"We'll be in Iraq in some form for 9-10 years..."
Sunday, August 26, 2007; A08
CHICAGO When Rep. Jan Schakowsky made her first trip to Iraq this month, the outspoken antiwar liberal resolved to keep her opinions to herself. "I would listen and learn," she decided.
At times that proved a challenge, as when Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told her congressional delegation, "There's not going to be political reconciliation by this September; there's not going to be political reconciliation by next September." Schakowsky gulped -- wasn't that the whole idea of President Bush's troop increase, to buy time for that political progress?
But the real test came over a lunch with Gen. David H. Petraeus, who used charts and a laser pointer to show how security conditions were gradually improving -- evidence, he argued, that the troop increase is doing some good.
Still, the U.S. commander cautioned, it could take another decade before real stability is at hand. Schakowsky gasped. "I come from an environment where people talk nine to 10 months," she said, referring to the time frame for withdrawal that many Democrats are advocating. "And there he was, talking nine to 10 years."
[...]
There's more than a little Alice in Wonderland quality to what's going on in Iraq. It's apparent that the present Shia-dominated Iraqi government has no interest in giving up more power to other groups, so there isn't going to be an effective "unity government". I honestly don't think that there's much that the US can do about it, either. I don't think that new national elections (whenever they're supposed to occur) will change much of anything either. Groups will either boycott the elections, or feel that they don't need to compromise. My guess is that the current government doesn't want a change in US troop deployments just yet, but if it comes they figure they're strong enough to retain power.
The best hope for governance in Iraq for the foreseeable future probably lies in local government. That means local militias will continue to be important. It also increases the chance of de-facto partition.
The AiW quality comes from the cognitive dissonance of arguing that Iraq is a "central front" in the GWoT and so forth, while at the same time the "surge" [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100990.html?hpid=topnews|can't continue past April 2008] without changes in the force structure. It's hard to see how Petraeus can say that we need 9-10 years to take care of the military problems in Iraq while there's no support for such a long occupation in the US, Iraq or much of anywhere else. (Except perhaps Iran.) The cynic in me would say that [link|http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/1984/18?term=always|Orwell was prescient] and that the Administration doesn't want to "win" the GWoT, they want to accumulate power and the GWoT is a convenient excuse. I'm not quite ready to go that far, just yet, though.
Ultimately, the Iraqis are going to have to come up with a political solution. Whether it's millions of people demonstrating, or years of battles by various militias, or something else, the Iraqis are going to decide. Internal Iraqi pressure is going to cause the situation to change. While it would be nice if the politicians would recognize that nobody is really going to win a civil war, those in power may not see it that way.
My guess is that the US occupation will muddle along the way it has, with some reduction in numbers in early 2008. Unless something big happens (A huge attack on the Green Zone or a major US facility? Smoking-gun evidence of the Iraqi government being involved in attacks on US forces? Major cross-border incursions by Iran or Turkey?), I don't think there will be enough support in Congress to force Bush's hand. Bush is desperate to run out the clock, and the Democrats are wary of getting tarred with the "the liberals lost the war just as we were starting to win, just like in Vietnam!!!111!" brush. Perhaps the 2008 election campaign dynamic will cause Congress to rethink things, but I don't see it just yet.
I expect Iraq to get much more dangerous in early 2009, once the new Administration is in the White House. Everyone realizes that US policy in Iraq will undergo a major shift, and militias in Iraq will want to grab as much territory and power as they can to strengthen their position as the US begins to draw down in a major way.
Cheers,
Scott.
