Endgame?

A while back I wrote that Iraq’s future would be determined by mid January 2006, 90 days after October’s constitutional referendum. My timeline may not be precise–it could take a bit longer–but I still think that it’s reasonably correct. Sunnis will know after a new government is formed if they will have any role in Iraq’s future and whether or not to continue their armed insurgency against the government that emerges from the new parliament.

One ominous portent appeared recently. Abdul Aziz Hakim, leader of Iraq’s largest Shi’ite party and the likely power broker in the new parliament, told The Washington Post that the US is too weak and cautious in ridding Iraq of terrorists. Hakim wants more freedom for Iraqi forces to aggressively take on the Sunni insurgents. Some key quotes:

"The more freedom given to Iraqis, the more chance for further progress there would be, particularly in fighting terror, Hakim said. [One of Iraq's] "biggest problems is the mistaken or wrong policies practiced by the Americans"... [snip]

During much of the interview, Hakim was critical of U.S. policies toward Iraq, though he acknowledged that U.S. forces must remain in the country as a "guest" of the Iraqi government while it builds its security forces. The Americans are guilty of "major interference, and preventing the forces of the Interior or Defense ministries from carrying out tasks they are capable of doing, and also in the way they are dealing with the terrorists," Hakim charged....[snip]

Hakim gave few details of what getting tough would entail, other than making clear it would require more weapons, with more firepower, than the United States is currently supplying....[snip]

The issue points to a key difference between U.S. officials and some of Iraq's conservative Shiite leaders about what it will take to end the insurgency. Even the top U.S. generals say the ultimate solution is a political one, bringing minority Sunnis into a democracy that without them stands to be dominated permanently by the Shiite majority. But the leaders of many Shiite religious parties, reflecting their years in exile and their bitterness over the killing of relatives and supporters during Hussein's dictatorship, say the endgame is a military one....

The endgame indeed. Hakim and his allies are ready to take on the Sunnis in a showdown for Iraq. So far the Shi’as have done very well. They have a well organized and feared military organization which now dominates the Ministry of the Interior and internal security forces. Hakim will likely control the largest block of a majority Shi’ite parliament and will be in a position to create the regional Shi’a federation that he advocates. But even with these advantages, Hakim remains unsure that the Sunnis will not, as they have done several times before, take control of the national government. All that is needed is more weaponry and firepower for Hakim and his allies to exact their payback against their former oppressors. In the meantime, the Shia’s can rely on their control of the Interior Ministry and “death squads” for that purpose.

America’s choices are pretty limited. US forces can remain in Iraq, attempting to prevent a civil war and serving as surrogate targets for all factions while America and the world wait to see if Shia’s and Sunnis have the wisdom to live peacefully and cooperatively together after decades of oppression. To the extent that BushCheney had a plan for post-invasion Iraq, that has been it. But the lofty goal of political reconciliation is an elusive one, hostage to the variables of individual personality and culture. Now into its third year, the plan has demonstrated its ability to meet targets and milestones but not the goal of a stable Iraq.

Another option is to withdraw American occupation forces and let the Iraqis come to their own settlement. This is the bloodbath/civil war option. Right now, the outcome would be in doubt. The Sunnis have demonstrated their capability as fighters and could best the government forces at this point. That’s why Hakim believes the Sunnis should be ruthlessly repressed, the sooner the better. If the US won’t do it, he will, using American weapons and support. Currently Iraq is experiencing a low level civil war under the occupation. Removing the occupation forces will allow the forces to fight it out. At a minimum, a bloodletting; more likely a bloodbath. Not a good option.

A third option is to reduce the ground forces and provide close air support to the government. That would relieve America’s suffering; our GI’s and Marines would no longer be at risk (or at less risk) but aerial bombing would do little to relieve the carnage and destruction suffered by Iraqis. An analysis of almost 25,000 civilian deaths in Iraq during the first two years of the war shows that 90 percent of the 9,200 civilians killed by American forces were the result of aerial bombing. (You have do the math.)

The only long term solution is political reconciliation among Iraqis that leaves all groups confident in their personal, religious and ethnic security, something that is increasingly unlikely as the occupation draws out. That’s why it needs to end, the sooner the better. America’s disaffection with the Iraq war finally seems to be pushing BushCheney in that direction. I have no confidence that he will show any more wisdom and foresight in resolving this mess than he demonstrated getting America into it, but I welcome the change in direction.

It’s a start.