The fantasy is over, we must partition Iraq and get out now (a view from the thames)

We should not have gone to Iraq because going to Iraq implied staying and staying implied leaving. Now begins the leaving, and it will be bloody. All else is an illusion.

This weekend another Iraqi government, the third in three years, entered office under American guns in Baghdad’s green zone. Ibrahim al-Jaafari gives way to Nouri al-Maliki, though neither the defence nor internal security posts are filled. These are posts that matter, with their murky unofficial links to police, militias and Baghdad death squads.

The reason they are unfilled is that post-withdrawal Iraq is already up and running. Power has seeped away from the coalition and its still puppet ministers. It has moved out onto the streets of Baghdad and Basra — and into the morgues.

The jungle drums can read the signs. The British are back in helmets and tanks in the south, the Americans are back bombing and strafing villages in the west. The coalition has lost any ability to guarantee security to the Iraqi people, who must look elsewhere. In Iraq, optimism may always be a virtue but it has become fantasy.

This place is a failed state. There is no rule of law. Murder is unpunished. No foreigner dares to move except by air. Any Iraqi risks his life working away from home — and women risk their lives working at all. Interpreters wear balaclavas. Vendetta killings come not daily but hourly, measured only by body counts. Professionals are decamping to Jordan in greater numbers even than under Saddam. Water, power and petrol supplies are also worse.

At the end of this month Tony Blair flies to Washington to discuss with George W Bush how to escape. What was to be a neocon beacon of democratic stability has become a hell-hole of anarchy. Iraq is no longer just a mistake: it is the outcome of an intellectual and moral catastrophe from which the image of western democracy will take a generation to recover.

Bush and Blair have been shielded from this truth by years of sycophantic briefing, but they cannot be shielded from opinion polls. The war is overwhelmingly unpopular on both sides of the Atlantic. Since both leaders are planning their departures, they are frantic to have the incubus removed from their shoulders. Iraq policy is a matter of dates.

The best moment to withdraw was when the Pentagon originally intended, in June 2003, leaving Ahmed Chalabi to fight things out with the Shi’ite clerics after Saddam’s downfall. But the urge to “rebuild a nation” got the better of Bush and Blair. Another window was in December 2003, then June 2004, then December 2005, “drop dead” dates when control might have been handed over to whichever majority leader was ascendant. Another date is now, with a new government in place.

A crucial illusion of American and British policy is that the occupation is somehow maintaining the integrity of the state and its government. It is not. It is undermining both. In truth there is no state and coalition troops are merely squatting in camps dotted across the landscape, emerging occasionally to kill or get killed.

There are two consequences of each refusal to leave. First, the troops offer an ever more inviting target for insurgency and a magnet for anti-western guerrillas from across the region. This in turn boosts the militias as alternative power networks and encourages politicians to back them rather than the army. Second, each postponement of withdrawal undermines the independence and self-reliance of the current Iraqi leader. The American failure to entrench Ayad Allawi as a new Baghdad strongman last year and leave him to fend for himself was not democracy but stupidity.

Miliki’s position even within the Shi’ite majority depends on his appeasing the Mahdist gangs and the Iran-backed Badr Brigades linked to Ayatollah al-Sistani. The one certainty is that the presence of American power at his elbow will weaken, not strengthen, his credibility as a nationalist leader.

Washington and London still do not hear the message, that their occupation is hugely unpopular among Iraqis, except for those VIPs whose lives literally depend on it.

Withdrawal becomes harder with each postponement. Those with a vested interest in occupation are more entrenched. Bases are enlarged, contracts let, corruption extended. For the past year British and American policy has been rooted in the concept of “orderly transition” to a new Iraqi army, the latest version of Vietnamisation. Over the course of 2005-06 American and British troops were to be replaced by new army and police units. Last October the mooted date for this was May 2006. Such dates are meaningless when an occupier has lost initiative to anarchy.

The “new Iraqi army” strategy might have been plausible had the old army been reformed and a new nexus of power and loyalty established in Baghdad. That option has long gone. Despite quantities of training and equipment, an Iraqi army deployable nationwide is blind optimism. (Its officers dare not even drive home in uniform). Local troops are unreliable outside their home district simply because they are never going to outgun the militias. Soldiers can be brave as lions, but why kill fellow Iraqis and provoke revenge when the occupiers will soon be gone?

Police are more important to local security than soldiers, and they have everywhere distanced themselves from the occupation. The only peace in Iraq is where local police are in league with whatever power structure, clerical or criminal, is locally dominant. Battles in the south are largely between Mahdist and Badr gangs and their offshoots. These fights will be resolved only when one or other emerges as dominant. The coalition has not the remotest leverage over this.

