Lose/Lose Situation
by Jason at 5:16 am on February 24th, 2006 in Iraq War, War on TerrorSo after months, if not years, of tip-toeing around the question, we are finally confronted with the Iraq resolution that no one wanted—a full-on civil war. Forget democracy. Forget purple fingers and glowing reviews of the security forces. And forget the idea that, finally, we would be able to slowly ease out of Iraq by claiming “victory”.
All those hopes and set pieces were likely shattered when armed men bombed an ancient mosque that was one of Shiite Islam’s most holy sites. What happened in the aftermath was predictable; Shiites went to take revenge on Sunnis, with dozens of attacks that left mosques crumbling and (as of Thursday night) more than 130 dead. Seven American soldiers were also added to the death toll. And other than enacting an around-the-clock curfew, the Iraqi government—which still hasn’t been formally created—really can’t do much more than hope that the tensions ease up on their own accord.
Maybe this will happen, and the country will be able to slowly step back form the precipice. But the events of the past few days have shown how close Iraq is tipping toward total chaos, this despite any of the recent happy-face projections from US officials about Iraqi security and Iraqi democracy.
From CNN:
On the ground in Iraq, the nation seemed to be struggling to stay together as the divisions between Shias and Sunnis — from clerics to politicians to ordinary citizens — appeared to be widening.
Iraq’s largest Sunni political bloc suspended all negotiations with the Kurds and Shia on the formation of a new government after it said the country’s Shia leaders had failed to condemn the reprisal attacks.
From the New York Times:
Everything felt different on Thursday morning. A Shiite newspaper, Al Bayyna al Jadidah, used unusually angry language in a front-page editorial: “It’s time to declare war against anyone who tries to conspire against us, who slaughters us every day. It is time to go to the streets and fight those outlaws.”
Ever since we decided to go into Iraq, it seemed fairly obvious that we had no plan to combat the insurgency or keep Iraq’s ethnic and religious divisions from becoming giant fault lines. At the least, we thought that getting rid of Saddam would be enough; at most, we thought that the infusion of democracy would give Iraqis a reason to work together and stabilize the country. But democracy, if it is a solution at all to Iraq’s problems, is inherently a long-term process; in contrast, an insurgent attack needs no such timetable. It can change the country’s fate in days as opposed to years or decades.
And if Iraq does finally devolve into an “official” civil war, where will America be in all this? Will we have to choose sides? Will we have to bring in more soldiers to attempt some sort of martial law? Or will we pull out completely, leaving the country to tear itself apart? There are no easy answers, but one way or another an Iraqi civil war is our problem. We didn’t plant the bombs in the Al-Askariya mosque, but that won’t stop people from accusing us of setting the stage for it to happen; Iran has already blamed the attack on America and Israel, and some Iraqis also seem to feel that we’re at fault:
There were isolated signs of unity Thursday. In the southern city of Kut, tens of thousands of Sunnis and Shias joined together, carrying the Iraqi flag and finding a common foe — they chanted “No to America!”
In addition, we have Shiite officials claiming that we “provoked” the bombing, while Sunni officials are blaming us for not being able to stop the Shiites from responding:
A statement by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim charging that [US Ambassador] Mr. Khalilzad’s comments on Monday had helped to provoke the bombing were a particularly ominous sign. But American officials said Mr. Khalilzad was unlikely to give up his demands.
(…)
But Mr. Mutlak added that Sunni leaders felt betrayed that American soldiers did not stop the marauding Shiite militiamen on Wednesday, an approach reminiscent of their inaction in the face of looting after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003.
(It also needs to be repeated that—if the culprit behind the bombing is indeed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—we had several chances to target him in 2002, but the White House held off because it would have weakened the case to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. It’s a decision that continues to haunt us.)
The fate of Iraq, which has continually been at one crossroads or another since 2003, hangs in the balance of what will happen in the next few days. If the violence continues and ends up swallowing the country whole, it won’t matter who actually pulled the trigger or lit the fuse; Since 2003 Iraq has been our mess, our responsibility.
