Iraqification followed by a quick withdrawal from Iraq will lead to an all-out civil war that will likely engulf the entire region...leading to a cut off of oil supplies from Iran and Saudi Arabia, installation of Islamist dictatorships throughout the Middle East, Iranian hegemony in the region, and an escalation of Islamist terror worldwide. Progressives who demanded withdrawal of American forces from Iraq will be blamed for "WWIII", the destruction of the American economy and an unending and real terror threat. "Cut and run" will become "Cut, run and betray". As a result, no politician will admit to being progressive or supporting anything resembling progressive positions during our lifetimes and the life times of our children.
Farfetched? Maybe not.
If we make the same mistakes the Bush Administration made - acting in Iraq without thinking through and preparing for the consequences - this could be our fate. Here's why.
1. Iraq is not Vietnam
The Bush Administration's playbook on Iraq is essentially Nixon's playbook in Vietnam. Bush is treating Iraq like a popular uprising against a dictator (originally, Sadam, now "insurgents" backed by Iran). Its strategy assumes that the insurgents will go away when the US "wins the hearts and minds" of the people and that all the US has to do is train and motivate the Iraqi Army and police to "take, hold and rebuild" enough villages. But Iraq is not and never was Vietnam. Vietnam was a Maoist-led popular uprising against an elitist, corrupt government. The battle was over Communism vs. a kleptocracy. Victory for the "insurgents" was to take control of the country and rule it under a Communist ideology. The US strategy was to simultaneously defeat the Viet Cong militarily on the battlefield and politically by improving the quality of life of the Vietnamese people to show them that democratic capitalism was superior to Maoism.
Bush is using the same strategy - and some of the same tactics - that Nixon used in Vietnam. "Take, hold and build" is a repeat of " village pacification." "Hearts and minds" then is being used today. "Iraqification" - turning over the fighting to the Iraqi army and politic, is the same as Nixon's 1969 Vietnamization strategy.
But the insurgency in Iraq is not a popular-based revolt fighting to replace one government with another or one political system with another. Iraq is an amalgam of tribes, religions, clans, and sectarian groups that have been fighting one another for 700 years and were suppressed by Saddam and an iron-fisted Sunni/Bathist government. The goal of the insurgents is to settle scores by massacring their adversaries. The motivation of each sectarian group is not political ideology, it is survival. When Bush overthrew Saddam and disbanded the Bathists and the Iraqi Army, he unleashed a communal civil war among sectarian groups, fueled with outside influence and support. He hen turned to Iraqification - building up Iraqi forces to police and defend the country - which actually makes it worse, not better, because it is building a Sunni army that merely becomes the best trained and equipped sectarian militia. Bush's Democracy in Iraq strategy also makes it worse, not better, because without a robust infrastructure of political and bureaucratic institutions, elections are just another battle ground for sectarian groups to skirmish and maneuver for fighting position when the US military leaves.
In reality, the US military is only one of several combatants and - in the eyes of the militants - is an irrelevant, but extremely troublesome nuisance. Irrelevant because it is not part of the communal civil war; a troublesome nuisance because it is the strongest force in the country and is able to (just barely) keep the warring parties from engaging in a full-scale war and mutual genocide. If the US military pulls out, even gradually on a timetable, the score-settling, power grabbing massacres will start. Once it does, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Israel, Hezbollah, Al Queda - every major and minor power in the region - will get involved to grab their piece of Iraq and to protect their religious and tribal brothers .
Such a war will not only engage multiple armies, militias, national and non-national entities in vicious, civilian-targeted military violence, it will unleash insurgent forces throughout the region. As the flow of weapons, fighters and media images of massacres flood the region, Al Queda and indigenous revolutionaries from Saudi Arabia to Egypt will be emboldened, equipped and financed to take advantage of the chaos and attack the monarchies and corrupt semi-democracies of those countries. Oil fields will be early targets, not so much to damage the US (although that will not be forgotten), but to cut off revenues flows and bring down governments. The US will have to re-engage to protect its oil lifeline, as will Europe - creating the specter of WWIII, complete with terror attacks in Europe and the US. And Progressives will be blamed for it...for decades.
