Note: I am reposting and expanding a comment I recently made into a full-fledged diary, since I think this is an important issue.
McJoan recently noted (Same as it ever was) reports that as the US declares "victory" over Al Qaeda, it is finding itself in increasing conflict with Shiite militias. She attributes this to more of the same, to the US being "bogged down in the middle of a sectarian civil war." I would offer a fundamentally different take:
One war is ending. A second and entirely different war is beginning.
By now, it is hard not to notice both the increasing US rhetoric against Iran, the declarations of success and accord between the US and Sunni militias, and the increasing reports of fighting between US and Shiite forces. I've been commenting a bit on this issue for the last few weeks. I believe it is a fundament misinterpretation of events to see this change from one enemy to another as the US being trapped in the middle of a civil war. We are not in the middle at all. Instead, we have clearly chosen sides. Indeed, we chose sides at the very beginning when we displaced the Hussein government and criminalized the Sunni Baath Party. The important thing to note, however, is that at this moment we are in the process of changing sides.
During the early years of the Iraq war, we generally supported the Shiites against the Sunnis, whom we first labeled as "dead-enders" and then as the "pawns of Al Qaeda." This war is generally known and recognized for what is was. Anbar Province and west Baghdad were at its center, and we were will to destroy these areas, including twice invading Fallujah, to carry on the fight. However, we are now shifting sides. The US is suddenly declaring the big boogeyman Al Qaeda (which was never more than a tiny portion of the insurgency) to be defeated. The US is paying off Sunni groups and hiring Sunni tribes to patrol neighborhoods in Baghdad. Now, the Sunnis are suddenly our allies and we are fighting against the Shiite, whom we now label the "pawns of Iran."
I predicted that casualties would be low (comparatively) this month, and that now appears quite likely. This change is NOT because of any success from "the surge," but because of a fundamental change in what is happening. Quite simply:
The old war is ending.
The old war--the US+Shiite v. Sunni War--is ending. A number of Sunni groups are now taking payment from the US. Others have reduced attacks while they watch a change in the US posture. Additionally, the US is reducing attacks against Sunnis. It is changing its activity: walling off Sunni neighborhoods to protect them, hiring locals to patrol the streets instead of (Shiite) police, and pushing for the Baath Party to be allowed back into government. All of these actions create a significant reduction in the US casualty rate as the war effectively ends. However,
A new war is beginning.
This new war is the US+Sunni v. Shiite War. We are already seeing its beginning. We are seeing more and more media hits attacking Iran and Shiites in general. Just yesterday, a US attack on Sadr City killed 49 "terrorists" (according to the US) or dozens of civilians (according to the locals). Additionally, we see reports of our former friends, US-trained soldiers and police, attacking US troops.
It may sound pedantic, but I believe it is incredibly important to understand that these are two different wars, not just the US being caught in the confusion of keeping apart two different sides. Understanding that these are two different wars helps us understand what is happening.
For instance, the body counts. On November 1, rightwing commentators will crow that casualty counts are way down and the surge is working. But that is not what is happening. As the first war winds up, obviously casualties drop. The new war is beginning, but it is still in an early phase. Remember early on in the first war? The casualty counts were (relatively) low, but steadily increased over time. The same will happen in this new war. Casualties will seem to drop, but then increase as the war intensifies.
Understanding this "new war" will also help us understand changes in the US strategy. Anbar Province is already being relabeled as a paradise. Soon, money from neighboring Arab monarchies will flood in and we will be told how exciting and empowering it is have the Sunnis in control of their own territory. Likewise, more Sunni officials will likely be forced into key security ministries of the Iraqi government as the US seeks to shape these in a more pro-Sunni direction. The Baath Party, already being decriminalized, will soon be fully legitimized. (Update: WaPo says:"[The US plan] emphasizes the need for government leaders to...hir[e] ex-Baathist officials...") We will also hear more stories of evil and abuses from Shiite policemen and soldiers, and of heroic US troops who arrest or kill these Shiite soldiers. What we will likely not hear is that the newly-hired replacements for those arrested will be Sunni.
Understanding that this is a new war also helps us understand certain British moves in Basra. When the US was fighting the Sunnis, the British were comfortable covering our rear and taking relatively low (though not insignificant) casualties. As the Shiite areas of Iraq become the frontline, the British are in the process of redeploying. They are removing most troops from Basra city, for instance, and redeploying them to the outskirts, to Kuwait, or back to Britain. The US will thus fight on the frontlines of this new war with only local allies, just like in the last war. The only difference is that now our allies will be Sunni instead of Shiite.
And of course, this new war cannot be separated from America’s relationship with Iran. The goal is this war is not so much which sect controls Iraq. At this point, the US would be happy without almost any outcome inside Iraq that offered some stability. Instead, the central goal is constraining Iranian power. The deep American fear is that the Shiites will act as a proxy for Iran, giving Iran both control of the massive southern oil fields and opening a gateway for direct intervention by Iran into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Thus, we are fighting a different fight with different enemies, different allies and a different goal. It will largely take place in a different location (southern and eastern instead of northern and western Iraq). What was once evil (the flow of money, weapons and personnel from Saudi Arabia) will suddenly become good and what was once good (a hundred thousand Shiites in the police and military) will suddenly become evil. On the surface, everything is more of the same: a confusing mishmash where US soldiers take it from all sides and are unable to understand the players or to help the victims. In fact, everything will be different.
In some ways, it might seem like a word-game to call what is happening two separate wars instead of one big and confusing civil war. But I believe this analysis is absolutely critical to understanding the events that will come, the motivations of the actors, and how best to define a plan for getting us out.