Iraq - My Predictions

You can read the following editorials for some context:

Dangers Of the '80 Percent Solution'

How to Defuse Iran

Much of how we will judge our success, or failure, in Iraq will come from how we frame the goals and objectives that signal success. At first, merely toppling Saddam was seen as success, but that measure of success was short lived. We are now stuck in a quasi-nation-building-counter-insurgency that is figuratively bleeding us dry economically and literally bleeding us dry physically and militarily.

Forget for the moment the wisdom of going to Iraq as the point is now moot - the country saw fit to reelect Bush, even though prior to the election most of the country thought going into Iraq was a mistake. We are there now and must find some way to extracate ourselves from the mess while achieving some sort of stability, otherwise it will have been a colossal waste of time, money, resources, goodwill and, most importantly, life.

So, in order to claim victory, we need to determine the objectives that must be met AND the measurements that we will use to determine whether that objective has been met. Unfortunately, don't expect to get a clear answer from this administration on what these objectives and measurements are, because they don't know themselves.

The initial plan ASSUMED we would be welcomed as conquering liberators and when that assumption proved false, the plan and the overall operation went into a tailspin. The administration was so confident of their plan that they refused to engage in any risk analysis or contingency planning. Their hubris was such that they even refused to listen to those most in the know or even the President's father - a former President and nemesis to Saddam.

Ask this administration when we will be able to pull out and they quickly translate -read spin - the question into one of proposing a "timetable". They say this is bad because it emboldens the insurgents to fight, or wait to fight, in order to take advantage of the stated timetable. Perhaps this is true, but it's also irrelevant. The real question has nothing to do with a timeline, but with the objectives that must be met for this foray into Iraq to be considered a success to the extent that we can withdrawal our troops and turnover support to the UN or some other organization. Hence, the straw man of "timing" as these objectives are unknown and the administration cannot be seen as simply grasping at straws.

I guess they will know success when they see it.

Further exacerbating this problem is that a short-term solution that would allow us to withdrawal relatively soon may not play into the long-term NEO-CON plan to pacify the Middle East and allow control of the natural resource at the center of their grand strategy for protection of the United States and our economy: stable access to cheap oil. It will not be good enough to hold an election and establish a constitution for Iraq if the resultant government is not sustainable, stable or aligned with our agenda. Consequently, this administration is faced with a conundrum that keeps it from specifying the objectives and measurements that must be met in order to declare victory and withdrawal because it cannot clearly state the objectives that must be met to meet the conflicting short term and long term goals.

If the administration wants to save face, money and lives, it will leave as soon as it can point to a successful election (don't EVEN ask them for a definition of that!), a trained military and police force (again, what does that mean?), and a relative reduction in insurgent activity (5 deaths per day as opposed to 10?).

However, if the administration takes this short-term solution to our involvement in Iraq, it runs the risk of leaving nothing more than a well-built facade that has nothing behind the fancy front door. Basically, we will have built the shell, but the Iraqis will be responsible for the rest of the house. The problem with this approach is that Iraqis don't know HOW to build this type of house AND they're not sure WHO should build it AND they may allow a "family" to live there that we don't like.

Where does that leave us after the election?

The Short-Term Solution

The most likely result would be the election of a Shia dominated government, followed by our pullout, followed by civil war. This civil war would be fueled by insurgents from most of the Sunni dominated middle east and others with similar interests and hatred of the Shia (read Al Queda et al). These insurgents would be helped by the Saudis and others to ensure that the Shias do not gain a large foothold on their borders as well as gain access to oil revenues. The Shias would be backed by Iran and may garner the support of the Kurds as they have no love for the Sunnis who punished them so severely during Saddam's reign and who could broker a deal with the Shias for some autonomy. The Kurds could easily stay mostly above the fray, supplying economic and logistical support to the Shias, further solidifying their position with the Shia government.

I call this the "ensure continued Republican dominance via saving face in Iraq" plan.

