| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Plan B For Iraq: Winning Dirty |
| 2007-05-11 |
| By Mort Kondracke Without prejudging whether President Bush's "surge" policy will work, the administration and its critics ought to be seriously thinking about a Plan B, the "80 percent solution" - also known as "winning dirty." Right now, the administration is committed to building a unified, reconciled, multisectarian Iraq - "winning clean." Most Democrats say that's what they want, too. But it may not be possible. The 80 percent alternative involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious. No one has publicly advocated this Plan B, and I know of only one Member of Congress who backs it - and he wants to stay anonymous. But he argues persuasively that it's the best alternative available if Bush's surge fails. Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows. On the other hand, as Bush's critics point out, bloody civil war is the reality in Iraq right now. U.S. troops are standing in the middle of it and so far cannot stop either Shiites from killing Sunnis or Sunnis from killing Shiites. Winning dirty would involve taking sides in the civil war - backing the Shiite-dominated elected government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and ensuring that he and his allies prevail over both the Sunni insurgency and his Shiite adversary Muqtada al-Sadr, who's now Iran's candidate to rule Iraq. Shiites make up 60 percent of the Iraqi population, so Shiite domination of the government is inevitable and a democratic outcome. The United States also has good relations with Iraq's Kurdish minority, 20 percent of the population, and would want to cement it by semipermanently stationing U.S. troops in Northern Iraq to ward off the possibility of a Turkish invasion. Ever since the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Sunnis - representing 20 percent of the population - have been the core of armed resistance to the U.S. and the Iraqi government. The insurgency consists mainly of ex-Saddam supporters and Sunni nationalists, both eager to return to power, and of jihadists anxious to sow chaos, humiliate the United States and create a safe zone for al-Qaida operations throughout the Middle East. Bush wants to establish Iraq as a model representative democracy for the Middle East, but that's proved impossible so far - partly because of the Sunni insurgencies, partly because of Shiites' reluctance to compromise with their former oppressors and partly because al-Qaida succeeded in triggering a civil war. Bush's troop surge - along with Gen. David Petraeus' shift of military strategy - is designed to suppress the civil war long enough for Iraqi military forces to be able to maintain even handed order on their own and for Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite politicians to agree to share power and resources. The new strategy deserves a chance, but so far civilian casualties are not down, progress on political reconciliation is glacial, and U.S. casualties have increased significantly. As a result, political patience in the United States is running down. If Petraeus cannot show dramatic progress by September, Republicans worried about re-election are likely to demand a U.S. withdrawal, joining Democrats who have demanded it for years. Prudence calls for preparation of a Plan B. The withdrawal policy advocated by most Democrats virtually guarantees catastrophic ethnic cleansing - but without any guarantee that a government friendly to the United States would emerge. Almost certainly, Shiites will dominate Iraq because they outnumber Sunnis three to one. But the United States would get no credit for helping the Shiites win. In fact, America's credibility would suffer because it abandoned its mission. And, there is no guarantee that al-Sadr - currently residing in Iran and resting his militias - would not emerge as the victor in a power struggle with al-Maliki's Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Iran formerly backed the SCIRI and its Badr Brigades but recently switched allegiances - foolishly, my Congressional source contends - to al-Sadr, who's regarded by other Shiites as young, volatile and unreliable. Under a win dirty strategy, the United States would have to back al-Maliki and the Badr Brigades in their eventual showdown with al-Sadr. It also would have to help Jordan and Saudi Arabia care for a surge in Sunni refugees, possibly 1 million to 2 million joining an equal number who already have fled. Sunnis will suffer under a winning dirty strategy, no question, but so far they've refused to accept that they're a minority. They will have to do so eventually, one way or another. And, eventually, Iraq will achieve political equilibrium. Civil wars do end. The losers lose and have to knuckle under. As my Congressional source says, "every civil war is a political struggle. The center of this struggle is for control of the Shiite community. Wherever the Shiites go, is where Iraq will go. So, the quicker we back the winning side, the quicker the war ends. ... Winning dirty isn't attractive, but it sure beats losing." |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #12 WOT > is, among other premises = agendas, etc. A WAR FOR ANTI-US OWG, WHICH MUST BE PC "JUSTIFIED". The greatest "Battle/War" is NOT the ME, etal. but for CONTROL OF WASHINGTON DC, THE US NPE, + ESPEC REACTION OF THE USA TO ITS OWN DEFEAT, SUBORNMENT, IFF NOT PER SE DESTRUCTION. Few iff any in the MSM are overtly arguing for US-LED/CENTRIC OWG - its the OPPOSITE, i.e. are FOR A OWG NOT RULED OR DOMINATED BY THE USA andor the WEST = WESTERN DEMOCRACY-DEMOCAPITALISM in any way. Unfortunately for mainstream America, Anti-US Agendists-Globalists are NOT taking "NO" for an answer. RACE TO ISOLATION = no different than WAR/RACE FOR EMPIRE AS LONG AS THE USA [and WEst] LOSES. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-05-11 23:01 |
