Foreign Policy
National Security
-
Leadership
A Silver Bullet to Solve Sexual Assaults
-
War Dogs
Postcard from Bagram
-
Obama
The Neo-Nixonian Presidency
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - 6:01 AM
Share
I've had this gut feeling for a few years now that in the long term, Iraq is going to be messier than Afghanistan.
An e-conversation last weekend clarified the feeling for me, like hot ghee: In Afghanistan we haven't fundamentally changed the situation. (Kabul has long been at odds with the provinces, Pashtuns have long thought they should run the country, Pakistan still thinks it has to have control over who controls Afghanistan.) But in Iraq, we changed the game. We established the first Shiite-dominated Arab state in many centuries. That is true whether or not it becomes an ally of Iran (which I think it will, but who knows?). So I think it will take much longer for the dust to settle in Iraq.
Speaking of Iraq, Michael Knights had a good piece that I think runs counter to the Joel Wing view. Knights reviews the data and concludes that, "it is not a stretch to say that the incidence of Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence has doubled since November 2011." Al Qaeda is reviving and the insurgency is re-coalescing, he adds.
In a similar piece, Lt. Col. Joel Rayburn, one of the smarter people I ran into in Tell Afar, where I ran into a lot of smart people, writes about Iraq that, "the nation's politics lie in disarray, with no clear route back to stability." In addition, he observes, "the sectarian lines that divided Iraq's communities in the civil war of 2005-08 are hardening once more." He thinks the country is heading toward soft partition.
"Historians will puzzle over how a nine-year American military campaign resulted not in democracy, but in an Iraq led by a would-be strongman, riven by sectarianism and separatism, and increasingly aligned with America's regional adversaries," Rayburn glumly predicts.
(HT to JR)
Be less pessimistic, not more optimistic. Optimism implies success, which is not in the cards at either stadium.
Best labels: Iraq, biggest foreign policy blunder in our history; Afghanistan, the war that was prosecuted more ineptly than Vietnam.
Find optimism in either? I can't.
That's a better way of putting it.
Best,
Tom
Tom, have you or anyone else . . .
. . . read this in the NYRB?
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/feb/09/afghanistan-best-way-peace/?pagination=false
Iraq surely had a Shia majority population prior to the invasion and occupation. Unless certain dark tales of the early days are true and loads of Iranians infiltrated the southern parts and settled down, pretending that they'd been there all the time. No doubt that line will become popular again. So, no, the al-Maliki government is NOT US-founded. Washington would rather have liked Iyad Allawi ,its pawn ,to be 'elected. Sad to relate, two attempts to rig the elections failed. Actually, the second, more recent, attempt came close. Which is doubtless why CIA Iyad is often described as the post popular politician in Iraq.
A constant curiosity is that the Shia parties are routinely lambasted for not letting bygones be bygones and being nice with CIA Iyad and his Sunni backers, for not 'moving forward.' I eagerly await the day when Washington will seek stability and move forward to good relations with Al Qaeda. Ah, but In forgot about that exceptionalism that God hath bestowed upon his Chosen People. The trouble with smart people is that given God-like powers over subject populations they get to believing themselves infallible and that things go wrong only when the ungrateful natives don't do as they're told. Of course, when they slaishhly obey and things still go wrong it's self-evidently their fault.
Al Qaeda in Iraq may have been suppressed but doubtless never entirely disappeared. One wonders, is target practice and Mayhem 101 currently the curriculum in Syria to be continued later back home. If Bashers goes the answer should not be long in coming.
The situation HAS changed in Afghanistan. Because the US is interested in the Stans in the upwards direction. Not necessarily anything to do with Russia. But China isn't far off, it also has an Islamic insurgency and wants an Afghan presence. The Great Game, as exemplified by the visits of HC to Uzbeikistan and Tajikistan quite recently and her lectures on allowing peaceful Islam, is that there are two Islams. One, the religion of peace, is US-friendly and against extremism but for agitation in China and the Caucasus. And there is the religioon of extremism, that small minority that hates everybody.
That the Maliki government was backed by the U.S.
1st the U.S. invasion, and insistence on sectarian politics meant that the Shiites were going to come to power no matter what.
2nd the U.S. backed both the first and second Maliki administrations. The Americans helped push out PM Jaafari in 2005 feeling that he had lost control of the country, the Bush administration gave its total support to Maliki afterward, and the U.S. eventually backed Maliki after the 2010 elections.
Tom’s ‘gut’ may very well be right particularly his ‘feel’ on Afghanistan a country, which he shares a personal history with going back to his youth. Michael Knights appears to be correct on the upsurge of violence in Iraq and likely has the data to support his statement. Lt. Col. Rayburn makes savvy observation on the organic disarray of Iraqi politics and possible if not likely a division of the country.