The administration can always use the time between pulling out and total chaos to recharge the military and make a case to go to war with Iran, thereby ensuring stability in Iraq via the back door. However, the timing of this must be perfect. It must take place after mid-term elections in the US and must be late enough in the cycle for the civil war to be low enough in intensity to not disturb the election of a Republican president. In short, Bush can be blamed for the civil war AFTER a Republican is elected.

However, if the US cuts and runs shortly after elections and some as-for-now unstated objectives are met, we will NOT be able to ensure that Iraq, the Middle East and, most importantly, access to oil is stable. This would be a resounding defeat for the NEO-CON ideology with regards to foreign policy as none of the goals would have been achieved. Although, I'm sure they will gladly spin it as a success because Saddam is gone and Iraq is a nominal democracy based on the fact that "they had an election, right?"...no matter how flawed it may be.

The Long-Term Solution

The long term solution would involve the long term commitment of US troops to Iraq while we back up the elected government to ensure stability, rebuilding, and most importantly, access to oil. This means the establishment of semi-permanent bases in Iraq. This semi-permanent presence will result in the continued insurgency by both the disenfranchised in Iraq and the Muslim extremist who will see our bases as further occupation by the infidels. We will have basically traded our bases in Saudi Arabia for bases in Iraq AND we will continue to dominate access to oil and will continue to kill Muslim along the way.

Can you say militant recruiting poster?

The long term approach is also fraught with risk as the election will almost certainly result in a Shia dominated government with close ties to Iran that will have the effect of disenfranchising the Kurds in the north and the Sunnis who were in charge up until the invasion and election. If the Shias are smart they will make a deal with the Kurds that will ensure access to oil and other economic assets in the north while giving them some autonomy. They will do everything to crush the Sunnis outright as retribution and as a way to ensure continued control. The worst part will be that they will be infiltrated to the hilt with Iranian agents who will work to build close ties with Iran.

The Shias will build these ties with Iran to ensure continued support and Iran will back them to ensure Iran has a large foothold in the Middle East and access to coveted economically important natural resources. This will inflame the Wahabi hatred for Shias and will further exacerbate the insurgency by outside entities - mostly Wahabi-aligned entities such as Al Queda. And, don't think that Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Wahabism will stand idly by while the Shia's become a dominant player in the oil business and a looming threat on their border.

This will result in American troops being caught in the middle of two warring factions that share only one thing in common, their hatred for us. We will NOT be able to stem the tide of support for either faction and we will be left with either choosing a side, which will enrage the side not picked, or we will be left trying to referee and control two highly motivated and well armed groups who won't play by our rules in the first place.

The administration may see the long-term approach as beneficial because they can placate either side long enough to ensure mid-term elections and possibly the next Presidential election. Furthermore, it will allow them to have some control over the oil and the region via having troops on the ground. Lastly, it would put us in a position to blame Iran for the "troubles" and would give us further reasons and a kickoff point for invasion.

The only cost would be money and the lives of soldiers, none of which are coming from the families that received the largest tax cuts or the families of the men and women making the decisions.

On to my prediction.

First and foremost let us dispense with ANY notion that we are in Iraq to protect us from terrorist attacks in the short term. Forget it. That's NOT why we went there in the first place and that is not why we are there now. We went their based on an ideological vision that the way to bring lasting stability in the Middle East, thereby securing the most important economic asset, oil, is to force the Middle East into democracy. It's only a side effect of this vision that Islamic terrorism will supposedly stop due to the democritization of the Middle East - an assumption worthy of its own risk analysis.

Second, let us also forget about debating the merits of this vision. History, I believe, will make it clear that the "assumptions" behind this vision were suspect to begin with and were the result of the myopia that is the West's, and more importantly, America's ignorance of the world around us and our collective idea of what freedom means and how our democracy plays a part.

The NEO-CON vision's central assumption is that everyone wants to be like us and if they just give it a shot, via by choice or by force, they will see the light. I will leave it to you to figure out whether this assumption is valid. However, for those of you who can think for yourself, is it so far off to label this "vision" a "crusade"? Are we not simply replacing Christianity with Democracy? And, if so, can we really be surprised by the Islamic backlash given the history of earlier crusades? It doesn't mean I agree with their response, it simply means their perception cannot be discounted. In fact, it is this very perception that we are fighting against, and losing.

