Michael J. Totten: Why We Should Stay

November 01, 2006

Why We Should Stay

"[T]he coalition forces in Iraq act as the defensive militia for those who have no militia." - Christopher Hitchens

UPDATE: A distrurbing counterpoint. (Hat tip: Double-plus-Ungood in the comments.)

Posted by Michael J. Totten at November 1, 2006 10:26 AM

Comments

[T]he coalition forces in Iraq act as the defensive militia for those who have no militia.

Read this and then say that. In short, US forces are ordered to stand aside so that Shia militia can ethnically cleanse a town of Sunni, and they do so.

By the end of Saturday, the U.S. forces had learned about the mass killings underway in Balad, Caldwell, the military spokesman, said in Baghdad. A platoon-size quick-reaction force was dispatched that same day, he said.
The U.S. soldiers asked the Balad officials whether they wanted help, Caldwell said, but the officials declined the offer. The Iraqi government made no request for assistance, he said.
Caldwell described Shiite officials in the town as seemingly interested only in receiving local intelligence from the Americans.
The U.S. military spokesman said he did not know whether U.S. forces intervened. By Sunday, American forces had received reports of at least 57 people slain.
The Balad morgue had received about 80 bodies by Tuesday, hospital officials said. Most were Sunnis, and all had been shot; some bore the holes of electric drills.
The Iraqi government ordered in national police commandos, whose forces often have been accused of working with the militias to kill Sunnis.
Forty-eight hours after the attacks on Sunnis started, the Iraqi government ordered in the Iraqi army's 3rd Regiment, 4th Division from outside Balad, Iraqi army officials said.
Residents credited the Iraqi army forces, many of them Sunni Arabs and Kurds, with finally quelling the violence.
By then, however, very few Sunnis were left in Balad.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 1, 2006 11:13 AM

The answer is "a defensive militia". The question "What is the 97th reason used to justify US troops in Iraq?".

Posted by: lk at November 1, 2006 12:30 PM

How is that a counterpoint at all? You've just offered us a link to a detailed account of what we all already know. Do you think the situation would become BETTER if American troops pull out?
The instances where the SOVEREIGN government of Iraq lets us assist the defenseless we do, including the not-so-defenseless Kurds.

I get a real kick out of hearing the absurd comments by those who think Americans are actually to blame for people in Iraq killing each other and that they will stop as soon as we will leave. Now, double-plus I'm not saying that's your point of view - I don't know what you meant exactly.

But all that aside, it was a grisly and interesting article.

Posted by: Rommel at November 1, 2006 12:40 PM

Ik,

Why do you insist on harping on and on about the "justifications" for the war. At this point, everybody who follows this stuff is well aware of the validity or absurdity of the administrations justifications for the war. Nobody is convinced by that type of rhetoric.

The concerned and informed among us have moved on, realizing that regardless of why things happened they ARE happening and unfolding right now. When will everybody jump on the bandwagon called the PRESENT and add to the debate about what or how we can mitigate, fix, or end this thing. What we need are solutions. On that topic I suggest you all check out one of the latest posts by Coming Anarchy blog :http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2006/11/01/kurdistan-rebalancing-the-middle-east/

Posted by: Rommel at November 1, 2006 12:52 PM

Do you think the situation would become BETTER if American troops pull out?

I have no idea, and until recently, I was opposed to US withdrawal on the exact basis as the one posted by Michael, that it was important to have a military force between the militias and the population. That, surely, would offset any possible negative effect that US forces might be having, if any. However, with militias (Shia) now in control of most of Baghdad, more militias controlling the area surrounding Baghdad (Sunni), with at least 1,000 deaths each week at the hands of sectarian militias, and with the US military's own assessment appearing bleak, I'm beginning to think US presence makes very little difference at this point, at least outside Kurdistan.

The situation may well be out of control at this point, and there are no realistic acceptable outcomes.

I get a real kick out of hearing the absurd comments..

