All opinions posted. None too pathetic or contrived. Everyone gets their say.

"...even the wicked get worse than they deserve." - Willa Cather, One of Ours

Sunday, April 25, 2004

What Is To Be Done in Iraq?

Weekly Standard (conservative)
A plan for dealing with every faction. By Reuel Marc Gerech of AEI


Lynnette Hunt asked me to give my opinion of this article.
SO, what do we do in Iraq? It is obvious that the Bush administration and its distant and sometimes independent offshoot, the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, have been knocked off balance by events...the administration certainly doesn't convey the impression that it has any plan left--except to (convincingly) promise perseverance and cross its fingers and hope that the U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi can devise a new political roadmap for the transfer of sovereignty on June 30.

At this point, it is worthwhile to remember that the vast majority of Iraqis are still probably on "our side," that is, they sincerely want a peaceful and workable transition of sovereignty that leads to a functioning, democratic Iraq...The Sunni "insurrection," for example, was in all probability inevitable. Would that we'd rounded up sooner more men from Saddam's elite military units, the intelligence and security services, and the paramilitary storm troopers, but these folks were going to come for us in any case. Ditto the Sunni militants and foreign holy warriors who have no intention to allow a Shiite-led democracy to take shape. And if the CPA had adopted the anti-Shiite mentality present in the voluminous, much-touted, but seldom-read State Department guide to Iraqi reconstruction, things in Iraq could be far worse. Sometimes poor--or no--planning is better than stacks of consistently bad ideas.

But what do we do now?...


The Sunnis. What is the CPA trying to accomplish in the siege of Falluja?...Even Iraqis who hate the insurrectionists may start to flip on us because the Americans appear to be engaging in an endless military action. Iraqi nationalism is a real and fickle thing. Even Shiites who would be thrilled to see the American military maul the ex-Baathists and Sunni fundamentalists fortified in the town (better the Americans deal with them now than we have to later) could start to turn if the United States undertakes a protracted siege...Bin Ladenism is primarily fed by the appearance of American indecision and weakness...

The United States simply cannot afford to engage in siege tactics. Negotiations must lead to the immediate surrender of the town and all those within it--the surrender of the insurgents' weaponry is meaningless since weaponry in Iraq can be quickly reacquired. Any agreement where the insurgents abandon their heavy weaponry and withdraw from the town unmolested is even worse. This will only punt down the road a worse confrontation...the only real option is for the Marines to storm the place. We should have taken the town immediately after the four American contract-workers were desecrated; indeed, U.S. armed forces should have cleaned up Falluja months ago. If there is one town in Iraq that has merited classic counterinsurgency tactics, it is Falluja. No doubt, there could be unpleasant repercussions within Iraq and elsewhere from a direct assault...we now have no choice...

The Sunnis and politics. It is obvious and understandable that the CPA is desperately trying to engage the Arab Sunnis in a political process that will, in theory, diminish the violence within the Sunni Triangle...Brahimi...has already let it be known that he believes the Americans have engaged in too much de-Baathification...

...let us repeat what has become obvious since the "insurrection" of Moktada al-Sadr started: We lose the Shiites, we lose Iraq...

...The Sunni will to power is the common denominator of modern Iraqi history...Travel Iraq and it is easy to find Sunnis who sincerely want to see their country democratic. Spend much time among the former military elite and you don't come away with the same sensation. Rather, you get the impression that they are furious at Saddam Hussein for going too far, for cocking up what had been a very good and sustainable situation.

...how many Sunnis will we need to hire into the new army to make the Sunnis feel as if they've received their "fair" share? Do we really think that whatever that share is will turn most of the Sunni rejectionists into democrats? If there is one thing the Provisional Authority may do in Iraq that most resembles Russian roulette, this is it. It would be very wise for the administration...to clear senior Sunni Arab military appointments with a good sampling of Shiites--especially the senior clergy in Najaf.

The essential political step for the Sunnis, as for all Iraqis, is to move to national elections as quickly as possible...


For the Shiites

(1) At all times treat Grand Ayatollah Sistani as the leader of the Shiite community...

(2) Realize we have more maneuvering room with the rebellion of Sadr than with the Sunnis in Falluja. This means, first and foremost, don't attack the holy city of Najaf...There is nothing wrong, however, with going after Sadr's men elsewhere in the country if they engage in any violent actions against Iraqis, Americans, or our allies...Ultimately, however, Sistani and the Hawza must handle Sadr...

(3) ...We should state loudly and clearly that we do not want United Nations participation in the political reconstruction of Iraq to delay elections for a constitutional assembly or a national assembly by a single day.

(4) We should state loudly and often that we will oppose any U.N. plan that diminishes the democratic throw-weight of the Shiite majority in Iraq...

(5) If Brahimi and Sistani disagree on any issue pertaining to the representation of Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds in a transitional government, side with Sistani...