Third, forget about the NEO-CONs admitting their mistakes and adjusting fire. Fundamentalist ideologies, which by definition require faith, as opposed to critical thought, in the underlying assumptions of the ideology, cannot bear scrutiny or dissent. One need only look at the denial of the facts on the ground in Iraq and the Middle East during our recent election and the complete overhaul of the cabinet to ensure loyalty to see that this administration has no interest in evaluating their vision's results and adjusting course.

To put it in poker terms, they are in this hand to the end as the payoff is simply too big if they win. The only problem is, their chance of drawing the winning hand is less than 50% and even if they draw the hand they want, it may not be the winner anyway. Oh, and they aren't even playing with their money...or lives.

Fourth, assume the NEO-CONs know that their only hope for keeping their vision alive is to ensure the continued election of Republicans to the White House and the Congress. So, while they will certainly press their agendas both domestic and foreign, they will NOT make any moves which will jeopardize the overall NEO-CON fantasy of the democritization of the Middle East. This means we will see many, if not most, military decisions made for political reasons. This means that virtually every decision will ensure that the least damage to election results will be the overriding factor in determining what actions will be taken in Iraq. You need to only look at the decisions made, and approved by the White House, that allowed us to try and prosecute this war on the cheap to realize that the goal of victory is second to the goal of neo-con vision.

The NEO-CONs indeed have a long term view, but the holders of such views have done little cost/benefit analysis and have done virtually NO risk analysis with regards to world reaction or effects on our own economy and sociological well-being. And, they certainly did no contingency planning. Its clear to them I guess, and that's good enough.

So, given all the constraints above, what do I think will happen?

First, the President has a very small window in which to take direct action in Iraq before decisions will begin to affect mid-term elections. People will only tolerate so many body bags before one's "values" become irrelevant.

Second, the war will be used as a distraction to ensure that domestic agenda items can be moved with little scrutiny. Any legitimate scrutiny will be spun by tying the issue to national defense and will be spun to show that any vote against will harm the security of the United States.

Third, and most important, the election in Iraq will take place come Hell or high water.

Make no mistake, insurgents could be standing at the polls killing every third voter and it will still take place and it will still be called a success. Using the NEO-CON slight of hand, they will trumpet ANY election as a triumph as they will quickly point out, "They've never had an election before, so this is obviously a victory for freedom!"

Let's be clear and beat this dead horse into the ground...NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, the election will be spun as a success.

If the supposed "liberal" media had any balls left they would be asking the administration what specific criteria will have to be met for the election to be considered a success. That way we could at least measure our success against something, anything. To them I say, good luck getting the question asked and better luck trying to get a straight answer...because then we could hold them accountable and we can't have that.

So, assuming the polls go the way of the demographics (Florida and Ohio not withstanding) and the US decides to NOT tinker too much with the election, we should expect that the "winner" will be a Shia as they make up easily 60% of the country and the other 40% is split between the Sunnis and the Kurds.

If this occurs, the initial reaction will be a continued insurgency by Sunnis. Unfortunately, unless we can demonstrate some control over the government, the Sunni dominated Middle East will start taking a greater interest in the insurgency and will start to support it; even more than they are now. This will include the Saudis and virtually every other Sunni dominated country in the Middle East. They will simply NOT allow a Shia dominated government to control so much oil and be ensconced so close to the motherland of Wahabism - this will be just another recruiting poster for Al Queda. Furthermore, Iran, which is steadily infiltrating and outright staffing Shia parties now, will have a heavy influence with the newly elected government.