“You broke it, you bought it” is how the saying goes. We’ve been paying in money, blood and reputation for almost three years now. Imagine the payments that will occur if the country falls into civil war.
screwtape wrote:
I thought the taking of American hostages in Iran was the low point for America in my lifetime. I think this is worse. We have never looked so incompetent and impotent. It is goint to take decades to recover from this.
I am a little glad Bush is in office, otherwise repugs would be blaming Kerry for this mess that should rest only on w’s shoulders.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 7:07 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I think the blame goes to the entire international community. Not participating in the invasion of Iraq was one thing, not helping to secure and rebuild it afterwards is just inexusable. However, you are correct, we broke it, we bought it, but if the coutnry falls into civil war, there’s nothing we can do about it. Except hole up and wait it out. Most likely outcome is the Shiites would eventually win, at that point we would have to step back in to make sure that Iraq didn’t become another Taliban Afghanistan…
Just a reminder, our country went through a brutal bloody civil war, and came out better for it…
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 7:29 am ¶
matt wrote:
so it was the president’s decision to go in over the objections of most of the rest of the world, and his decision to reward only “coalition of the willing”-nation companies with contracts. yet the blame is spread out across the international community?
while we hole up and wait it out, what happens to all of those innocent iraqi lives?
how would we “make sure that Iraq didn’t become another Taliban Afghanistan” exactly?
i think that one’s a bit past it’s sell-by date.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 7:48 am ¶
marc wrote:
Afghanistan’s no picnic either these days.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 7:59 am ¶
sac wrote:
It continues to amaze me how EVERY apprehension about going into Iraq (no WMDs, no international support, possibility of civil war, breeding more terrorists, anti-American sentiment from the very people we “helped,” terrorist haven, etc.) has come true and NONE of the predictions of the White House (they’ll greet us as liberators, this will take 18 months tops, democracy will fix everything, Saddam was the cause of all the strife, WMDs make Iraq imminent threat, we have an exit strategy, we have enough troops on the ground etc.) have proven correct. More amazing, none of this has been a surprise to the people who brought all this up as arguments against going in. It was fucking OBVIOUS back then that all this shit would go down. This is not Monday morning quarterbacking, this was all said pre-invasion.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 8:53 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
I couldn’t agree more. What is even more amazing to me is how repugs claim to be the tough guys to protect us from terrrrists and everyone buys it.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 9:40 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Are you suggesting we forcably stop them from fighting each other? We cannot stop a civil war nor should we. If at thsi point they take up arms against each other, it would be foolish to use force and get in between them. Its not pretty and not the desired outcome, but if it happens we will have to deal with it in an intelligent manner…we can play the woulda should coulda game untill we pkue but in the end it doesn’t matter because the situation is upon the Iraqi. They either stand daown and not let the terrorists win or they they fall into civil war, we can only try to convince them not to escalate the violence. We should try to give santuary to anyone who does not desire to be caught up in the fight but beyond that, we cannot engage either side unless they engage us.
Situation sucks, yes, we still have to deal with it…
By insisting on a government that does not harbor terrorists and has a democratic elected body. If they refuse and engage use then we will have to pacify them. We cannot afford to let Iraq fall into a state of terrorist run government. However, since the Shia are the majority and have been the most cooperative with the US in the goal of having a democratic government, I don’t see that we will have that problem but who knows, power corrupts…
Whatever that means…
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 10:35 am ¶
Jason wrote:
But if they refuse and engage us, how will be able to pacify them, especially when “we cannot stop a civil war nor should we?”. Also, just saying that the Shia majority won’t be a problem because they supported the election misses much of the story. For years, they were a majority under the thumb of a Sunni minority. The elections were less about some shining ray of democracy than a way to gain power and influence against that of their enemies. Having an election did not make them fans of the United States. Having an election doesn’t make it any less likely that they will use their power to become better aligned with Iran. Having an election didn’t stop extreme and very influential Shiites like Mutaqua al Sadr (sp?) from railing against America at every turn, speaking out against the Iraq constitution and government, and using their own militias to create autonomous little fiefdoms separate from the elected Iraqi government.