Well, hooray for you.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 1, 2006 01:02 PM

The counterpoint article about Balad appears to be playing up the usual Middle Eastern tendency to blame others (the West) for their own failures, problems, and misbehavior. Did "we" bring them to "this point" (civil war)? No, we removed their strongman... ie gave them back "free will". Now what they are doing is a sin, their own. On the flip side to this, I have been quite impressed by the level of restraint shown by the people of Iraq up to this point. I guess it is simply impossible to expect a nation to be "quaker" or passive about their own slaughter. But blame might be better put with Iran and Al Quaeda, those who have truly been pushing the civil war on Iraq. We could be blamed for not interviening, but then again how should we behave when we are trying to encourage the Iraqi government to stand up?

Posted by: sean at November 1, 2006 01:16 PM

The counterpoint article about Balad appears to be playing up the usual Middle Eastern tendency to blame others (the West) for their own failures, problems, and misbehavior.

The article itself does not do so, and my citing of it was to counterpoint the argument that US forces are acting as a defensive militia. Where did you see blame of others?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 1, 2006 01:19 PM

Rommell - My solution? US troops leave Iraq - turning out the lights as they leave. That means major bombing, back to the Stone Age, where I grew up, and I think the Iraqis can start over from. Take US troops to Afghanistan and invade northern Pakistan, looking for OBL and his group. Major bombing also. It's a plan. It has its downside risks, but what plans don't. s/ another f'in effette liberal Christian Democrat that's tired of the pussyfooting on OBL. It's not "stay the course", but we never were, George.

Posted by: lk at November 1, 2006 01:31 PM

Double Plus: this line taken with my own feelings of guilt (I wish our boys were intervening) led to the above conclusion. Also, in my own time in the ME this year I heard a lot of this... people there are used to the government doing things TO them, instead of for them. They also have a big chip on their shoulders in comparing themselves to the West (as does China). The general line is that they are behind the West because we dont play fair, we somehow magically came out above them and we now use our leverage to hold them down. Blaming their civil war on the American occupation is par for this course... here's the quote from the article:

QUOTE

Balad's Shiites had been living alongside Sunnis for hundreds of years, Ali said, staring bleakly at the road outside. He had a Sunni son-in-law and Sunni friends, he said. It took the American occupation, he said, to change all that.

"What do you want to know?" Ali demanded bitterly. "How we reached this level? How we started to kill people according to their identity? How this sectarian strife was brought to us?"

ENDQUOTE

Posted by: sean at November 1, 2006 01:39 PM

In case it wasnt clear, just read the quote backwards....

Q: how have we come to this point?
A: the American occupation.

To be fair, lots of people that I met in the ME did NOT have a chip on their shoulders, or hid it, and did not openly blame the West, but rather strove to be more like it.

I should have been more precise in the above post and noted that "of those who are angry with the West for their current situation... they tend to blame us for using our wealth and power to hold them down". What seems to go unexamined is how we ended up ahead of them in the first place (they were once far above us in technology, medicine, and even government).

I suppose the answer goes back to the rise of the textile industry and international banking in Europe in the middle ages. the invention of double entry book-keeping and the joint stock venture (public companies). Happenstance? Geography?

Posted by: sean at November 1, 2006 01:44 PM

Living under what these people are living under, I think I'd be laying down some blame as well. And I probably wouldn't have the wherewithal to go back a century or two or so to point the finger.

This from pro-invasion (well, until recently) Iraqi blogger Zeyad a few days ago:

This video filmed by an Iraqi doctor is a must see. I am amazed that someone could actually film the terrible conditions inside one of Iraq's most dangerous hospitals, Al-Yarmouk Hospital in western Baghdad, in these troubled days.
I was struggling to keep my tears from flowing because I was watching it with an American friend 2 days ago. But at one point, when an injured Shi'ite woman lying in an ambulance started screaming at the camera, "Bring Saddam back! It wasn't like this under his rule!" I lost control.