This leaves us with propping up a government that is aligned with Iran, that will be seeking retribution on the Sunnis that punished them for 30 years, and will want us out as soon as possible so they can consolidate their hold and kill more Sunnis. In order to prop up this government we will have to fight Sunni insurgents, now backed by supposed allies, and reinforced with Al Queda operatives. All this so we can ensure the continued operation of a government that will move to consolidate power and change the constitution as soon as we leave to install a theocracy. At best, this will spark a civil war, at worst they will succeed and establish a theocratic state aligned with Iran that will now have access to natural resources that will supply economic means to continue Iraq's or Iran's nuclear ambitions and expand Shia influence in the region.

Nice, huh?

Now, let's suppose we tinker with the election or the constitution enough to ensure that even though a Shia will be head of state, the parliament, or whatever they will call it, will be sufficiently diverse that overall control will be dispersed enough to ensure that Shias cannot dominate political control.

Or, worse, we somehow engineer a Sunni win.

Starting with the second scenario, all bets would be off. Shia would INSTANTLY pick up their guns and go to war. They would never understand how their demographic dominance didn't translate into control and they would NEVER allow themselves to be ruled by Sunnis again. We would instantly be sitting in between an experienced and armed Sunni minority, backed by Al Queda and possibly others, and a well armed Shia population, backed by Iran. If we choose the side of an illegitimate, at least in the eyes of the majority, government (like we did in Vietnam by the way), then how will we maintain any semblance of "moral high ground" AND how will we explain defending the very people we were fighting 3 months ago and who are backed by the very people who attacked us in New York? Talk about strange bedfellows.

The most likely result of such an action on our part is civil war with us in the middle.

Now, if we tinker just enough to give the Shias a win, but make the position weak, while making the parliament artificially diverse and powerful (Tom DeLay anyone?) thereby giving more influence than is justified to the Sunnis, then we are faced with a more complex problem, but one that will require much more nuance to manage, something not exactly in the bag of tricks for this administration.

First and foremost, we will have to continue to defend the new government from Sunni insurgents who would be unhappy with ANY result that didn't give them overall power plus those who see the arrangement as a sham. Add in a little Al Queda and Iranian influence for good measure and we are back to our pre-election stance with only an election to point to as some sort of pyrrhic victory.

The question then becomes, how long do we stay to ensure the following:

A) That the government can stand on its own two feet.
B) That the government will remain a democracy and will negotiate trade in good faith; ensuring access to what this is all about, cheap oil.
C) That the government will not choose to go the way of a theocracy, constitution be damned.
D) That Iran will not have undue influence.
E) That the Shias won't use their new power to bring the Sunnis to their knees.

Of course, meeting all of these objectives ensures nothing as without continued presence, the Shia, as they are doing now, can simply bide their time and play nice until we go. Then, after we leave, they can do whatever the hell they want. (How many times will it take for us to learn that they can be your best friend and still lie through their teeth?) How do you think they convinced Al Sadr to give up his arms and stop fighting? They know time is on their side. If we stay too long, we will become the only enemy for all insurgents and if we don't stay long enough, they will wave goodbye with one hand while giving the signal for wholesale change and retribution with the other.

Shias don't have to worry about mid-term and Presidential elections, economic hemorrhaging, and body counts.

Finally, all of this assumes the Kurds decide to cut a deal and play nice with the winner because the only thing certain in all of this is that the Kurds will have NO control no matter what. They have one of the most, if not the most, prosperous cities in the country and they will not look kindly upon anyone telling them how to run their business or trying to take over outright. Should they feel they are being shut out, they have guns too and will use them. If they cut a deal and get too much autonomy, then the Turks might just intervene either overtly or covertly. The Kurds are a wild card that seem to be being left out of the mix as they have stayed out of the current fracas. But, it would be a mistake to think they won't want a piece of the pie and that they won't be willing to pick a side and fight should it come to that.

So, what does this all mean and what approach will this administration take?

Well, here is my prediction:

The administration will send more troops first and foremost. They have the initiative and the small window available to them and they will use it to secure enough of Iraq to implement elections that can at least be spun to look like a success.

The election will be held, most likely on time. A delay will not be tolerated as it will be seen as a failure that could cast a cloud on all further actions and effect US mid-term elections.

