Posted on 09/13/2007 6:47:58 PM PDT by brityank
The Real Patreaus-Crocker Story
By Robert Haddick | 12 Sep 2007![]()
On Monday, September 10, 2007, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker delivered their long-awaited testimonies to a joint hearing of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees. General Petraeus made the headlines when he announced that the U.S. force level in Iraq would begin to shrink, starting this month.
But Ambassador Crocker delivered the day's real news with his description of Iraq's slowly simmering political development. In his testimony, Ambassador Crocker revealed that federalism, or decentralized governance, is a concept now beginning to find favor with Iraq's Sunni-Arabs. In spite of passing a constitution by referendum in 2005, Iraqi society still has not achieved a consensus on how to govern itself. But a growing acceptance of a decentralized Iraq by the Sunni-Arabs, a previously unimaginable thought, offers a glimmer of hope for a political settlement to the war.
Listen to General Petraeus, then set him aside
For the past several weeks all attention has been focused on General Petraeus and his recommendations. In the event, his testimony revealed no surprises. General Petraeus reviewed the well-known reduction in insurgent attacks, the decline in civilian casualties, and the new-found cooperation the American military is receiving from Sunni-Arab tribes in western al-Anbar province. He also noted the steady improvement in the performance of Iraq's security forces.
Based on these positive developments, and extrapolating greater Iraqi capability, General Petraeus recommended a significant reduction in the U.S. force in Iraq. A battalion-sized Marine Expeditionary Unit will depart Iraq later in September. In December General Petraeus will send home one of his twenty brigade combat teams, apparently before that unit's full tour in Iraq is complete. Four more "surge" brigades, along with two surging Marine battalions, will depart during the first half of 2008, leaving 15 U.S. brigades in Iraq in July 2008, the pre-surge U.S. force level.
There is less to this announcement than meets the eye. The only way for the U.S. to maintain 20 brigades in Iraq through 2008 would have been to further extend Army tours in Iraq beyond 15 months, or further shorten pre-deployment training periods. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and the White House staff had previously rejected these measures, for both military and political reasons. Thus, as a technical matter, this decision ended the surge.
Of more interest is General Petraeus's next decision point, March 2008. It is then that he, the Joint Chiefs, and the Bush administration will have to decide whether to reduce the U.S. force below 15 brigades starting in the second half of 2008. Political conditions in Iraq, something General Petraeus and U.S. policymakers have little or no control over, will determine this decision. And it is on Iraq's political development that Ambassador Crocker made real news.
Grasping for success, stumbling onto a solution
President Bush's surprise visit last week to Anbar province was an attempt to show off to the American electorate the most significant success in Iraq in almost two years. The switch by the Anbar tribes to the American side began before President Bush announced the surge strategy and was to some extent an "accidental victory." Al Qaeda's ruthless incompetence combined with American persistence to produce something positive for President Bush to tout last week.
But the "Anbar Awakening" tribal movement has created a new concept for Iraq's Sunni-Arabs to consider, namely the advantages of federalism and political decentralization. The violent Sunni-Arab insurgency against U.S. military forces in Iraq was motivated by a desire to re-conquer and rule Iraq, as the Sunni-Arabs had for most of the 20thcentury. But acceptance of Shi'ite and Kurdish power, combined with a positive working relationship with the Americans, has revealed to the Sunni-Arabs an alternative strategy, as Ambassador Crocker explained in his testimony:
"Some of the more promising political developments at the national level are neither measured in benchmarks nor visible to those far from Baghdad. For instance, there is a budding debate about federalism among Iraq's leaders and, importantly, within the Sunni community. Those living in places like al-Anbar and Salahaddin are beginning to realize how localities having more of a say in daily decision making will empower their communities. No longer is an all-powerful Baghdad seen as the panacea to Iraq's problems. This thinking is nascent, but it is ultimately critical to the evolution of a common vision among all Iraqi leaders."
Iraq's Kurds have enjoyed regional autonomy since 1991. An autonomous region is a goal of many (but not all) of Iraq's Shi'ites, and is a principal objective of Iraq's largest Shi'ite political party. Perhaps Iraq's Sunni-Arabs, frustrated by the government in Baghdad, but supported by the American forces in Anbar, and inspired by their success against al Qaeda, something they achieved without much if any assistance from the central government, are now coming over to this same point of view.
Improvisation leads to incoherence
American military commanders in the field have recently improved security in Iraq by improvising a "bottom-up" approach. Working with local tribal, village, and provincial leaders, the Americans have helped the Iraqis improve local security.
On the other hand, a unified Iraq with a strong central government remains a key American objective. The Iraqi army is supposed to be a national institution. And as Ambassador Crocker pointed out in his testimony, Iraq's provinces have almost no capacity to generate their own revenue, a sharp contrast to the states in America. Iraq's provincial authorities can fashion budgets and capital development plans, but these plans will only achieve something if the central government in Baghdad (dominated by the Shi'ite-Kurdish coalition), deigns to send funding to the provinces.
