Thursday, March 27, 2008
imagine if i woulda let off a shot or two, you know what i gotta do:
My excellent friend Charlie of the excellent counterinsurgency blog Abu Muqawama asks for my thoughts on this excellent question from my other excellent friend Noah Shachtman of the excellent Danger Room blog:
So the Brits bail, and Basra is "essentially divided up among Shi'ite party mafias, each of which had its own form of extortion and corruption," as Anthony Cordesman puts it today. Isn't this an extremely bad omen for an American troop withdrawal, under a would-be President Obama or Clinton? How would a country-wide draw-down be different than this local one?
Charlie replies:
One answer is that the Brits [who used to control Basra] adopted a "peacekeeping" mindset in Basra and never really engaged in a broader COIN or CT effort. That meant that all the myriad Shia groups were able to pursue their (relatively) non-violent political agenda and consolidate control over the political levers of city. There's a chance (albeit not a big one) that our COIN efforts in Anbar, Baghdad, and elsewhere have undercut the political bases of these groups and made a Basra-style breakdown less likely. Time will tell.
Here's what I'd add to that. Withdrawing without any political strategy, as the British did from Basra, leads to a vacuum like the one we're seeing now. Sadr rushes in. The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq rushes in. The Fadhila party maneuvers between the two. Forces ostensibly loyal to the government, pinioned between all sides, find ways to accommodate the existing power on the streets. In other words: chaos.

So to avoid chaos -- and I recognize this is banal and generic -- you can't just pull up stakes. Some sort of political accommodation has to occur alongside a strategy of extrication. There will be some good suggestions coming out of various think tanks and government offices over the next several months that put flesh to bone here. But the broader point is this: if we decide we're just going to order the post-surge forces out of Iraq in X number of months/years, and nothing accompanies that decision on the political-diplomatic end, then yeah, Basra probably will be a prologue. But if we spend the time between now and then -- say, a new Democratic president's Inaugural -- working on some Undefined Diplomatic Strategy, then we have our best shot -- and it's not a sure shot; I'll be the first to admit -- at extracting ourselves with a minimum of chaos.

Now, this is true unless, like Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush, you believe we should stay in Iraq forever. But if you don't, then you indeed have to grapple with this conundrum. There are no guarantees. There are no good answers. There are no grounds for certainty. That's what makes it a quagmire. But you don't have the luxury of throwing your hands up in despair and pleading that complexity should bring apoplexy. That's why it's called statesmanship.
--Spencer Ackerman
I tend to agree with "Asia Times" columnist Pepe Escobar on this: With Nuri al-Maliki's cabinet approving the draft of the new Iraqi oil law a month ago (Monday 02/25/08), the Bush administration is about ready to end this thing.

My personal grievance on this (or one of them) is that they might draw down so much before the election — focusing troops mainly on geo-strategic interests and a "mission accomplished for real this time" media blitz — that the war issue will evaporate along with any democratic nominees' chance of winning.*

Either overtly, covertly or tacitly, the U.S. will help the SIIC (which is fine with the oil law), while those like Muqtada al-Sadr's group (which opposes the law) will be beaten into submission. Managed chaos acceptable to Washington and shielded from the U.S. public.

The way the oil law distributes wealth is a telling forecast of the way things are heading: Colonial style PSA's for ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Shell, TotalFinaElf, Lukoil from Russia and the Chinese majors; royalty payments forgoing Bahgdad and going directly to Kurds in the North, Sunnis in the south, and Shi'ites in the center. So, we're looking at economic mollification tantamount to dividing the country into three states and a crypto-neo-colonial Iraq lightly-managed by the McCain administration as he pushes us into Iran.

I'm sorry if all this seems weirdo far-left. I actually work for a chemical engineering trade journal. I haven't had a good excuse to talk with anyone in the petrochemicals industry about this, but I think I'd like to sometime soon.

Also, while I'm here, I went to school with you and actually did a comic ("Scenic West Monroe") for the Targum (and the Rutgers Review) while you were writing dandified police blotters. My current housemate is a big fan of toohotfortnr and has been mentioning your name for months. It just didn't click until today.

Anyway congrats on everything.

*(A playbook strategy if you believe the Robert Parry's "October Surprise" story, which has a unjustifiably bad rep. IMHO.)
Blogger "I Love you, Catmother!" | 8:30 AM

You do realize that discussing the complexity of post-Saddam Huseein Iraq in the context of a domestic election in a nation that absolutely lost its mind when Britney shaved her head may not be the easiest thing to do? I'm not saying I disagree with you-the analysis is spot on. I'm just flummoxed by how best to make such an argument to the larger population.
Blogger Matt | 6:57 PM