I recently came to some conclusions about the likely exit strategies for Iraq, or more accurately, the lack of them. These are just my opinion of likely scenarios for end-states in Iraq following the election of Bush or Kerry. I'd be interested in what others think is likely to happen in Iraq in the next few years.
What are going to do about Iraq? It is a question that generates blank stares from people who know what is going on, and rose-colored scenes of democracy and free-market utopia from those who do not. But what might we reasonably expect over the next few years from our involvement in Iraq? What might a realistic exit strategy look like? And what is the worst case scenario?
These are questions that should have been illuminated by this Presidential campaign, but for a variety of reasons, have not been addressed by the candidates. Both Bush and Kerry continue to promise easy solutions, or simply propose to hold course until we go over that cliff clearly visible ahead. Whatever the future holds, it will not be easy and it will not look anything like either candidate is willing to admit.
Military leaders and analysts not blinkered by partisan sentiments now recognize that Iraq is already lost, or at least in grave danger of being lost. The insurrection has grown so large (estimates hover around 100K) that it cannot be defeated by military means. But even that figure is misleading. It is not just 100K Iraqis who want American forces to leave; it is most Iraqis. Nor is it a matter of bringing to heel 100K guerrilla fighters; the insurrection has the popular support to renew, or even expand, its numbers despite any losses we can inflict upon it short of outright genocide. A political solution is the only strategy that can possibly end the bloodshed, and it will not come in the form dubious elections in January. Kofi Annan recently pronounced the occupation of Iraq illegal under international law. Such a judgment by the Secretary General is not binding, but delegitimates any elections in the eyes of an already hostile international community. Bush's planned Iraqi 'elections', in which only hand-picked parties and candidates will be allowed to participate, will not serve as convincing exit strategy. What will?
Having loosened the hold of Baghdad on the country, the occupation has also radicalized politics by making the most obstreperous and militant political factions central to Iraqi nationalism and identity. The end result may well be the ultimate breakup of Iraq into ethically and theologically more homogenous parts, likely precipitating a civil war in the process. The antagonism of the main factions, Sunni Arabs, Shi'a Arabs, and Kurds, will be a continuous challenge in brokering any political settlement that might yet save Iraq from civil war and a free-for-all for political supremacy in Iraq. Already a heterogeneous group of rebel factions hold de facto control of several cities and towns in the Sunni triangle, Southern Iraq, large portions of the Iraqi countryside, and parts of Baghdad itself. The Kurdish area is under complete control of the Peshmerga forces, tolerating a token American presence, and continuing its allegiance to the Iraqi state on suffrage alone. At this point America forces truly control only the ground they stand on and the major military installations. It will not be long before the Green Zone, housing the unelected puppet government of Allawi and occupation administration, is under mortar fire, as it was this weekend, on a regular or near constant basis. The Administration has already announced that they cannot ensure the Green Zone's security.
How do we extract ourselves from this mess? Bush can't do it. Bush won't even admit reality. The idea of staying the course will result in ever increasing Iraqi and American casualties until we have our own Dien Bien Phu. American puissance at arms cannot change the inevitable outcome of a motivated, well-supported, well-equipped national resistance movement.
Kerry pins his hopes on bringing in more international partners. But few national leaders would be stupid enough to place their citizens in a shooting gallery, and their reputations in a meat grinder, to help us save face and withdraw with honor. No, it is politically impossible for either candidate to say what he will actually do. It is up to us to deduce their policy goals, and from that, their actual plans of action.
Bush is easy. He cannot afford to be defeated in Iraq if his party wants to retain power. He and his allies in the GOP have invested too much political capital to back down to the Iraqi liberation movement, and his backers have invested to much financial capital in Bush's promise to deliver an Iraqi free market. Bush must press on and hope for the best. That way lies the decimation of our military, a (very likely limited) draft, military escalation, a possible spread of the conflict to Syria and/or Iran, increasing levels of disaffection with the war effort, the rapid squeezing out of social spending from the Federal budget, spiraling debt, escalating political unrest and violence at home, and a humiliating, military and diplomatic defeat following the death of yet more American men and women and thousands more innocent Iraqis. This is a clearly an immoral and unacceptable option. Voting for Bush is voting for a massacre and America's humiliation.