Adjusting to decentralization
Decentralized governance offers a way for a political settlement in Iraq. But in order for this hopeful solution to work, both the Americans and Iraqis will have to make some significant changes to their current policies. The Bush administration (and its successor) will have to de-emphasize the goal of a unified Iraq under a strong central government. It would also have to avert its eyes as some population transfers (a.k.a. "ethnic cleansing") around the Baghdad area occurred.
For their part, the Iraqis would have to redesign their method of government finance. And they would have to accept an army recruited, trained, and commanded on a regional basis.
Such a solution obviously carries many risks. Decentralized governance may lead to a way for Iraqis to live in something like harmony. Or it may instead provide a basis to more effectively organize for renewed warfare.
Iraq's "political seminar"
In the meantime, the American army in Iraq will continue to patrol Iraq's streets, train Iraq's men, and suffer the ongoing drain of blood and treasure. This goes on while Iraqis hold a collective seminar of sorts on basic political theory, as they try to sort out how they will govern themselves.
Whether General Petraeus will be able to recommend in March 2008 a reduction from 15 U.S. brigades to 12 or 10 or fewer will depend on how much progress Iraq makes reaching an agreement on its basic political structure. The media will focus its attention on General Petraeus and the actions of his soldiers. But Ambassador Crocker will have the answers to the questions that really matter.
The author was a U.S. Marine Corps infantry company commander and staff officer. He was the global research director for a large private investment firm and is now a private investor. His blog is Westhawk. He is a TCS contributing writer.
The US is a Federal System, and for the most part it works. It only makes sense that Iraq would also be set up with 'States' and a federational central government that is restricted in what it mandates to its autonomous regions.
Another decent write-up from TCS for your perusal.
Do not believe the part about our victory in Anbar being accidental. That is false. As noted in the following report by Michael Totten from Ramadi, we took the 'gloves off' in Ramadi and visited upon Ramadi what had previously happened to Fallujah:
Most of the citys buildings and houses are more or less intact, but some areas have been completely destroyed. I toured the destruction in South Lebanon at the end of last year, but I didnt see anything there on the scale of what happened in Ramadi. Nor did I see anything even remotely like this in Baghdad.
We took the gloves off, said Captain Dennison from where he described as Middle of Nowhere, Kentucky. We had to.
I saw dozens of buildings that look like those pictured above, and this was after the majority of the wreckage had been cleared.
The pictures on Totten's site and the comments from Captain Dennison jibe with what Fouad Ajami recently wrote in his Wall Street Journal op-ed.
See Link
An Iraqi in the know, unsentimental about his country's ways, sought to play down the cult of Abu Reisha. American soldiers, he said, won the war for the Anbar, but it was better to put an Iraq kafiyyah than an American helmet on the victory. He dismissed Abu Reisha. He was useful, he said, but should not be romanticized. "No doubt he was shooting at Americans not so long ago, but the tide has turned, and Abu Reisha knew how to reach an accommodation with the real order of power. The truth is that the Sunnis launched this war four years ago, and have been defeated. The tribes never win wars, they only join the winners."
Thoughtful of you for my perusal.
A good piece, Brit and thanks for the ping.
bttt
“The US is a Federal System, and for the most part it works. It only makes sense that Iraq would also be set up with ‘States’ and a federational central government that is restricted in what it mandates to its autonomous regions.”
Which really explains why the Dimrats oppose the war. They don’t want any examples of people thriving without a strong central government...in Bagdad or Washington!
Federalism > Does it really mean Tribalism ?
Interesting. Thanks, Brit.
It is increasingly clear that we impose our racist and ethnic thinking wherever we go.
This is fascinating. While I completely 100% support the war effort, it sounds like we’re trying to build a little America from existing disparate pieces by the seat of our pants. I am so glad that we have bright commanders at the field and battalion level able to improvise, but am at a loss as to how they are going to fit these little puzzle-piece fiefdoms into a broader federalist system.
Ah so.
You think it's racist to provide and encourage freedom.
You think it's racist to take out war-lords and gangs.
You think it's racist to allow freedom of religion.
You think it's racist to encourage a democratic republic where the residents vote.
You think it's racist to allow the neighborhoods to determine their own society free of coercion.
Seems you are the one who needs to revisit your premises.
I submit that the basics of Western Civilisation did exactly that; Britain, Germany, France, those regions and Royal Grants in the New World that became the US States -- all devolved from fiefdoms of one type or another. Will it happen in a MSM minute? We still have myriad support groups in most countries we were once enemies with -- Japan, Germany, Korea, Italy, yet now consider them allies. It takes years and commitment from both sides -- I think it is there in Iraq as long as we can continue to nurture and guide it along their lines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.