Okay, So Now It's a Civil War. What's Next?
by DemFromCT
Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 10:49:42 AM PDT
An important shift in the media narrative has taken place this week. Whether it's Andrea Mitchell or Chuck Hagel, or this long article in the WaPo by Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack, the new CW is that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. Tell me about it. We wrote about the Iraqi civil war six months ago, maybe even before, but only now are the oh-so-sophisticated DC Kewl Kidz catching on. But it's an important milestone, because mention of civil war runs the risk of making American voter support, what's left of it, plummet. We're there to prevent and mitigate a civil war. If it's already happening, buh-bye.
In any case, defining "buh-bye" is important. Cheney and Co. would have you believe that to all Democrats that means leave immediately. He's trying to push that line with Ned Lamont, but it's hard to paint CT suburbanites as angry leftists when they're/we're really irate moderates. The prospect of "Iraqi civil war" as the narrative makes that even less likely to work.
The Byman/Pollack piece starts an important discussion.
The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall. The internecine conflict could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war.
The consequences of an all-out civil war in Iraq could be dire. Considering the experiences of recent such conflicts, hundreds of thousands of people may die. Refugees and displaced people could number in the millions. And with Iraqi insurgents, militias and organized crime rings wreaking havoc on Iraq's oil infrastructure, a full-scale civil war could send global oil prices soaring even higher.
Along with suggested remedies for mitigation of spillover, there is a call for Washington to get more serious than making speeches about Ned Lamont (who is not running for either President or Senator from the United States).
With an all-out civil war looming in Iraq, Washington must decide how to deal with the most common and dangerous ways such conflicts spill across national boundaries. Only by understanding the refugee crises, terrorism, radicalization of neighboring populations, copycat secessions and foreign interventions that such wars frequently spark can we begin to plan for how to cope with them in the months and years ahead.
A nice companion piece to this is When the Shiites Rise from Foreign Affairs. Written by Vali Nasr, here's the summary:
By toppling Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration has liberated and empowered Iraq's Shiite majority and has helped launch a broad Shiite revival that will upset the sectarian balance in Iraq and the Middle East for years to come. This development is rattling some Sunni Arab governments, but for Washington, it could be a chance to build bridges with the region's Shiites, especially in Iran.
There's a lot here to digest, and not all the suggestions make complete sense, nor is the Bush WH likely to do anything competently in any case. But the discussion of what to do after November about Iraq has got to start happening. Here, therefore, is presented a starting point to get the ball rolling.
- ::