In much of Iraq everything points to a looming conflict between Shi’ites and Sunnis. To all who know these people, this is an utter tragedy, brought on by the coalition’s continued presence and its failure to establish order. All recent experience of such conflict, whether in Ulster, Palestine, Sudan or Yugoslavia, sees it resolved into population movement and ethnic cleansing. This is now proceeding bloodily in and round Baghdad. It will bring an awful residue of ghost districts, refugee camps, revenge attacks and safe havens. In Yugoslavia the solution, abetted by western intervention, was partition. In Iraq America began the same process by guaranteeing de facto autonomy to Kurdistan. That logic must now be followed to its conclusion. Partition was always the most likely outcome. This view is at last gaining traction in Washington, advocated by Joe Biden, the Senate foreign relations chairman.

A template is offered by the constitution negotiated a year ago by Zalmay Khalilzad, Washington’s Baghdad proconsul, and approved by the voters. Its chapter five allows any of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be grouped into regions, each with an allotted share of oil revenue and an option of assuming responsibility for legislation and “organising internal forces . . . police, security and regional guards”.

This could not be more specific. Provincial governors in Sunni and Shi’ite regions may vote themselves, individually or collectively, a similar autonomy to that enjoyed by the Kurds. It is clear that this will embrace formal and informal military and police units. Dreadful problems would remain, including the governance of Baghdad and of the mixed areas bordering Kurdistan. But at least there is a constitutional framework for decentralisation such that military responsibility can be handed over to new regional commanders. That could begin at once if coalition forces can bear to surrender their bases. The alternative is an eternity of the present stasis.

In southern Iraq the British have already handed three provinces over to local forces, obeying the old Arabist maxim: find the nearest strongman and give him guns. What the Americans do in central Iraq is their decision. American troops are desperate to leave, though what happens to a dozen gigantic bases is beyond imagining (perhaps they will become refugee camps).

This is in part Britain’s war and that part should be Britain’s to end. Iraq is no longer about nation building or democracy spreading or reputation enhancing. It is about getting out in the best possible order. The route is mapped in the Khalilzad constitution. The endgame of yet another western intervention will be yet another partition. But at least the sooner the better.

Ferdie. Here is what we are doing in Iraq. Your pet "plan" would drive every single one of those Muslims, doing the bulk of the killing and dying on our side on the War on Terror into either neutrality or actively aiding the Terrorists. It is the utterly simplistic, know nothing dogma of completely ignorant fools. It demonstrates a complete lack of even basic understanding of geopolitical realities, as well as either the history, or culture, of the region.

This "plan" is the nonseical wishful thinking of self proclaimed "policy wonks" who would rather just wish the problems of the world away, until the next 9-11 style attack comes around, because that is emotionally and intellectually easier for them to cope with. This idea is utter ignorant NONSENSE. It has absolutely NO factual or intellectual credibility. It positivly the stupidest possible "solution". It would result in perpetual instability in the region and allow the Terrorists to claim "Victory" thus aiding recruitment for the next round of 9-11s as well as allow them to rebuilt the training and base camp infrastructure destroyed in Afghanistan. It is pure and utter lunacy.

Fredie, Glad you have opinions and feelings. Please stop confusing what you feel with FACTS.

For the Neo-isolationists, HERE is what we are up to in Iraq.

Counter Insurgency is a strange bastard style of war. It is not total war but it is also more then the Leftist" Police matter". The other thing most old Cast Iron Conservatives forget is the political aspect. Iraq was doable. We had the political consensus to do it. So since we needed a kill zone we could suck the terrorists into and we needed to get the American people to support the cost, there was no other choice BUT Iraq.

Want to really blow the Leftists minds? Tell them this. Even if Al Gore won in 2000 and 9-11 happened the USA would STILL be doing the same thing now in Iraq. Iraq was doable militarily and politically. There was no other place for the US to go. Iraq is basically the same deal as the invasions of Italy was in 1943

Here in a nutshell, is the MILTIARY reason for Iraq. The War on Terrorism is different sort of war. In the war on Terrorism, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone. Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is hostile to guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

There are other reasons to do Iraq but that is the MILITARY reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. I often worry that the American people have neither the maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" then to actually THINK. Problem is these people have NO desire to co-exist with us. They see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. They think their "god" will bless them for killing Westerners.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest realize we are serious. See in the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it.

Some of Minnesota Johnnie's recent rantings:

Most of us actively involved in Conservative politics have never heard of this butt clown.

Why does this read just like every Democrat Seminar Caller calling into a Talk Radio show.