Kerry's course is more difficult to chart. He needs to end the war as soon as possible in the most favorable light to the American electorate. His desire to internationalize not just the military presence of the occupation, but give full participation to international partners hints at his plan. No major power is going to be lured into Iraq by the promise of a slice of the mercantile pie. Were any major powers amenable to such a deal, Bush would have struck it already. Russian and Indian forces were the most likely large-scale military partners, and neither of them have jumped at the bait during quiet negotiations with the Administration. They could be holding out for greater consessions from Kerry, but frankly Bush was their best chance for being granted major stakes in Iraq's future.
I believe that Kerry will enter into negotiations with the major rebel and ethnic factions in hopes of striking a cease-fire in return for a rapid American withdrawal. Only then would Kerry stand a chance internationalizing and/or localizing the security forces. The deal would likely be contingent upon open elections with full political participation by all parties, including religious factions.
Kerry has no major political investment in restricting the possible membership and control of the new government, nor in ensuring an open Iraqi market. Both will become bargaining chips with which Kerry will purchase a dignified retreat. He can even claim to have brought peace and democracy to Iraq. Such political solution may ultimately install a religious regime, but that regime will face a diversity of opposition, both from internal divisions within the theocratic faction and from the de facto 'federalist' structure of power Bush's war has created in Iraq. Kerry might press for a new Constitution with more political protections for minorities, but he will likely be content to allow Iraqi politics to evolve naturally so long as they agree to stringent arms control measures and promise to fight terrorism.
We will lose the Bush Administration's pipe dream of a compliant, pro-Israeli, and market- friendly Iraq, but it was never a realistic possibility anyhow. Instead we will get a weakened, divided, and defanged Iraq. But who know how long that will last with the likely strong influence of an Iran possessing a facilities for a full uranium cycle, and no love of America. In time Iraqi interests may realign with our own; just because Iraq is not our tool, does not mean it must be our enemy. But is much more likely that they will align with Iran's interest. That was, after all, the Iranian plan and purpose in precipitating our involvement all along. The danger for Kerry politically lies in the bedrock belief of many in the electorate that Bush's asperations for Iraq were ever acheivable and that Kerry 'lost' Iraq by negotiating a withdrawl. They will come after him hard for appeasing radical Islam and for dishonoring the sacrifice of American lives to achieve a better life for Iraqis. We need to be prepared to counter this, and start laying the groundwork now that Iraq was never winnable.
Of course, Kerry could not win the Presidency by saying to the American people, "I will allow a fundamentalist Islamic state aligned with Iran to come to power in Iraq, if that is what it takes to get us out of Iraq," in the current political environment. He will maintain the fiction that military victory is a viable possibility in Iraq until election day. To do otherwise in this political environment is asking to be pilloried. The reason why Kerry has been so unconvincing on the Iraq issue, is because he can't speak directly to what will happen after January 20th. I wish he could be clear on the futility of Iraq, but the necessity must be clear to all liberals by now. America is the grip of a pre-fascist hysteria, now is hardly the time to remonstrate with the American people about military history. But Kerry is launching a new all-out assault on the Iraq issue begining this week, so we might see something new in the way of a Post-Bush plan for Iraq - but I doubt it.
The possibility of a secular Iraqi state was mortally wounded with the Ba'ath party was outlawed and the Ba'athist army was disbanded. The possibility of Iraqis accepting and cooperating with a long-term occupation and nation-building project such as South Korea (our only truly successful nation building project in a under-developed country) died with the looting and neglect of the Iraqi infrastructure following the invasion and with the thousands of 'collateral' casualties of the 'shock and awe' demonstration. The possibility of a true democracy emerging in Iraq died when the Administration cancelled local elections to centralize power in the Provisional Authority. The possibility of a moderate, Islamic-influenced government died when Bush handed several key victories to the Iranian cats-paw Muqtada al-Sadr. There aren't many possibilities left. Kerry must play the hand dealt him in the only way it realistically can be played. In the wake of Bush's provocation and empowerment of the most atavistic factions of Iraqi politics, Kerry's only viable trick is to accede to Iraqi self-determination and hope for the best. The greatest difficulty facing Kerry if he takes such a course is to prevent Iran from exploiting Iraqi politics and creating another radicalized, anti-American fundamentalist Shi'ite state in Iraq. This will be one of the a major tests of his Presidency. Sadly, many of Kerry's major tests as President will be simply setting aright what Bush has broken.
If I were a conspiracy minded man, I would suspect that the Republicans, in hopes of derailing the emerging Democratic majority, had purposefully used Bush the Incompetent to screw things up as badly as possible for the incoming Democratic President. But that would be nuts, right?
Please leave your own specualtions in comments.
The author's blog is BlogForArizona.com