This is some grim shit, folks. Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 1, 2006 01:56 PM

Indeed, it is grim doubleplus.

But what's your point? The free-for-all violent anarchy that exists in Iraq today is awful and tragic to be sure. However, which is worse: Anarchy or brutal oppression from the top down. If the elites in this country decide that the latter is preferrable then logically should we not install another Hussein-esque dictator? Or do we let the situation unravel as it is now? Or do we perhaps try something like partition or what IK mentioned above? I see a lot of naysaying about the situation and how we got here. Fair enough. However, the question remains. Is that poor Shia woman right - do we bring back the beast?

IK, I apologize I read your comments all wrong. I actually think you have a very valid point and I tend to agree.

Posted by: Rommel at November 1, 2006 02:08 PM

However, which is worse: Anarchy or brutal oppression from the top down.

That's a fairly complex question if there is no goal stated. If the goal is a functioning society, then a single dictator is far better than what is currently going on. At least you have a society that is functioning, along with hope that a dictator can be eventually replaced. What is going on right now threatens to scar Iraq, or what remains of it, for at least a generation, and possibly several. Besides that, there is also the risk that the whole region will become politically destabilized, and not in a good way.

Add to that potential reformers in places like Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia looking at Iraq and deciding that their dictatorships may be tolerable after all.

And then there's the cause of humanitarian intervention, which was looking pretty good for a while, being dead for at least the next decade.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 1, 2006 02:19 PM

There's lots of blame to go around for this mess.
- If more American troops early on in the occupation would have maintained order and kept the militias from gaining power, then there is some blame for the Americans. Ditto the decision to disband the Iraqi army.
- If deliberate actions by fanatics (e.g. blowing up mosques to inflame religious fury) encouraged sectarian violence by design, then there is lots of blame for them.
- If failings by those elected to the Iraqi government kept them from establishing control over their country, they can be blamed. (Some mitigation for the fact that they had no experience in democratic politics or even democracy, let alone how to make one work.)
- Anybody outside Iraq who has been fanning the flames for their own purposes can have part of the blame, too.
- IF (and it's a big if) the common people in Iraq actually have some power to force the violent men to stop, then they can have some blame as well. But anyone arguing that point will have to come up with a credible answer to the question: What, exactly, could they do?

The point being, there is no one single bad guy in this piece.

Posted by: wj at November 1, 2006 02:45 PM

But what's your point? The free-for-all violent anarchy that exists in Iraq today is awful and tragic to be sure. However, which is worse: Anarchy or brutal oppression from the top down.

I have no doubt that for most people, the former is far worse. What politically engaged people (which includes virtually every commenter here) often fail to understand is that most people's hierarchy of needs places great weight on things like economic stability, safety and family, and comparatively less on who actually runs the government.

The fact is that once the Shiite rebellion died out and the northern no-fly zone had created de facto independence for the Kurds, if you weren't politically engaged, Iraq was for most people a basically stable environment, where they could make a living, have a range of economic and social choices, and have a fundamental level of security for themselves and their families.

Now, it seems, there is hardly an Iraqi whose life has not been touched by arbitrary violence, the economy is on its knees, and only a fool would make plans for the future.

I have no doubt which mode of life most people would prefer.

The point being, there is no one single bad guy in this piece.

wj - the striking thing about your list of villains is that they were all eminently predictable (and, in fact, predicted) consequences of the initial decision to invade.

From that single idiocy, all else flowed.

Posted by: J.B.S. at November 1, 2006 04:03 PM

If the goal is a functioning society, then a single dictator is far better than what is currently going on. At least you have a society that is functioning, along with hope that a dictator can be eventually replaced.

I'm not so sure, not when the dictator keeps that society "functioning" by murdering, jailing, and torturing hundreds of thousands of people (and their families) who are percieved as a potential threat.