Kind of reminds us of Jan 2005, when you all ran screaming around Free Republic screeching how a nuke had been smuggled across the border. Turned out to be just another lie.

IN case the fool missed it,

If you think I am going to waste my time on a Moveon.org mouthpiece who is only here to pretend to be a "Betrayed Conservative" and scream as much bile and emotional hysteria as possible in the vain hope it will "Fracture the Conservatives and help Democrats win in November" you are only fooling yourself.

Your Socialists have so wrecked your economy, there are no jobs. You really do not have anything better to do.

You know trolling around looking for a fight is rather childish. If you have nothing better to do with your time, I suggest you get a job.

Utter complete and total nonsense. Please stop mindlessly repeating what that Leftist nut pretend to be a Conservative Mike Savage tells you to think.

You live in a fantasy land.

Most of the posters on this thread actually know what they are talking about instead of merely regurgitating what a ignorant Radio Jock tells them to think.

Excuse me, are you trying to compensate for having the world's smallest penis?

Does your "male friend" know you are using his computer for this? Gee I mean I know your kind are all pissed because you cannot get married but this is utterly overreacting.>Don't sing it fool, bring it. Most of us are dying for an excuse to take off the gloves on you treasonous scum.

Say Hillary, Why don't you "Take aim" at Balancing the Budget or something more properly your duty as a US Senator instead of being a grandstanding PR fool?

Interesting. Now we have drive by Whiners on this thread.

This is only a small sampling of what this arrogant irritant has posted in the past 48 hours. Check it out. There are pages and pages of irrational rhetoric.

Thank you for your reply. that was a very good and thoughtful reply with a lot of effort in it.

Thanks.

Because it was so good I will reply and say that I feel that trying to build a modern nation was a long shot gamble. It may pay off as I was saying it looks better then I thought. It would certainly be better of if we could.

Keep in mind, though, that it does not have to be perfect. It just needs to be good enough.

The Ottoman Empire was a mess until Mustafa Kemal Ataturk turned it into a secular and relatively modern state that has been battling Islamist nut cases since the 1920's.

Nasser's Egypt was a highly radical nation but Egypt is now very well behaved.

But, when you consider the danger of being dragged into an unpopular war or more likely what is perceived as a war. It could be extremely dangerous. We have given the left a club to beat us over the head with.

And there are two issues right there.

Again, back to strategic consideration. Because the Persian Gulf holds the oil valves to Western Civilization it is a national vital interest of the highest magnitude. The surrender of the Persian Gulf region to fanatics is simply not a viable option no matter what the cost. We either succeed in Iraq or we go back to trying to keep the lid on the region from Saudi bases but, one way or the other, we cannot leave.

The second issue is that, in my opinion, the greatest weakness that Bush has is his failure to be a good communicator that rallies the Home Front.

Successful war leaders need to have proper strategic vision, military competence (or at least know when to let Generals do their jobs without amateur meddling), tenacity and be inspirational to the warring nation.

Napoleon had great military competence, tenacity and was highly inspirational but failed by making idiotic strategic choices.

Hitler had great tenacity and was highly inspirational but failed by making the same idiotic strategic choice that Napoleon made and compounding it by declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor and by micro-managing his Generals.

Lincoln was militarily mediocre (MacClellan, Hooker, Pope, Burnsides) but made up for it by his tenacity, clear strategic goals and his inspirational nature.

Jimmy Carter was a total failure in all four departments.

Bill Clinton failed in tenacity and in strategic vision. But, we must admit, Clinton was a Great Communicator or, if you prefer, a Great Bullshitter which can be just as inspirational.

Bush has clear strategic goals, allows his Generals to do their job and has great tenacity. However, he fails in being a Great Communicator or even being a Adequate Communicator whether the subject is explaining the strategic imperatives of Iraq or even the Democrat failures of Hurricane Katrina to the American people.

As a result, he has allowed the liberal news media and the Democrats to brand the word "FAILURE" right on his forehead without a fight.

By contrast, Bill Clinton had his "War Room" that agrressively attacked any negative story within one news cycle.

Bush's flaw is compounded by the fact that the liberal news media in 21st Century America is almost as dedicated to undermining the war morale of the American Home Front as was Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda.

I sincerely hope that it works out still. however. But, I think one lesson before we take on something like this again is that we really have to do something about the stinking lieing MSM.

In Iraq and in any future U.S. war under a Republican President, it must be assumed that the liberal news media will act as a force multiplier for our enemies by actively and aggressively trying to undermine the morale of the American Home Front.

That needs to be taken into consideration just as seriously as any other aspect of war planning.

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.