2. It happened to the British - same place, same strategy, same outcome.
The Brits took over Mesopotamian (now Iraq) under a League of Nations mandate after WWI and promised to stay 25 years to create a liberal democracy. Like Bush today, they had no idea of what they were getting into. Their goal was to develop a democratic government to run a peaceful, pro-British nation. What they quickly got was continual sectarian violence and outside influence and invasions. Their troops were seen by the marginalized groups - Shiites, Kurds, Christians, Jews - as the only barrier to ruthless Sunni domination and massacres. But the continual communal violence that the British troops tried to quell, had by, 1920, cost the British over 2000 troops, mostly to a broad-based Shia insurgency.
The opposition demanded that Britain withdraw, a demand echoed in the partisan media. The Conservatives looked for a way out. They did exactly what Bush is doing -redefined victory, lied about the progress of the democracy in Mesopotamian, and hid the defeats. But they also did what Progressives are calling for today - set a timetable and withdrew, regardless of the stability of the government they left behind. The British declared the Iraqis ready to govern, announced they would terminate the League's mandate, and withdraw, despite internal reports that Iraq's institutions would soon crumble.
And crumble they did. The announcement of the end to the mandate came in 1927 and the last troops were removed in 1932. In the intervening years, Wahhabis from Mecca invaded Iraq, killing thousands. When the troops left in 1932, the British trained Iraqi Army became a killing machine - of Iraqis. It massacred Assyrians in the north, and took over the government. Iraqi schools wee required to teach that Shiites were heretics, and Shiites were humiliated, killed, and abused. A Sunni-Shia war broke out in the late 30's, with the Sunni's British- trained and equipped army finally dominating the Shia and all other minorities. By 1939, the military was in full control of the country, and then, to settle scores with the British, offered an alliance with Hitler, cutting off British communication lines in the region. The Brits had to re-invade Iraq and fought same war all over again, with disastrous results.
This will be Progressive's fate if we leave before a consensus government is in place in Iraq - democratic or not- that can guarantee security to all parties. If Progressive calls to quit Iraq are heeded without a plan for what happens next, we will repeat the British history , only the consequences will be worse because of oil, weapons, Al Queda , and much the greater fire power and reach of all the parties.
But staying is exactly what Bush wants. Further more, the American people want it and by opposing his "stay the course" strategy, Progressives and Democrats may be able to take back the House in 2006 and capture the White House in 2008. Plus, it is an immoral war based on a lie that is killing Iraqis and Americans, bankrupting our country, and corrupting our foreign policy. It has to stop, permanently.
So what do we do: withdraw and risk a apocalypse in the Middle East and banishment of progressives from power for decades, or give up our major political advantage and go along with a failed strategy that will end in disaster, possibly the same disaster that withdrawing will cause?
The answer is we do what Bush & Co did not do: We be smart. We think it through, plan for the aftermath, and tell the truth. And we fashion a strategy to sells our plan that shifts the blame to the Bushies regardless of the outcome. We turn the charge of "cut and run" back on Rove by fielding a "Smart Withdrawal Strategy" and branding their `stay-the-course -with-draw downs' as "Dumb and Dangerous." Here's how.
1. Win the 06 elections (but don't lose the 2012 elections).
Job 1 for Progressives is to take back the House. Then use the committee chairmanships to launch hearings on a strategy for the aftermath of the war. The hearings can be used to catalogue the mistakes of the Administration, but the focus should be on developing a smart plan for withdrawing that leaves a balance of communal power in Iraq that will forestall civil war. (we see politics as the relations between citizens and government; Iraqis see it as a balancing of power and strength among sectarian groups). The hearings and their published report can serve three purposes:
- Fashion a withdrawal strategy - the Smart Withdrawal - that is designed to prevent a civil war that will haunt us in 2012, and which highlights the strategic stupidity and tactical blunders of the Administration's plan
- signal to the Iranians that should not do anything stupid between now and 2008 if they want an Administration that will talk instead of bomb
- pull Democrats together around a single strategy
This will protect us from both "cut and run" charges and "flip-flop" attacks if our strategy shifts from the "withdraw now" position of many Progressives. If we can keep the details of a "Smart Strategy" flexible, will not box our selves in and allow for adjustments in 08 - again blunting charges of cut and run and flip flop.