The lesson we learned too late is that a replacement government should have been far more authoritarian than would be tolerated in the West. However, I'd like to think that an authoritian government can function short of gassing entire towns and disappearing anyone who dissents with the official government line.

In a society that views nationalism as a foriegn concept, and loyalty to one's clan or religious sect outweighs any sense of national altruism, we need to stop being so sensitive to the wishes of those only out to serve their own sect or line their own pockets and bring the hammer down hard on the troublemakers.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 1, 2006 04:36 PM

JBS,
You make valid points, but unfortunately you are guilty of the sin of omission at least once.

The reasons for the stability of Iraq lay in the heavy handed and cunning brutality of a truly sick regime. That Shia rebellion you briefly mention in passing did not fizzle out - it was stomped out, by some of the same sadistic Baathist security forces that are now drilling holes in peoples' skulls. I'm not saying that the situation now is preferrable to the one pre-Iraqi Freedom (though for the Kurds it clearly is). However, it cannot and should not be repeated enough that such stability was achieved at the cost of many human lives. Of the things you list as important, family for most comes out on top. Iraqi society, at times, was not unlike the society of Czechoslovakia depicted so brilliantly by Milan Kundera in The Unbearable Lightness of Being. One never knew, family & friends included, who might be an informant for the Baath. So before we get too whistful over the times of tyrants past let us remember that the reign of Hussein also touched many, many families in unimaginably horrific ways.

That said, many argue stability is a pillar upon which any liberal, democratic or prosperous society must rest. Robert D. Kaplan often writes on this concept (Eastward to Tartary is a good read). In fact, this is why Lebanon cannot and will not succeed in its current state.

Posted by: Rommel at November 1, 2006 04:37 PM

That Shia rebellion you briefly mention in passing did not fizzle out - it was stomped out, by some of the same sadistic Baathist security forces that are now drilling holes in peoples' skulls.

Well, that's a misconception. The Shia militias are the ones doing a great deal of the current torturing, including with drills, and killing, not the Baathists.

So before we get too whistful over the times of tyrants past let us remember that the reign of Hussein also touched many, many families in unimaginably horrific ways.

I don't think anyone is being wistful about Hussein's dictatorship. One can say that the current situation may be worse than it was under Hussein without being anything close to a fan wishing him well, or thinking that he was part of the good old days.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 1, 2006 05:20 PM

What is a misconception? That a good percentage of the Sunni fighters are ex-Baathists? You must be out of your mind if you think that is some fabricated bit of 'conventional wisdom'. Just because you say something does not make it so, and if you so desire I will present plenty of evidence that ex-Baathists are a driving force in the Sunni factions.

Or is it a misconception that some of the Sunnis are drilling holes in people? Does it matter? You may as well debate which faction it was that cut the head off that one Iraqi man and sewed the dog's head on in its place. The fact is both sides are equally brutal and sadistic and it not only makes sense but is also understood that former intelligence & security personnel are very active in the Sunni (and possibly Shia) factions.

As for my "wistful" comment(with that grievous spelling error). It's called rhetorical effect, and that is all I used it for. But you're right - it has no place here. Only thoughtful analysis.

Posted by: Rommel at November 1, 2006 06:09 PM

What is a misconception? That a good percentage of the Sunni fighters are ex-Baathists?

No, the implication that the only ones torturing people with electric drills are the ex-Baathists. If that wasn't your intended statement, and I misread you, I apologize for the error.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 1, 2006 07:03 PM

Y'know, grim topics like this really scream out for the occasional photo of a cute pug.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 1, 2006 07:46 PM

LOL doubleplus.

After all that grim talk, all I could think about was someone drilling holes in that pugs head! (sorry couldn't resist!)

BTW that was a good, vigorous debate we've all had with no ad hominem attacks! No hard feelings, guys.

Posted by: Rommel at November 1, 2006 07:49 PM

That pug seriously looks like an alien btw!