Put simply, just because the Shiites voted in an election or two doesn’t mean that their goals aren’t very different than our own.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 10:52 am ¶
matt wrote:
i see you conveniently skipped this question…
I guess if i were in your position i wouldn’t have answered it either.
i’m suggesting that you respond to my question. you’re the one who blindly followed your president into the calculation that saving iraqi lives was worth the lives of american soldiers. so now that has changed? we allow a civil war that is only possible because of our invasion?
WTF does any of this mean? when you start making up words and speaking in tongues, i have to excuse myself from the debate.
of course they are relatively more cooperative, saddam was a sunni and we cleared the way for shia sharia rule. what does that have to do with anything?
it means that your talking point has expired. it didn’t make any sense when it was wheeled out last year, it makes even less now. comparing our civil war to Iraq’s is past ignorant, and betrays a serious lack of historical perspective.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 10:59 am ¶
JimC wrote:
But they just might however, but if it comes to a point where they hae legitimate control and seek to establish their own government provided they don’t sponsor terrorism, then w should not stand in their way. If they went after the Kurds, however, unprovoked, then that would be a signal that they aren’t interested in having a representitive government and we will probably have to give them two options, either stand down and reengage the political process or face our military….failure in Iraq should not be an option.
I know, I know, you think we’ve already failed….
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 11:01 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Matt, what’s your solution then? Or are you just in the game of complaining? (yes this is a rhetorical question)
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 11:07 am ¶
matt wrote:
Jim C, upstream sans paddle:
and
is sponsoring terrorism now the bar for success? what about women’s rights? religious freedom? actual democracy moving forward? all of that: gone
i’m in the position of not needing to propose a solution. i was among those sac references above who voiced concerns before the damage was done. even after it became clear that we were losing due to awful decisions by our political leaders, i advocated deploying more troops.
but the president didn’t listen to people like me, and now things are well past the point of no return. now this failure is on him, and his administration. they set the course, they excluded non-coalition nations after the war.
the reason france, germany etc voted against war despite the “same intel” you love to reference is that this outcome we have been dreading was as close to a forgone conclusion as you’ll ever see.
it isn’t up to me to come up with a solution, it’s to work to change leadership in this country. the one we have now can’t even tie their shoes properly.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 11:38 am ¶
sac wrote:
Not a whole lot we can do. I agree failure (and I don’t think we’re at the point of total failure yet) is not an option NOW THAT WE’RE THERE. The frustrating aspect of all of this is that I and many other Americans have absolutely no confidence that the Bush administration will make a successful decision, not because I have any answers to this mess, but because, outside of removing Saddam from power, which no one doubted we could do (should we have is another question), they have yet to accomplish a single stated goal. I suppose the election was a goal but I won’t label it “accomplished” until they establish the governement.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 11:47 am ¶
JimC wrote:
There have been many many untold successes in Iraq. The media however does not air these as those stories don’t sell. Read the numerous letters and blogs of soldiers who see the difference we are making (yes there are some soldiers who still don’t get to see it because they are in the “nasty” zones). We can’t say that very few goals have been met. yes some very big goals haven’t been which still needs to be addressed but this is far from total failure *even* if there is a civil war, that does not defacto mean failure. Failure would mean that we are forced to leave and hte average Iraqi person we left behind is now under a worse regime than we lkeft them in.
I still don’t think it was a mistake to go into Iraq. If there is a chance that Iraq will emerge a strong democratic country with freedom from tyranical dictators, then it will have been worth it. The long term strategic benefits in having a Arab ally in the middle east is huge.
We cannot give up until we absolutely have no choice but to accept defeat and we are a long way away from that…
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 12:40 pm ¶
matt wrote:
oh for fuck’s sake. what successes? less clean water? less electricity? less phone service?
they are all worse off now than they were.
because you have stopped thinking. nothing will make you think it was a mistake. facts be damned.
wait, who are we talking about now?
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 12:44 pm ¶
sac wrote:
The only “small goals” that have come to fruition are a few schools being built, which is great. However, every other aspect is actually worse than before, such as utilities (power is off a good part of the day, clean water is hard to come by. etc.). That’s not to say it can’t get better.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 12:52 pm ¶