2. Fashion the Smart Withdrawal strategy now for the 08 party convention and get agreement, not compromise.
Candidates for the 08 presidential primaries are now testing positions on Iraq. This is premature until after the November elections, but will likely continue. Hopefully they are smart enough not to say anything they cannot change later on, but Progressives should emphasize to candidates to be open to the findings of hearings on strategy for after withdrawal.
This will allow Progressives to build support among the many factions of the Progressive movement so our worst enemy is not ourselves (as it so often is). It will also allow Howard Dean to build support among the candidates and would be candidates on a unified platform on Iraq. It is imperative that Democrats avoid a Platform Committee or floor fight on this issue. Agreement will also build momentum so the Democratic candidates can't use Iraq to differentiate themselves in the primaries, giving the Republicans ammunition in the general election to turn our advantage into a liability.
3. Don't fight the last political war.
The Bushies have quietly but widely begun to moderate their foreign policy. The chief neo-conservatives - Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith are gone. John Bolton has been exiled to New York at the UN (and out of the policy loop). Pragmatists Robert Zoellick and Nick Burns are in charge at the State Department, and the tone of the Administration has been diplomacy, not combat. Bush pledged $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa, rethink global warming, and has begun to inch toward talking with North Korea. Bush has even backed a bit away from the Global War on Terror, calling it the "global struggle against violent extremism" ion official documents.
For Progressives this shift means that harping on the bombast and aggressiveness of the neocons no longer works. Strategy must shift to attacking the Administration's one remaining strength, terror, by using its biggest weakness, Iraq. Branding the Administration as unilateralist and war mongering must give way to branding it as "Dumb and Dangerous" for pursuing an Iraq strategy that the Congressional hearings showed would only increase the danger of terror.
A Smart Strategy of recognizing the on-the-ground reality of a communal civil war, working to set up an internal power balance that prevents it, and staying engaged militarily until that occurs, will contrast with the Dumb strategy of Bush to Iraqify the Army and then leave with a paper democracy that will crumble.
4. Prepare the groundwork for a smart withdrawal AND prevent an October surprise by the Administration.
It is true that the Administration seems to have shifted its stance toward Iran, offering to talk in Mach, but other moves seem to indicate that some in the Administration are keeping alive the possibility of using force to block Iran's nuclear program, right around October would be fine..
This fails to recognize that Iran and the US actually have common interest in preventing civil war in Iraq, especially in southern Iraq. Iran wants to keep the US in Iraq because it ties us down militarily and it keeps chaos from breaking out on its border - chaos that would upset the dense layers of relationships Iran has built with Iraqi Sunnis. The Administration's refusal to negotiate with Iran misses a chance to work with the Iranians to prevent Shia violence - which Iran has a great deal of influence over. Progressives can criticize the Administration for its dogged dumbness in not working with Iran on calming Iraq, and setting the table for nuclear talks with Iran.
Progressives should not support the Iranians - just criticize the Administration for not using them ...another example of "Dumb" policy. this will have the added effect of smoothing the way for a Democratic President to engage with Iran in 2008 to help prevent Shia score-settling as US troops are withdrawn, protecting our chances for re-election in 2012.
5. Run with it in 08
Stay with the Smart Withdrawal language in 08, but adjust it for the reality of the day in Iraq: if Bush does withdraw some troops in 07, as promised, calibrate the language based on the results. The likelihood is that the insurgents, absent pressure from Iran which the
Bushies won't ask for, will use a drawdown to ramp up the violence. This will prove the Progressive charge that the Republicans are "Dumb and Dangerous" and that we can do it better.
Anticipate the counterattack and blunt it before it happens. No matter what the position of the Republican nominee is, call him a flip-flopper for not slavishly following Bush's original strategy, so they have to defend against the flip flop charge instead of hurling it.
I know this violates a lot of orthodoxy and I realized I have not defined the "Smart Withdrawal " strategy except to say that it is not immediate and probably not fast ...that will be another diary or discussion. What it is not is the Bush plan to stay until the Iraq Army and Police are ready to "stand up so we can stand down" ( which is what both the British and Nixon said) and it does not depend on a working democratic government, just a government that balances communal power, which may be much easier to do, but harder to claim is done until it really is.