| #11 Exactly how "dirty" would be a hardline approach to Iraq? That polluted parliament of fanatics, is a mechanism for harborage of terrorists. Outside of the Kurds, seculars and some non-fundamentalist Muslims, the rest can go to hell. If they are the majority, then they can still go to hell. Nazi parties couldn't participate in elections in occupied Germany; why should islamonazis be so honored in occupied Iraq? Revising Augustine: Kill terrorists, then do as you will. |
| Posted by: Sneaze 2007-05-11 21:00 |
| #10 IMPORTANT NOTE: It must be remembered that the public is fickle, and that leaving Iraq early may not help any Republicans keep office--in fact it may lose them even more seats. Remember what happened to Bush's father, who rode high on a wave of public adoration following the easy success of Gulf War I, only to be crushed by a fop and a fool indifferent to foreign or domestic policy--interested only in his own pleasure. The son is leaving office, and not at the behest of the public, who would turn him out if they could, but by term limitation. This means that the question becomes that of his potential Republican successor, and his party, and how they can turn things around. Many want to cut and run, for they are lily-livers. The wiser ones know that for all intents and purposes, Iraq is no longer much of a problem at all. It is at risk not from terrorism or civil war, but only from a conventional attack from Iran. This means that more than anything else, we must encourage Iraqi nationalism, and distrust and even hatred of Iran. The rest will take care of itself, though it would be very nice to have bases on Iraqi soil. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-05-11 20:49 |
| #9 Plan B's what we should have done and been doing all along! This ridiculous policy of not backing a duly elected government we allowed to be put in place in the first place is just idiotic. Sitting and watching a civil war break out around your head is stupid. Take sides and take sides now! Kill any party or individual in Iraq that resists. Loyal opposition is fine. Armed opposition or insurrection against the government or the USA should be put down as hard, as fast, and in as brutal a manner as possible in order to avoid many more casualties. I am sick of this pussy-footing around. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-05-11 17:40 |
| #8 Choosing the Shia over the Sunni would have negative repurcussions in other Sunni Arab nations (such as Saudi Arabia). |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-05-11 16:47 |
| #7 Seize the oil fields and let the rest of the Middle East stew in their own hell. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-05-11 16:13 |
| #6 Truly a "witches brew" of tribalism and politics. It would be good to just neuter this region. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-05-11 13:22 |
| #5 TW "In some ways, this really is about the oil." is an understatement. If it wasn't for oil the whole mess in WWI would have worked out differently. Would we have given a shit about Kuwait if it wasn't for oil? Would Saddam? The whole world would be perfectly happy to put a cage around the whole area and let them kill each other.....except for oil. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2007-05-11 13:07 |
| #4 Given that the Saudis and Iran are already adding ingredients to this soup, a pullout would just leave them free to continue their little proxy war without hindrance. The only way Iraq will have a chance of making something out of itself without out us there is if Iran and Saudi Arabia are smacked down hard, which I don't think we're ready to do until world oil production increases enough to cover at least some of the Saudi exports (Iran's have not been doing well recently). While Canadian production has been increasing steadily this past year or two, they and others aren't where they need to be yet, as far as I understand it. In some ways, this really is about the oil. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-05-11 12:08 |
| #3 You want to know the problem with this? It is encapsulated in this statement.... "...making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious..." And just how, pray tell, do we do that? We would have to take out Mucky and his bad-boys enmasse or they would take over all of the Shiites and turn the whole stinkin' place into little Iran. Not to mention that the Saudis would probably have a fair amount to say about this and they DO have some leverage. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2007-05-11 11:05 |
| #2 Preparations A through G were not entirely successful, prepare to Seriously though; If the sunnis want us to leave, so that they can be slaughtered by the kurds and shiites, then maybe this guy has a point. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2007-05-11 10:15 |
| #1 Plan B has merit. What's the downside? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-05-11 09:50 |