A New Push For A Different National Iraqi Makeup
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | Foreign Affairs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Bush Administration is concerned that it will be forced to fight repeated battles aimed at keeping the reconstruction effort in Iraq going. Naturally, much--if not all--of its concerns stems from the belief that eventually, one of those battles will be lost to a Democratic Congress and the reconstruction effort will be short-circuited.
As such, the Administration, along with various members of Congress, are looking to make a deal. And the specifics of that deal may involve a heretofore verboten plan concerning the makeup of Iraq:
The White House has opposed proposals in Congress to partition Iraq, or sharply decentralize its government.
That idea -- what proponents of decentralization call a "federal system of government" -- is favored by an unusually broad bipartisan group of senators. They were pulled together this month by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a presidential candidate, to cosponsor a nonbinding resolution supporting the federalism plan.
There is much more. Read on . . .
And the administration stance may be easing. On a trip to Iraq about a week ago, Gates openly reflected that greater emphasis outside Baghdad might prove more effective. "Perhaps we have gotten too focused on the central government, and not enough on the provinces and on the tribes and what is happening in those areas," Gates told reporters.And U.N. Ambassador Khalilzad, who was the U.S. ambassador to Iraq until April, has discussed the federalism plan with Biden and Biden's fellow sponsor and presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), lawmakers said.
Khalilzad, in an interview, rejected the idea of imposing decentralization on the Iraqis, saying it could "backfire politically ... if it's a 'made-in-Washington' kind of idea."
But Khalilzad said he favored the idea of U.N. officials helping Iraqis decide, in their current deliberations over their constitution, whether to choose a structure that would transfer power to the regions. "If they want to go that route, it's certainly an option," he said.
Biden said recently that the federalism plan "offers the possibility -- not the guarantee, but the possibility -- of a soft landing in Iraq."
"I believe it is the best way to end the war in Iraq in a responsible way," he said.
The idea is gaining popularity on Capitol Hill.
Joining Biden is Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), one of the strongest proponents of a deadline for withdrawing most U.S. combat troops. Also cosponsoring the measure are three Republicans, including two conservatives not usually seen as Democrats' allies on the war: Brownback and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.
Although Hutchison has spoken since last year about creating semiautonomous regions in Iraq, she has generally been one of the administration's most loyal allies on Capitol Hill.
I am on record as believing, at the very least, that partition is a viable option for Iraq. I could sign on to a tighter federalization scheme, or a confederation scheme whereby three regions of Iraq--Sunni, Shi'a and Kurd--get autonomy but Iraq remains a (decentralized) country. And of course, I will repeat what I have written in the past: Partition, federalization and/or confederation will not happen without the consent of the Iraqi people. If the Iraqi people refuse to give their consent to any one of these plans, the plans will die on the vine. As they should; it is the Iraqis' country, after all. They should determine its shape.
But I will repeat this as well: There is no reason for us to take the idea of partition or that of a loose confederation off the table. As referenced in my second written article posted above, the Iraqis are already partitioning themselves in Baghdad and they are doing so violently. The question is whether we are going to get ahead of the process and manage it peacefully or whether we are going to let the process manage itself to bloody levels beyond our imagining. (I know from correspondence with fellow Contributor Jeff Emanuel that he has seen more promising signs in terms of keeping Iraq together and I will leave it to him to address the specific nature of those findings should he choose to.)
Additionally, this story should be noted:
Sen. Richard Lugar, a senior Republican and a reliable vote for President Bush on the war, said Monday that Bush's Iraq strategy was not working and that the U.S. should downsize the military's role.
The unusually blunt assessment deals a political blow to Bush, who has relied heavily on GOP support to stave off anti-war legislation.
It also comes as a surprise. Most Republicans have said they were willing to wait until September to see if Bush's recently ordered troop buildup in Iraq was working.
"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."
(Via Rob Bluey.) The story states that Senator Lugar will not change his vote. But his comments could very well give cover to Senators and Representatives who might change their votes. This makes getting some kind of deal before the reconstruction effort is precipitously halted all the more imperative.
Currently, the White House can still argue and negotiate from a position of strength, having won the last battle with Congress over the issue. But in order to secure a presence in Iraq that will do justice to the reconstruction effort and allow American and Iraqi troops to fight the al Qaeda presence in the country, it will be necessary to consider partition or confederation as options in Iraq. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is not sacrosanct. And artificial boundaries for Iraq may do the country more harm than good.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | The Supreme Court Speaks — Comments (1) »
A New Push For A Different National Iraqi Makeup 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
extricate themselves from troublesome parts of their empire. Let's see how that worked:
India partitioned along sectarian lines into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan -- more than a million people died and the history between the two countries now includes a nuclear standoff and endless conflict over Kashmir, etc.
Palestine -- partitioned into Israel and Trans-Jordan. Do we have to go over how brilliant a move this was and how it's brought peace to the area?
Ireland -- a century of civil war, terrorism, poverty and suffering following the partition of Ireland.
I would rather see us pull out entirely than force this on the Iraqis. And we would have to force it. A weakened Kurdistan surrounded by enemies, an Iranian client state to add to their terrorist enclaves in Lebanon and Gaza, and a failed Sunni state that would become a terrorist haven along the lines o Afghnistan.
It's ironic that the President would cave after his staunch support of the war, now that we are finally fighting and winning. I can only hope that this is either a case of Lugar wandering off the reservation, or a ploy to put some pressure on the Maliki administration to pick up the pace.
ineffectual blue helmet "peacekeepers", terrorism, Brit soldiers ocasionally picked of a la Ireland, etc.