(6) The Transitional Administrative Law is probably as dead as a door-nail. Don't waste time defending it. We should encourage the Shiites and Kurds to sit down and work out a different arrangement to protect Kurdish rights other than through a constitutional veto that effectively checks a Shiite majority on virtually any legislative matter. Encourage the Kurds and Shiites to work out, perhaps through a bicameral legislature, a checks-and-balances arrangement that makes it very difficult for a majority to run roughshod over Kurdish concerns.

(7) ...the battle between a one-man, one-vote democracy and Iran's theocratic "rule of the jurisconsult" (velayat-e faqih)--is enormous...we shouldn't complicate their lives or ours by seeking, openly or clandestinely, any bilateral U.S.-Iranian discussion on Iraq that allows Iran an official role in Iraq's reconstruction. If Brahimi starts to move in this direction, stop him.


The Kurds. ...We should tell the Kurds that we will not support them against the Shiite objection to their comprehensive constitutional veto power in the Transitional Administrative Law...


The United Nations and the Europeans....We should obviously support Brahimi's efforts, but we should do so only as long as he does not run afoul of the majority of Shiites. If he does that, we need to be prepared to seize the initiative back, call for national, constituent elections within six months, and directly ask Sistani--privately at first, publicly if necessary--to whom we should transfer sovereignty on June 30. We should not hesitate to pass the responsibility for this to the Grand Ayatollah. (And we will see if he takes it.)

And concerning the Europeans, don't expect more of them to embrace our democratic cause in Iraq, even with a U.N. resolution...France and Germany have more to gain in Europe--and therefore, in their eyes, in the world--if America is laid low in Iraq...
First of all, the author is quite correct about the Sunnis. The longer we wait to bite the bullet and act in Fallujah, the weaker we become and the more it will limit our ability to affect other outcomes in Iraq.

Of course, a better solution would be if the local tribal leaders could be encouraged through negotiations to arrest the non-Iraqi fighters and tell the rest to go home. But it seems that even at this moment of extremis, the local tribal leaders are either unwilling or unable to fulfill their responsibility to protect the community. I believe that they have been so politically weakened at this point that they have lost control of the city to the Fedayeen; the men with the guns and RPGs.

This failure on the part of the local tribal leadership leaves us with no choice but to crush the resistance in Fallujah. This will be very ugly. Think Berlin in 1945. But it must be done to secure a democratic Iraq.

Concerning the reintroduction of the Sunni Baathist leadership into security positions in the new government: Chalabi and his INC flunkies that are currently running the de-Baathification committee have done a lousy job. They have stalled and generally refused to allow any Baathists to be allowed to return to work. This has created the correct perception among the Sunnis that they are being shut out of power. This has led to an increase in violence by former Baathist Sunnis. The author’s suggestion that a committee of Shia, and I would add Kurdish, leaders must clear all of these Baathists. This will give the Sunni a realistic hope and reduce violence.


As to the Shia: Sistani should be given great deference. But the level of obsequiousness mandated by Mr. Gerech seems unnecessary.

On the other hand I completely agree on how to handle Sadr and his Al-Mahdi militia. We should stay out of Najaf and let the Shia leadership handle this. Using force in this instance is not necessary. The other Shia leaders will not allow Sadr to continue to control the holy sites for very much longer. His armed men also place the physical safety of Sistani in jeopardy. Let Sistani handle it. If he directly asks for military support we should provide it. Otherwise, we should surround Najaf and Kufa to prevent Sadr escape, smash the Al-Mahdi in other locations, and that is all. Let the Shia leaders handle Sadr.

It is also clear that we should not allow the UN to hijack the process and deny the Shia their chance to gain full power through elections.


As to the Kurds: Here Mr. Gerech is dead wrong on this point. The Kurds will walk away and declare and independent Kurdistan unless they get assurances that a federalist system will protect their rights. A recent poll found that, if a referendum was held today, 95% of Kurds would vote for immediate independence. And if necessary, the Kurds have the power to back it up. The Kurds are well organized. They have an elected parliament and two regional governments, their own court system, and an experienced and well-led 100,000 strong military force, known as the Peshmerga. This being the case, the current Transitional Law is a significant compromise by the Kurdish leadership.

If the Kurds declare an independent Kurdistan, only the US or Turkish military has the power to stop this. And if either military is used (particularly the Turkish army), Iraq will descend into a hellish nightmare of eternal regional conflict between the remaining stump of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. This must be avoided, even at the cost of discomforting the Shia and Sunni majority.

Let me say it again: if the interests of the Kurds are not constitutionally protected, and become subject to the popular will of the Shia and Sunni majorities, then the Kurds will walk away. The constitution must have a strong federalist system. The Shia and Sunni majority will have to live with this fact. In any compromise, no one gets everything they want. This is a lesson the Shia and Sunni majorities best learn now while the U.S. and the UN are in a position to successfully mediate the dispute.


ORIGINAL ITEM: http://www.weeklystandard.com/
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home