Iraq in 1 piece: Media Bummed
That’s what you would think after a week in which the words “Iraq”, “brink” and “Civil War” usually appeared in one sentence. StrategyPage, as usual, has a good take on the issue from the Iraqi perspective:
Iraqis were irked to see the foreign news stories of how Iraq was “on the brink of civil war.” The Sunni Arabs are in no shape to put up a credible resistance in any kind of civil war. The government has more problems with Kurdish and Shia Arab public opinion, which is more inclined to treat the Sunni Arab population a lot more violently than is currently the case. This makes it difficult to rein in the death squads, particularly the ones in the police force, who go out and just kill actual, or suspected, Sunni Arab killers. When it is mentioned that the deceased was formerly a member of one of Saddam’s many police and intelligence outfits, there is no hope of any follow-up investigation. It’s going to take a generation for this hatred, of Saddam’s many victims, and their families, towards the Sunni Arabs who did the dirty work for so long.
A Generation? In a land where the 12th Century competes with yesterday in the minds of its inhabitants?
Let’s put it this way: If the Shi’a and Kurds put their minds to it, there won’t be a Civil War. There will be a Sunni bloodbath – and I’m not sure the USA should intervene if it happens.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Jack Snyder:
Scott,
What do you think of William F. Buckley’s latest commentary in the NRO where he states, “One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.” Just curious.
Jack
2 March 2006, 10:43 amAdministrator:
Jack
I’d think that his statement (taken without context) is wrong.
The original American objective was to remove Saddam with a minimum of bloodshed. That objective was accomplished.
The objective was then to hold elections and create a government. Several elections have been held and a new government should be announced shortly.
Like Zeno’s hare, what I see happening is that as objectives are met, they are changed and moved ahead by the press and other anti-war types.
It’s not enough that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors, but it must have a democratic government with minority rights for women AND be as safe as New York City today.
Uhm, not going to happen anytime soon. First you have formerly oppressed people with grudges and guns. They will want to exact revenge. Second you have Al-Qaeda with it’s Islamic Messianic message that has pulled out of Afghanistan to make its last stand in Iraq. Third you have three regimes – Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia – that are trying to influence events in Iraq to their best ability.
This is all happening in a space of nearly 3 years.
Nation building is a messy business. Clinton failed to do it in Somalia and Yugoslavia, and Bush I avoided doing it in ‘91 by pulling the troops out of Iraq after Saddam surrendered. Going back to Germany and Japan, people forget how the Soviets meddled in both operations early on to the point where we had to fly in supplies to Berlin in 1948, and were forced to ban teachers unions in Japan around the same time (for being infiltrated by pro-Stalin communists and agitating against the Occupation).
However, once you break it – you’ve bought it. So if the policy has failed, I’d argue that it’s time for a new policy.
2 March 2006, 11:03 am