A most amusing turn of events I must say. Please note here:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1632.cfm
and also here (although this paper is subscription only): http://www.amconmag.com/09_08_03/index1.html
This plan was conceived (for the most part) before all of the problems began in Iraq by scholars at the Heritage Foundation. At the time, it might have served our objectives quite well...however, what was adopted instead was a utopian approach that more closely resembled U.S. welfare policy (we give you the tools, you make your lives better) than it did an actual realistic foreign policy (American power is finite and thus we cannot expect that our actions will always change the behavior of others).
The problem with all of these plans (Bush or Dems) is that they ignore the will/desire/behavior of the Iraqis. It's all well and good that the U.S. would like peace, stability, democracy...etc, etc. The problem is of course that the Iraqis do not necessarily share our goals (or at the very least are not willing to make the tough decisions to adopt them). Until the average Iraqi's cost/benefit analysis favors U.S. objectives, we are going to have significant problems over there. It isn't about security, and it isn't about political reconciliation...It's about the average Iraqi ratting out the insurgency (as we're seeing in Anbar) despite the very negative consequences that he or she may face as a result. That is the essential problem that you must solve.
Ever read the Iraqi Constitution? How about specifically Section 5? You might want to do that before opining about the lack of a loose federal structure and "ignoring" Iraq's desires.
Our policy reflects a desire to provide Iraq the tools which will help build their democracy. Never has it been said that was a process which would continue ad infinitum. That is pure myth.
Certainly, what could have been better articulated were expectations, not timelines. exempli gratia, if we, as a nascent democracy in 1787 engaged in such foolishness you can be assured our development would have been seriously challenged.
The average Iraqi seeks only a better future. If you rely on a limited view afforded by reporting, I could see why one might believe otherwise. A majority of the country is under control and fighting is limited to small sectors and getting smaller. Furthermore, as is shown recently in areas around Baghdad, when our forces move in the bad guys are pointed out (as are their weapons caches). All certainly positive developments but ignored in the rush to report violence perpetrated as a desperate response.
Challenges certainly lie ahead; most of them for the Iraqi's. Make no mistake, if they did not get the fact our longevity at current force level and reponsibility will wane over time, they know it now. It is only a matter of when, not if. Then the real challenge begins. We should support that very principled, sagacious approach.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
And yet progress remains fleeting.
Marcus, the question is not whether I've read section 5 (which is "Article 5" by the way) the question is whether the average Iraqi has read Article 5 and, most importantly, whether or not the average Iraqi is prepared to live up to Article 5. You may argue that they are in their hearts. But that doesn't change the essential reality that all evidence points to the contrary. By the way, that's not solely my analysis, or the analysis of the left-wing media...that's the analysis of the Generals and the Administration, including the President himself. Either you think that the Generals know what they're doing or you don't...and if you don't I would imagine that you could find a nice home in the democrat party.
Secondly, could you refrain from comparing our history to their history--in doing so, you are essentially arguing that success in Iraq, from a historical perspective, is inevitable. That is Marxist, and I can't imagine that you'd like to think of yourself as a Marxist. History is never inevitable, and sometimes, people don't solve their problems (think Greece, Rome, Spain, France, Britain). Frankly, our history is nothing like their history, and our success will not be duplicated in Iraq. That is what makes this country great...because it is unique from all other nations.
Thirdly, I'm a conservative not a Wilsonian, I don't support a process that doesn't ultimately yield results. If you're into feeling good about your intentions/actions while ignoring consequence, I would suggest a trip over to Europe where post-modernism is a religion.
Finally, while I love the Latin, let's remember what eventually happened to Rome. Despite the wishes of Max Boot and other Neoconservatives, I prefer our Republic to an Empire.
More like acquiescence to contra intellectual wandering and smacking of defeatism.
First of all, a historical look at the Mesopotamian region (pre Arabic invasion) and its history (including Sumer, Akkad, Babylon etc.) one gets a sense about regional historical governance inclinations and related formulations such as city-states. Now I realize that folks want to get more recent on the timeline and use phenomena such as tribes and Arab culture as a discussion basis, but frankly that muddies the waters even more so (including of course the Ottoman’s). The fact that Sykes-Picot was negotiated in secret with the Bolsheviks just adds fuel to the fire.
The distinctions provided as remnants of post Islamic culture are being used as a divisive factor; stoked and forwarded by extremists looking to advance their own agenda. I know this surprises many, but the fighting involves a relatively small number of combatants (absent outside influences). Accordingly, to relent and divide the region into multiple “homelands” is to ignore the historical humanistic inclinations aptly part of the present day sub cultural mindset. The extremists win in essence by dividing and conquering; nothing could be more misguided and would be a mistake of monumental consequences.
Given these issues, one of the many problems with this plan is we are not talking about a clean break. I suspect groups such as the Assyrians, et al would want a seat at the table; what do we do about them and where is their homeland? Secondarily, using Palestine as an example, how do you think a partitioned Iraq would turn out? I doubt we would see the “peace” which is talked about so resoundingly? A “confederation” is somewhat more ridiculous given they have trouble getting along now. Do you think if that happens the Kurds will start handing out checks? I doubt it since the only potential issue is access to the Gulf.
I have no penchant in defending the administration or anyone else on this plan (that Boxer and Biden are involved, well, say no more). Overall, the way in which this was released appears much like a “trial balloon” to gauge reaction. Well “gauge” this; a state dominated by post Safavid Shia Iranian influence and hostile to Western interests (can you say Lebanon and Gaza), a Sunni state guided by AQZ Islamic fundamentalists and a “peaceful” Kurdish state awash in oil wealth and under attack by both (and I have no idea where the Assyrians fit in).
If as much thought was put into this proposal as I put into these few lines, it would never be considered.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report