My question is how has any of this extraordinary effort on behalf of the United States over the past decade served our country’s interests? Are we a better, more secure country today because we invaded, occupied and attempted to tame highly complex insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade?
Which begs the question, were is there evidence that as a nation we have done our ‘due diligence’ and have performed the critical strategic ‘net assessment’ like Harry Truman and his advisory team did when they decided to defend South Korean freedom but not allow the war to expand into a larger conflict of unpredictable size and ramifications?
America has pulled out (well, been pushed out, but let's not haggle) of Iraq and we see the course of events there since then. American remains in Afghanistan and seems to think it will quit at a time it chooses (i.e., regardless of whether it has achieved any kind of victory or not) and so we have no idea of how things have turned out after the boys have come home. Comparing presents or futures of those two war-devastated nations seems an empty exercise.
Optimistic about Afghanistan? What is optimistic about a "state" well into it's 4th decade of civil war? Afghanistan had no place to go but up in 2001 yet we "haven't fundamentally changed the situation?" How is that cause for optimism? Well, I guess our demining efforts paid off and we don't see kids getting their legs blown off anymore - that's about the extent of optimism that I see.
Iraq has undergone populist ethnic cleansing of its high-IQ commercial and intellectual elites for 60 years. Its current inhabitants are dumb and prone to violence. Everything else follows.
Afghanistan has not undergone this kind of process. Though its suffered immensely, its demographic makeup has not changed.
demographics are actually pretty good
Would actually slightly disagree with you on this one, B. The demographics in Iraq are pretty good - population growth positive, but not crazy-positive like Egypt or Palestine; the only large Arab country that can easily supply its own food and energy; and a well-educated populace. Saddam was like Mussolini, a terrible guy who did great things for infrastructure and education. I was always impressed by how smart the locals were, even in the back-of-beyond villages of Anbar and Diyala.
Iraq is indeed in a downward spiral but the catalyst won't be brain drain; it'll be the emergence of Syria as a Sunni state which will harbor Sunni militants who will return to Iraq periodically to sow violence. The US will be reluctant to get involved because it will want to stay in the new Syrian regime's good graces. Meanwhile Iran, having lost its ally in Syria, will double down on Iraq, which means more weapons, training, and money going to JAM, Badr, Iraqi army night-time death squads, etc. And oh by the way, Kurdistan, which has been spending major $$ getting private security contractors to train and outfit the Pesh, will tolerate only so much before it pulls an Eric Cartman and says, "screw you guys, I'm going home, we're now a sovereign state". Which Turkey and Iran won't be especially happy about, and.... etc etc
I won't get into my personal assessment of the intelligence of the Iraqis, other than to say that I have never seen anyone else shit where they eat. I will just note that two terps, one Sudanese, the other Somali, on two different deployments, one in the NW, the other in CS, told me that they were aghast at the stupidity and pathological dishonesty they were forced to deal with. "My whole life, I was told that this place had the most advanced and educated population in the Middle East," one told me, " but these guys ate awful. This shit would never fly back home."
Not saying that there wasn't an egregious lack of sanitation and environmental stewardship going on. Fully agree on that point. Just saying that in a surprising number of cases, the families living in squalor in the outskirts of Ramadi were headed by a guy who earlier in life had earned an MS in engineering (perhaps this talks to the calamitous effects of sanctions pre-OIF). And even those who had a minimal amount of book-learning had a knack for making markets that would inspire jealousy in an NYSE trader. They're very commercially-oriented people; that aspect of Iraqi culture gives me at least a little hope for the future, despite the destructive macro environment.
As far as the imported terps looking down their noses....what do you expect, casting aspersions on other nations' cultures, cooking, hygeine, intelligence, etc is a competitive sport throughout that part of the world. I actually thought the Iraqi food was great, despite our Jordanian terp's sotto voce protestations to the contrary.
What? Afghanistan has had major brain drain since the 1970s -- more like a hemorrhage.
First it was the royalists, then the professionals, then just about anybody with enough money who wanted to protect their family.
Some have returned, or their children have returned, to take part in the quote-unquote reconstruction, but most of the brains left that place a long time ago.
This is in a country that never experienced the level of development that exist(s/ed) in Iraq.
Don't understand where you get this notion, or if it's just a guess.
yup, that's my understanding as well.
it's easy to argue for a disjunction between the educated city-slickers in Baghdad v. the hicks in Anbar on the one hand and between the educated city-slickers in Kabul v. the hicks in Kunar.
the problem is that Baghdad makes up a much larger percentage of the Iraqi population than Kabul does of Afghanistan (leaving aside the other Iraqi cities). Iraq is simply much more urban.