Isn't it incredible to think way back in that guys lineage was a frickin wolf. I wonder if he would turn savage if released into the wild?

Posted by: Rommel at November 1, 2006 07:51 PM

double plus... people often have nostalgia for the iron hand of the old guarde. but that doesnt mean much.

I was in Russia this year and people were evenly divided down the generational line in keeping with self interest and expectations. The older folks missed the surity of the old days while the young people seemed to thrive in the open chaos.

I know people who kinda miss their hard-arsed abusive fathers too, even girls who really had it bad, hardness with stability can kinda be missed... maybe it's a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

Yes, I know that things are really bad in places in Iraq. I know that many people cant see the improvement in their lives. For many people their own life may never be improved over the days of the dictator. But the situation shouldnt really be predicated on the betterment of the people today. The efforts in Iraq are for their grandchildren. I know that sounds corny and callous at the same time... but I think it is true.

But, yeah, I understand the anger and missery of the people today and it breaks my heart, trust me. On the other hand, listening to a kid my age in Kurdistan this year tell me about life under Saddam and the aftermath of their failed uprising made me cry. Action or inaction both have consequences. Our current path does have some pain involved right now, but I am sure it is better than the path of inaction would have been. For me, this hasnt been changed, yet, by the current troubles.

Posted by: sean at November 1, 2006 08:06 PM

JBS - I respect your view point, but disagree. Life under a dictator can indeed be stable, but there is more to life that buying bread. The problem with a regime like Saddams, or like his idols Stalin and Hitler, is that when bad things happen to you it is BECAUSE of the government. Whereas right now it is in SPITE of the government. The difference may be subtle, but is hugely important.

For myself I do believe that I would prefer daily choas and surviving by my wits to being tended to like a lamb by my government (lambs can be led to the slaughter).

I am constantly amazed when people seem to have not learned basic Star Trek, Saturday westerns, Kippling-esque lessons about human life and the state of capitivity. Ours is a species that can will itself to die rather than live as a slave. So why does everyone give so much weight to issues of basic survival under a dictator? Even if one could live safely under Saddam (and that is far from certain, ask the Kurds or the Shia... two thirds of the country) is that enough? Even if life is riskier now (and I dont know that it is) isnt it still better to live in chaos as a free human?

When did Americans become the "live unfree or die" backers?

Posted by: sean at November 1, 2006 08:17 PM

Any rationale for the initial invasion is obviously irrelevant at this point. There can be no rationale for the continued deaths of Americans in this cesspool.

What we are seeing is the result of a very long history. There is no other frame of reference for these people other than control by violence. They cannot even conceive of the concept of a democratic state. They will continue to operate only by the methodologies that are known to them; it is more than a past time and they are quite capable of killing each other endlessly.

Of course, it is the fault of the 'occupation'. It couldn't be their own fault.

The only thing the occupation is responsible for here is the destruction of the central killing capacity. It is now evenly distributed.

Primitive tribal instincts can only evolve into some other expressions, with a bit of luck, in a few centuries.

The messianic Persian regime with its nuclear ambitions should
be the major object of preoccupation, I would think, and not the perpetual internecine butchery of Arabs in Iraq.

Posted by: ankhfkhonsu at November 1, 2006 09:45 PM

If it wasn't for the Kurds, I'd recommend nuking the whole place.

Posted by: redaktør at November 1, 2006 09:57 PM

The Kurds show that Bush's Liberation was a good strategy.
The failure of the Iraqi Sunni Arabs to live in peace with Iraqi Shia Arabs is because:
they don't feel being "Iraqi" matters (like American whites in the KKK with American blacks in the South pre WW II);
Sunnis and Shia who are devout, devoutly believe the other are Satanic heretics;
Arabs are unable/ unwilling to take responsibility for the costs of their choices?

"IF (and it's a big if) the common people in Iraq actually have some power to force the violent men to stop, then they can have some blame as well. But anyone arguing that point will have to come up with a credible answer to the question: What, exactly, could they do?"