A Shia will win, but the position will be diluted by the resulting constitution, which will try to placate the minority Sunnis and Kurds by giving them more power in the parliament then they would otherwise get due to demographics.

This dilution of central power will not sit well with the Shia and will result in some insurgency by hardliners. It would take extreme discipline within the Shia ranks to keep this from happening. However, with Iran's influence they might be able to keep themselves under control long enough to show us the door. If not, we will be looking at a two front insurgency.

The Sunnis will fight. They will fight until they are destroyed or damaged enough for us to hand over security to Iraqi forces, most of which will be Shia who will relish the thought of having the opportunity to knock heads in the Sunni Triangle. Those Iraqi units dominated by Sunnis will not fight against their brothers for an illusive dream of Iraqi freedom and certainly not when ordered by Shia they used to dominate. They will either leave or fight for the Sunni insurgents. They certainly will not stand by and watch Shia controlled forces wreak havoc upon their brothers and sisters.

We will fight to secure the installed government and our timetable for pullout will be as follows:

Option 1) If our body count can be kept low, as defined by popular discontent in America, then we will stay and reinforce bases at least through mid-term elections in the US. After mid-term elections we will work to counter what will become a growing insurgency from both sides, aimed at getting rid of us and whatever power is in place. Sunnis, Al Queda and others will work to see us gone in order to prosecute their war against the Shia government and the occupying infidels who put them in power. The Shia, backed by Iran will work to see us gone so they can go about the business of retribution and installation of a shia theocracy.

The longer we stay, the more enemies we will encounter. We will work to keep things at a low boil long enough to either pull out ahead of the next Presidential election or we will ensure that the body count and expense is kept at a relative minimum to ensure a Republican win in 2008. The timing will be tricky for we cannot give them enough time to go to full scale civil war or install a theocracy aligned with Iran before the US Presidential election. That can happen AFTER the election, but not before.

Option 2) If the Sunnis go all out and some Shia decide to go rogue and fight Sunnis, and our body count starts to look like it will fill a granite wall or two on the mall, we will call the mission a success, pull out just before mid-term elections, and work to counter Iranian influence. We will quietly turn a blind eye as the Sunni uprising is brutally put down by the Shias. We will most likely spin it as the Iraqis killing terrorists bent on destroying freedom.

Our main goal after pullout will be to somehow influence the Iraqi government to NOT change the constitution and install a theocracy before the 2008 election. Doing so would result in the US figuring out that we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives trading one problem for another. If we cannot do this, we will work to spin it as the "will of the Iraqi people" and will somehow show that they will be a "democratic theocracy" in NO way influenced by Iran. (Laugh all you want, just watch.)

Again, Option 2 only has to hold water long enough to get a Republican in the White House in 2008. If they can do that, then we can combine the "growing influence of Iran in Iraqi affairs" with Iran's "Nuclear intentions" to start the "pacification" process all over again, solving the Iran problem while realigning Iraq via the backdoor by destroying their benefactor. (Come on, they don't have to buy their own bullshit, they just have to sell it.)

There you have it. Print it out, put it in an envelope and seal it. I may be off on some particulars, but this is what I think you will see happen over the next 2 to 4 years in Iraq. Bet on it.

-----

Comment

You may think its cynical to place all the emphasis on politics, but its politics and ideology that put us into Iraq in the first place. You can try to rationalize our invasion through glowing words about freedom and liberty, but George Bush and the NEO-CONs et al couldn't give a rat's ass about that. The installation of "Democracy" is a means to an end and that end is trade and oil. If spreading democracy to promote a safe and just world were the endgame, then we would start with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others who export radical Islam and terrorism, not Iraq, which while a dictatorship, was secular and not contributing to the global Islamic terrorist threat. If Saddam had never invaded Kuwait and threatened the world's oil supplies, we would be working with him right now, as we were before, and like we are with other dictators, to achieve our goals...atrocities and democracy be damned.

Doubt me?