Problems with Iraq's population/economy
Leroy,
Iraq the same demographic problems as seen in the rest of the Middle East. That is a country with a very young, and getting younger population, with little hope of finding them jobs. Iraq has the fifth largest population in the Middle East/North Africa, 2nd youngest pouplation at 20.9 years old, 4th highest population growth at 2.399%, 2nd highest brith rate 28.81 births per 1,000 people.
Iraq is the most oil dependent country in the entire region, and the rest of the economy is receding. That leaves the government as the main employer, and many of those jobs are simply created for patronage or to keep people off the streets. The government also draws workers away from the private sector becuase they are more stable, and have benefits. The result is endemic high unemployment, and even higher underemployment. This will not change as the government's main remedies in the last several budgets is to create more useless public jobs.
2nd, Iraq has the potential to feed its own people, but that hasn't happened for decades. the country has been hit by a drought for several years now, it's also been flooded with cheap food imports since 2003, and the government supports for agriculture are largely ineffective. That means the agriculture sector has deteriorated, and Iraq has to import most of its staples like wheat, grain, even cooking oil, etc. I don't see that turning around anytime soon, becuase government planning is so bad in this sector.
3rd in terms of energy, I assume you're talking about electricity. Power supply has grown greatly since 2003, but has not kept up with demand, which has always grown faster becuase Iraqis are making more money now and have lots of cheap consumer goods to buy from other countries. The government's plans here to boost output have consistently failed because of corruption, lack of capacity, poor planning. Basically the Electricity Ministry always goes for these huge multi-million, sometimes billion dollar projects, that almost always fall through. They just don't get that smaller is better, and therefore the country still only averages about 7 hrs of power per day outside of Kurdistan, has a dysfunctional national grid, and there are blackouts all the time
Compare Afghanistan's brain drain with the brain drain of Iraq. At the end of WW2, somewhere between half and a quarter of Baghdad's population was Jewish. Most of the Chamber of Commerce was Jewish. A huge percentage of the commercial and intellectual classes was Jewish. Within a few years, they were all gone, expelled by Iraqis who coveted their wealth. They rebuilt their lives and earned new wealth, and the Iraqis, having eaten the goose that laid the golden egg, are not even capable of achieving agricultural self-sufficiency! In Mesopotamia! The most fertile land in the world! They'll squat in their own burning trash and fight over oil revenues until it runs out, then starve.
In contrast, the Afghans, even in the days of the Taliban, never touched their commercial minority (Hindus, who are, Islamically speaking, much more problematic than the Jews.) They are smart and hard working enough to make a living in a place where you either have to dig irrigation canals through the desert or hack terraces out of mountainsides to grow crops. They can shade-tree mechanic with the best of them. They'll come out OK in the long run.
PS: Leroy, kibbeh and kebabs are great, but did you ever notice how everybody in Iraq had the shits all the time, including the Iraqis? That's because they can't even figure out how to wash their hands clean after wiping. Maybe it was on here that I saw the US advisor talking about how his Iraqi battalion was constantly afflicted with diarrhea, which they blamed on insurgents poisoning them (typical.) I never got sick from Afghan food. That should tell you something about relative intelligence levels.
I don't know _B_. On the subject of cleanliness, if you're talking about the villagers on the outskirts of the major cities, then sure - I agree with you there. But I found the city folk surprisingly civilized from a sanitation standpoint.
Iraq: A weak centre and strong provinces.
Afghanistan: A strong centre and weak provinces.
By God, were these not the watchwords at one time? It all made perfect sense. Iraq with all those oily bits, did it not stand to reason that The Liberators, that valiant Coalition Of The Willing DESERVED to share out the economic pie? Afghanistan, a perpetual dog's breakfast, the unwanted orphan. Who cared what happened so long as an Important Point was underlined. Namely that the 'Coalition' was able to tame the entire country, have it kneeling beore them with tribute offered on the backs of Afghan hands -- and all with fewer troops in-country than the Soviets.
Disagree with both characterizations
Iraq has an increasingly powerful center and weak provinces. Afghanistan has a weak center and strong provinces.
In Iraq, the central government is bringing in increasingly large profits from its oil industry, Maliki is centralizing power, the provinces depend upon the center for their budgets, they can't pass laws, and most of their development plans are stiffled by the bureacuracy in Baghdad. The problems as ever with Iraq, is a bureacuracy that lacks capacity, trained staff, corruption, and political dysfunction, which means each ministry basically follows its own path, parliament is weak, and Maliki may become an autocrat.