The real issue is JUSTICE. There was a Sunni terrorist, who deserved justice - punishment. From WaPo article:
"The trigger event, U.S. and Iraqi officials said, was the killing of two or three Sunni men from the area earlier this month. One of the men had been a local leader of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman."

The local Sunnis must be willing to turn in, and punish, the Sunni terrorists.

As long as the non-terrorist Sunnis protect Sunni terrorists -- they are NOT innocent. Criminal based "innocent until proven guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt" allows too many guilty to go unpunished. The Shia militia are a response to the failure to punish the guilty Sunni terrorists; and the not-innocent Sunnis who support these terrorists.

Sunnis are punished; Sunnis take revenge; Shia take revenge for the revenge. When does it stop? When both sides decide to punish the guilty, and stop helping the guilty. In this case, when the minority Sunnis get rid of Sunni terrorists.

Americans gave the Arabs freedom, including freedom to kill -- which is what too many have chosen to do.

The killings are the fault of Arab killers. The biggest Bush PR mistake is failing to state this, repeatedly, and continually to ask the Iraqis how they are going to handle the justice issues.

The US/ Rep arrogance is the desire to "win", and get credit. Only the Iraqis can win.

I don't quite support the early possible plan of installing Chalabi as a DeGaulle type General semi-dictator who could authoritarianly impose more stability. But it DID work in S. Korea and Chile.

The US forces acted correctly -- waiting for the Iraqi gov't to take the lead. And making sure the Iraqi gov't forces, when they choose to fight, can win any battle.

The Balad post script must be: Message to Sunnis. You will be in Big Trouble if you don't turn in the Sunni terrorists, and if you try to take revenge for justice given to such terrorists. The Sunni "leaders" need to be convinced of this. How many villages need to be ethnically cleansed before they do?

The freedom to choose has been left to the Sunnis. But the freedom to quietly allow Sunni terrorists to murder innocent Shia is being taken away, by the Shia militia.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at November 2, 2006 12:59 AM

Sunnis are punished; Sunnis take revenge; Shia take revenge for the revenge. When does it stop?

Historically, it generally ends when you run out of one group or the other.

When both sides decide to punish the guilty, and stop helping the guilty.

When has that ever happened?

In this case, when the minority Sunnis get rid of Sunni terrorists.

I think the shia will run out of sunnis first.

BTW, it sounds like you missed something-

"The trigger event, U.S. and Iraqi officials said, was the killing of two or three Sunni men from the area earlier this month. One of the men had been a local leader of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman."

That's important.

I'm not going to fault shias for whacking 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' types, and the shia are welcome to send anyone who tries to avenge an 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' member straight to hell.

That is exactly what I was hoping would result from the invasion: muslims have begun killing radical muslim militants.

It's not pretty, but muslims can root out the jihadis with much, much less 'collateral damage' than we can.

Posted by: rosignol at November 2, 2006 02:59 AM

That is exactly what I was hoping would result from the invasion: muslims have begun killing radical muslim militants.

That's one way to look at it. The other way would be that people are now simply being killed in the thousands for their ethnicity, neighborhood, or simply their first name.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 2, 2006 10:26 AM

The relevant section of the Washington Post article:

"Hours after the beheadings, outraged and frightened Shiite elders of Balad telephoned an office of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in Kadhimiyah, a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad. Sadr leads the Mahdi Army, the most feared Shiite militia in Iraq.

Balad's Shiite leaders ASKED FOR PROTECTION by the Mahdi Army, and for the militia to exact revenge, Taysser Musawi, a Shiite cleric in Balad, later recounted."

Since the fall of Baghdad the Baath insurgency has slaughtered tens of thousands of Shiites. The Coalition quickly proved incapable of protecting them, or even of imposing a modicum of civil law and order on Baghdad. Hence the rise of the death squads. The Shiites retaliate in kind. Middle East Rules apply.

