.

All you have to do is look at the hundreds
of comments to Prager's column to see where we're headed.

Share

Pick One: Sadr or…
cross-posted on Huffington Post

Is it time to pick a team?

Shiites and Sunni are on the menu, pick your poison. Or would you prefer a
permanent occupation?

If we stay in Iraq, which Mr. Bush pledged to do again today, what we get is
more hatred aimed towards America. That hasn't dawned on him, but nor has the
collapse of his fighting over there so we don't have to fight them over
here strategery. After all, since civil war in Iraq is now a reality, that
means Iraqis are fighting one another, which has nothing to do with aiming their
vitriol at us. That is, unless we stay in Iraq, which is what got us into this
disaster in the first place. Meaning, we had 10,000 troops in the Muslim holy
land of Saudi Arabia, which inspired Osama to hit us in the first place. Does
anyone see the writing on the wall here, or at least the irony blasting at high
decibels? Not George.

So, we can stay in Iraq and push for reconciliation in the face of an expanding
civil war. However, what we'll end up doing is giving Sadr even more power,
because Iraqis continue to back away from the U.S. and Maliki, who is Sadr's
competitor, as well as a slave to him, as Sadr has 30 seats in the Iraqi parliament,
as well as militias and death squads that can cut the government's throat, at
least in southern Iraq, any time he wants. Thomas Ricks, author of FIASCO, said
today that Sadr has 40-60,000 men in his militias.

… The U.S. invasion had destroyed an economy already crippled by years of international sanctions. Countless young men were unemployed, invigorated by the atmosphere of violent change but also poor and fearful. They wanted to be part of the new order—whatever it would be. The country was also awash in guns and other weapons, including those looted from Saddam's vast and unsecured arms depots. The Sadrist network was perfectly positioned to capitalize on the situation. Sadr himself was determined to lead a national movement—using a potent mixture of anti-occupation militancy and millennial preaching about the coming of the mysterious 12th imam, who Shiites believe will save mankind. “Moqtada is absolutely hooked on the concept of the reappearance of the Mahdi,” says Amatzia Baram, the director of the Ezri Center at Haifa University. (skip forward) Yet Tehran's main Shiite clients in Iraq are rivals of Sadr, who is often critical of Persian influence. Sadr worries that Iran may be trying to infiltrate his movement, and he's almost surely right. Fatah al-Sheikh, who is close to Sadr, says the boss sent a private letter to loyal imams around Baghdad in the past two weeks identifying 10 followers he believed were suspect. They had been using the Mahdi Army name, but Sadr believes they're really tools of Iranian intelligence, says Sheikh. Sword of the Shia

Dizzy yet? Read the whole Newsweek
article. It will do the rest. You know, reality bites and all.

The Sunni, meanwhile, are screwed. They're the minority in a land of people
that remembers the oppression and murderous treatment of their benefactor, Saddam
Hussein.

That's lost on Mr. Bush, who insists on pushing for everyone to get along,
something that hasn't happened in over one thousand years. But since status quo collapsed on election day in November, as did Mr. Bush's “stay
the course,” Baker – Hamilton commission or bust, something has to and will be done.

So, if reconciliation between Sunni and Shia has failed, utterly, you might as well
back the winner, right? That's Mr. Bush's current ruminations, according to cable rumors, because redeployment would take a look into history's rear view mirror, something Mr. Bush just won't do, because our president wants his name on Iraq's future. He broke it to own it.

So, with redeployment a no go for Mr. Bush, will he back the majority Shiites, and say sorry to Saddam's Sunnis? Place your bets. Just remember, Moqtada al-Sadr has already won.