>The problems as ever with Iraq, is a bureacuracy that lacks capacity, trained staff, corruption, and political dysfunction
If only they had some capable, morally upstanding civil servants like Sir Sassoon Eskell...wait, they fixed that, didn't they?
B,
You know the CPA had almost the exact same problems running Iraq.
I'd argue with LTC Rayburn's prediction on what historians will puzzle over. Historians of Iraq and the Middle East in general would certainly be able to say the outcome in Iraq we're seeing was more likely than a liberal, democratic system. Late 20th century stability through strongmen dictators and brutal family rule is arguably changing region-wide as tribes/sects/minorities with long memories jockey for bloody position in these power vacuums.
More broadly than that, centralised government vs. provincial/tribal government in many of these counties (Iraq and Afghanistan, primarily) is a structure that is largely a product of the deposed strongmen's rule, if it existed at all (Afghanistan). It took more than a century, a civil war and a unifying global war before the US system truly became one where the power was centralised. Speaking of which, it was Mother England who also carved up the ME and India and mashed together and segregated tribes in such a way that has lead directly to the problems of today. Largely local and/or provincial societies, once forcibly submitted to singular, centralised power, are now being handed operating space and expected to continue with that system absent the strongman.
I disagree with the predictions that Iraq will ultimately be officially partitioned. In spite of the military regime (1958-2003), Iraq is a provincial society. With or without a dictatorial regime and one sect or another in power, it doesn't change the structural reality of a localised society. Since partition, Afghanistan is largely in name only. Kabul is the "capitol" and there are leaders who emerge as "shah" and "president," but the power lies in the provinces and with the war lords and their trading fiefdoms. So too is Iraq. The Shi'a dominate in the south, Sunni's formerly in and around Baghdad and to the West, and the Kurds in the north. Within that general demographic, different towns and cities are owned and operated by different tribes and men. If it is in their best interests to support the government in Baghdad, they will. If not, they won't, and they may try to undermine it through various means. Saddam forced most of Iraq into compliance, even though his power depended on that sublimation. Without him, that compliance is no longer guaranteed. But it does not mean official partition is a desirable outcome for those on the outside looking in. To begin with, while Kurdistan is a minor miracle of ME history to stay together as a cohesive quasi-state, the rivalries and blood feuds amongst sunni's and shi'ites make unifying together the tribes in Iraq much more difficult.
The multi-national flavor of Iraq's sects, along with the constant influences of Iran/Syria on one side, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates on another, and Turkey on yet another, begs the question of why partition in-fact? It is in the collective best interests for Iraq to remain, even if, like Afghanistan, it is in name only. Iraq is the "DMZ" between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the tribes and sect leaders within (al-Sadr, Talabani, etc) stand to be the beneficiaries. They are the de facto war lords of Iraq already operating their de facto kingdoms and quasi-states. What benefit does partition provide to the shi'ites of Basrah or al-Maliki? Would the sunni's in al-Anbar be a key Arab financial demographic if they were no longer a part of Iraq but a Sunni-stan wedged between currently shi'a Iraq/Iran and still-Ba'athist, Iranian-aligned Syria? They would be a Bahrain without the oil or royalty. Or even a "Palestine."
The unofficial territories of Afghanistan's war lords and the NWFP of Pakistan, I'd argue, are a more likely possible future for Iraq than actual partition into neat shi'i and/or sunni states, and are already a reality in part. Anywya, then-Senator Biden talked about parition, so it's guaranteed not to happen.
Less of a puzzle than one might imagine
Never forget that both wars were started by a president who believed they could be fought effectively for free, or else on borrowed foreign money that made up for tax revenues he had pissed away to the best of his ability. Bull goose looney seems a fair description of some of this. The rest is covered by recognizing that in the first years of the new millennium the government of American wrote checks on a massive scale that, pretty clearly, could not be honored. This is treated as a felony in many states. The mad program was designed to nourish the idea of a New American Century. As it has. We don't seem to like it much.
Such is the wonderful fantasyland of current politics that in 2012, the consequent ruin from those early hot-check decisions is blamed by many on a fellow who was an Illinois state senator at the time. I hope that everybody claiming this knows they are lying, and fear that instead, they truly believe they're telling the truth.
Rayburn is misreading recent events in Iraq
With specific events, he's missing many important things that happened
In the larger picture, none of the on-going political disputes will lead to Iraq falling apart.
I don't want to go through every thing, but here are some examples of things he gets wrong.
The deBaathification crisis was actually started by the Minister of Higher Education who dismissed over 100 staff and faculty in Salahaddin for alleged ties to the former regime. He is considered a rival of Maliki within the Dawa party. Maliki responded with the arrests all across Iraq to stop an alleged coup, but it was more of an internal struggle within Dawa to show who was tougher.