All directly attributable to US military and civil policy after entering Baghdad.

Declaration of martial law? Shooting of looters on sight? Civil servants ordered back to work? Committment to elections by end of year to write new Constitution?

None of it. Instead General Franks booking his plane seat home. And all follows, as night after day.

George W Bush: No Harry Truman he. Tommy Franks: No General MacArthur.

US arrogance and incompetence - a mild description!

Posted by: Barbara at November 2, 2006 12:40 PM

US arrogance and incompetence - a mild prescription. Just ask the Chechens.

Posted by: redaktør at November 2, 2006 01:05 PM

Anybody notice the glee from the Buchananite right over a minority of violent Arabs condemning all of Iraq to slaughter?

Posted by: Cover Me, Porkins at November 2, 2006 01:41 PM

Excuse me, but warlordism is probably the opposite of anarchy.

Iraq's problem isn't a lack of dictators, but a surplus of dictator wanna-be's fighting it out. Not a derth of authority, but a surplus.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at November 2, 2006 09:46 PM

That is exactly what I was hoping would result from the invasion: muslims have begun killing radical muslim militants.

But the government of Iraq doesn't have a history, the people of Iraq have no confidence in it yet.

So the result may not be Iraqis standing up to militants, but them running to militants to protect them from other militants. Sure that would be foolish, but I REALLY don't think that Iraqis have the experience with and confidence in democracy to understand that there is a much better choice.

It's not at all sure that the militants won't win this way. It's been their plan to make violence that drives their constituency into their arms all along.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at November 2, 2006 09:50 PM

But the government of Iraq doesn't have a history, the people of Iraq have no confidence in it yet.

[shrug]

Pretty much all of the governments in that part of the world are 50-100 years old, at most. That's not very long at all when your local history includes ancient Babylon, Alexander the Great, etc.

So I don't think 'lack of history' is very likely to be the reason Iraqis lack confidence in their government. It seems more likely that Iraqis lack confidence in their government because of it's demonstrated ineffectiveness in keeping the peace and establishing the rule of law.

If the security of my home and family was dependent on some guys with rifles from the neighborhood manning an improvised roadblock at the end of my street, I wouldn't have much confidence in my government, either.

I don't think there is a much better choice in Iraq just now. Governments in the west have a near-monopoly on the legitimate use of force, the usual exception being self-defense. Most people abide by that for two reasons, the first being that they don't want to kill the neighbors, the second being that even the ones who do want to kill the neighbors know that if they do, the police will show up in sufficient numbers to hold them accountable for their actions.

That is not the situation in Iraq. Not when government ministers have what amounts to private armies reporting to them personally, not to any governmental chain of command. The militias act with impunity, and the government ministers they serve protect them from the legal consequences. You can't have a democratic system under those circumstances, what you have is a wierd form of warlordism.

This should have been anticipated and dealt with early on. Factional militias are not even slightly new in that part of the world- just look at Lebanon- and their corrosive effect on democratic systems are very well known.

The idea may be that by bringing the militias into the government, they get a stake in the government and therefore it becomes in the militia's best interest to support the government... but that fails to take into account that in many situations, the militia's ultimate goal may be to subvert and replace the government.

That is not a stable situation.

It's not at all sure that the militants won't win this way. It's been their plan to make violence that drives their constituency into their arms all along.

The militants are not a monolithic bloc.

The Sunni-backed, al-quaeda-affiliated militants are pretty much certain to lose so long as force is the determining factor.

What I'm concerned about is if the shia-backed Iran-affiliated militants will assert independence from Iran once the sunni militants are defeated, and if they don't, how the US will deal with the situation.

Posted by: rosignol at November 2, 2006 11:21 PM

"The point being, there is no one single bad guy in this piece."

No, but I think Al Qaeda are more to blame than any other group. They invaded Iraq with the specific intention of creating chaos and killing Shias.

Posted by: Don Cox at November 3, 2006 10:30 AM

I get a real kick out of hearing the absurd comments by those who think Americans are actually to blame for people in Iraq killing each other and that they will stop as soon as we will leave

Do you, Rommel? Maybe you do some more thinking.

Our unfocused but continuous war against the Sunnis in Iraq, under the guise of hunting for Saddamn and rooting out his followers (remember the deck of cards?), was the primary cause of the anti_Shiite bombing campaign.

The other cause of it was Al-Zarqawi - who was given shelter and protected by Iraqi Sunnis who, in the absence of our war against them, would not have defended him.

The Anti-Shiite bombing campaign has produced the death squads. The death squads have produced the retaliatory massacres. And so on.

Our military action - not just removing Saddamn, but our entire strategy and behavior after it - started the engine. And we continued to feed the fire for years.

The killing may or may not rapidly or quickly die down after we finally end our pointless anti-Sunni punitive expeditions in Iraq, but it sure as heck won't die down before then.

Posted by: glasnost at November 3, 2006 11:14 AM

Pointless anti-Sunni punitive expedition?

Not at all. The US should keep at it, until Sunnis, and everyone next in line, gets the point.

Posted by: redaktør at November 3, 2006 11:58 AM

glasnost,

I think you are - willingly or not - justifying the cycle of violence that is plaguing Iraq by laying blame outside of Iraq's ailing society.
When people talk about "root causes" of the various problems in the Near East, namely terrorism and persistent war, they usually fail to acknowledge what is arguably the most troubling aspect: sick culture. In many Arab societies, particularly those that are intensely tribal like Iraq (and indeed, most Arab countries) there is an ancient system of honor and masculinity that rests on pillars of violence and force. Islam should not be blamed for this anachronistic concept, in fact in many ways it probably reigned in (or attempted to) some its worst aspects. This way of life probably grew out of harsh, nomadic existence and is unsuprisingly characteristic of cultures in Central Asia (namely Pashtuns and their infamous Pakhtunwali). I believe in Iraq, a region with major identity issues, it was easy to fall back on this "cultural fundamentalism" once anarchy reared its ugly head. Now,along with its evil twin Islamic fundamentalism, it threatens to plunge the country and perhaps the region into a genocidal dark age. Perhaps it would be alright to pull out and let the people live how they see fit, but in today's globalized civilization the world can not afford to let these twin terrors wreak havoc in such a vitally important corner of the globe.

Posted by: Rommel at November 4, 2006 01:07 PM

I don't think there is a much better choice [than letting the militants rule] in Iraq just now. Governments in the west have a near-monopoly on the legitimate use of force, the usual exception being self-defense.

The better choice is for Iraqis to stand up, en-mass, and give their government an overwhelming superiority of force. To fight an all out war against the militants. You can't defeat force without force. The answer is to fight and kill and die for democracy.

Of course, as I said, I don't believe that Iraqis have the confidence in democracy to do that.

Democracy isn't a specific government, its a way of organizing a society. And it is so damn superior that it's worth fighting, killing and dying for.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at November 5, 2006 01:24 PM

Huh?

You are arguing that because

1) the US destroyed the Sunni-dominated government of Iraq

2) and continued to try to defeat the sunni-dominated (at the time) Iraqi insurgency that was trying to drive US forces from Iraq and restore Saddam to power

therefore

3) the Sunni-dominated Iraqi insurgency decided to start bombing Shia Iraqis.

Exactly how does 3) follow from 1) and 2)?

The US did not invade Iraq because of Sunni mistreatment of Shia, reprisals against them are unlikely to compel the US to do much of anything.

Posted by: rosignol at November 7, 2006 03:40 AM

澳大利亚
 澳大利亚移民
 澳洲移民

压力开关
 压力变送器
 压力传感器
 流量开关
 流量计
 液位计
 液位开关
 温湿度记录仪
 风速仪
 差压开关
 可燃气体检测仪