If implementing democracy were the endgame, don't you think we might have a better idea of what it would take to democratize a culture and people that have no experience in freedom or representative government; have been artificially divided, not by tribe or religion, but by arbitrary lines carved out by westerners; and have perceptions of the western world which prevent it from seeing the good that we do?

If it were the endgame, would we have not prepared for such an enormous undertaking as the building of a democracy from scratch?

If protecting us from those that have attacked us were paramount, where the hell is Osama Bin Laden?

Look, if you buy the mumbo jumbo that is the NEO-CON ideology of world peace, then at least acknowledge that it has been implemented poorly. If you are going to force-feed "democracy" to the world, then you better be prepared to beat the ingrained culture out of them and you better be prepared to go all out, no expense spared, no destruction held back, no killing checked.

We are neither prepared nor capable of doing this. We certainly cannot afford to go it alone economically and we either were incapable or unwilling to take the time to bring others around to our way of thinking. Furthermore, we cannot rise above our own moral code to deliver the violence and destruction necessary to destroy their will to fight, especially within the constraints of preemptive action.

People love to compare this "war on terror" to WWII, but its not. And, Iraq has NOTHING to do with the war on terror. WWII was total war. WWII was war against a nation state or states that attacked this country and our allies. WWII was NOT a preemptive war and the goal of WWII was NEVER to spread democracy...it was to vanquish our enemies that attacked us and to end their ambitions once and for all. Fire-bombing civilians and cities of the enemy that attacked us, unprovoked, wasn't even a question. Millions died and absolute destruction was wrought to include the only use of atomic weapons. THAT is total war.

It took us 50 years to recover.

We were able to install democracies in Japan and Europe because they had no way to resist us - they had been completely and totally subdued.

I ask you, are we, as a people, prepared to kill millions, wreak unimaginable destruction and devastation, to preemptively promote democracy?

Are we willing to do the same around the globe in hopes of killing every terrorist that ever lived?

Are we willing to do the same to ALL of the countries from which these terrorist come forth and are supported?

Because, if we are not, then overt actions like Iraq will NEVER succeed and they will only feed the fire. Its that simple. You either make the decision to go all the way, or you don't do it. If you cannot kill them all, literally and figuratively, if you cannot absolutely destroy their will to resist, then you will NEVER be able to forcibly change a culture that has existed for a thousand years before yours ever came into existence.

Now, given that understanding and the current climate in the world, what do you think are our options? Total war alone? Or, low-intensity war joined by allies?

It really is a question of how you want to pay the bill. Tens of thousands of US body bags and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of civilians up front or thousands of body bags and less civilians along the way but for a longer period of time. If we go total war, our sons and daughters will still be killed and we may still not be able to prevent attacks on our civilians until we have wreaked unheard of destruction upon a people that has never directly attacked us.

Can we as a nation morally survive such an approach?

If we go the low-intensity route, we are still vulnerable and many will still die and in the end, the numbers may be the same. Its a question of intensity of both destruction and healing.

What's the answer? It depends on how you frame the question.

What's the answer given the current global climate? Low intensity.

This country, much less this world is not prepared for total war. Its that simple. And, if you think we can go it alone, forget it. We need only look at the imperial powers that passed through history before us to understand that in the long run, we cannot do it alone. This means mobilization for long-term counter-insurgency. It means understanding that we will be attacked again and that the solution will take time, money and lives. But, in the end, I think we will be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and the rest of the world in the eye.

However, if we choose to go total war, than we need to do just that. We had 16 million men and women in uniform during WWII. We are twice the size as a nation now and can barely muster 2 million. It means the draft. It means war bonds and higher taxes. It means sacrifices at home to pay for the effort. It means the killing of thousands if not millions of innocents. It means thousands of dead sons and daughters. But, if you are going to let the end justify the means, then let us at least be able to achieve the end we believe is so righteous.

So, make a choice America, but for the sake of your own soul, stop deluding yourself that this half-assed, do it on the cheap, politically motivated warfare is going to carry the day...it won't. And, it will only prolong the pain and suffering of everyone involved. Make a choice America, but just be sure you AND your kids can live with that choice in the end.