The power sharing agreement that formed the new government never worked from the get go. Maliki out maneuvered Allawi for the premiership even though Allawi's list won more seats. Maliki was able to buy off members of Allawi's own list by offering them top positions, while giving Allawi no seat in the government. In fact, Iraqiya has been divided from the beginning, they had a few defections during the parliamentary boycott, a whole bunch of party officials in the provinces defected, and 5 out of 9 of their ministers kept on going to cabinet meetings. Maliki has played divide and conquer with his list, and Allawi does nothing but complain and make threats he can't back up.
Iraqiya also has done several things to escalate the crisis, it was not just Maliki. Deputy Premier Mutlaq calling Maliki a dictator worse than Saddam, the parliamentary and cabinet boycotts despite the fact that both could continue to operate without Iraqiya's participation, etc.
Maliki is obviously becoming more of an autocrat, but part of the reason why he is able to do so is because there is no opposition, all the parties want a piece of the government pie, which means they can easily be bought off, the parties that don't like Maliki are weak and divided.
Most importantly Rayburn acts like these events started in Dec. 2011 just when the U.S. military withdrew when in fact they have been going on since 2010 even before the last elections took place.
None of these will lead to the break up of the country. Worse case would be that Maliki becomes a real autocrat, but even then there are some breaks on his power, such as the fact that he can't get laws passed because parliament is so divided. He doesn't control ministries that don't belong to his State of Law either, and as the case of the Higher Education Minister shows, even then ministers have a lot of leeway as to what they want to do.
Overall, there is far more holding Iraq together, the large oil revenues and the government agencies that they go to which are run like personal fiefdoms by the ministers and parties they belong to, then could break the country apart.
How much will either of these debacles affect how the US goes to war?
Only seems to be one outcome so far: Use more drones.
And the sh*tstorm over that has barely begun.
BTW great to read an informed/informative commentariat with no hair on fire. Jeez.
Should be a quiz for the top photo: (a) bombstrike; (b) munitions explosion
Tom Rick’s higher optimism for Afghanistan over Iraq is misplaced unless he thinks that the return of Pakistan-controlled Taliban rule in Afghanistan is not bad.
No matter how much one wants to ignore, writing is already on the wall.
Pakistan-sheltered and supported Afghan Taliban will wait out the US troop withdrawal by the end of 2013 if Panetta is to be believed unless of course Republicans win the presidency this year.
If Obama wins which seems more likely with each passing day, US will conclude a Vietnam-style peace deal as dictated by Pakistan with Afghan Taliban leaders chosen by Pakistan. US will force Afghan government to accept that mirage of a peace deal so that US can begin its drawdown and finally exit the theater of a war it is desperate not to be seen as having lost, not so much to the Taliban and Al Qaeda as to the wily Generals of Rawalpindi who have proved to be smarter than the Americans.
That facade of peace will crumble within few years after the departure of US troops and Pakistan will bring Afghanistan under its suzerainty with reimposition of Taliban rule just as it did in 1996 while tired and financially broke Uncle Sam will helplessly look the other way just as it did in 1975.
As for Iraq, installation of a Shiite-majority government has sowed the seeds of Iraqi civil war remote-controlled by Iran and Saudi Arabia that may even engulf entire middle east.
Only reason Afghanistan looks better to Tom is because Afghanistan does NOT have substantial Shiite population compared to Iraq.
Don't mistake "Iraq" for "Baghdad." Baghdad might be a septic tank, but other parts of the country are doing remarkably well. Drive a few hours north and you can stay at a hotel like this:
http://www.rotana.com/rotanahotelandresorts/iraq/erbil/erbilrotana
A lot of the people that left the country are willing to go back once its safe for their children. And...don't underestimate the power of an oil economy with some culture to back it up.
Yes, historians will be baffled
...at how a nine-year American military campaign could result in anything but democracy.
A constant curiosity is that the Shia parties are routinely lambasted for not letting bygones be bygones and being nice with CIA Iyad and his Sunni backers, for not 'moving forward.' I eagerly await the day when lifeinsuranceblog Washington will seek stability and move forward to good relations with Al Qaeda. Ah, but In forgot about that exceptionalism that God hath bestowed upon his Chosen People.
Yes, the US knows nothing about foreign policy. That is why they are the most successful nation in the history of the planet. Wow, maybe some of you 3rd world nations should get together and 'splain things to us. That would really help us out. Thanks.
"Is rio orange war always forfait mobile" inevitable ?"
MaximB
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(32)
SHOW COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE