Cohen’s Strategy
Richard Cohen writes:
The way the United States leaves places matters. Having armed mujahedeen fighters to undo the Soviet empire in Afghanistan, America lost interest in a backwater. Payback came in the form of Afghan-trained holy warriors bent on the destruction of the West. That was careless.
It is important to be less careless in Baghdad. As reports on Iraq reach Congress this month, it’s worth considering that blow-back from an oil-rich country at the heart of the battle for the Middle East could be even more severe than the violent legacy of funding Islam to fight communism in Kabul.
Nothing can undo the American blunders in Iraq that turned the liberated into the lacerated. Hubris is bad, careless hubris worse. The fraying Bush administration still can’t work out who took the decision to disband the Iraqi Army in 2003; that’s grotesque. Nobody in the administration should sleep easy over its ethical responsibility for calamitous mistakes.
Agreed, and then:
But what we did matters less today than how we leave Iraq. It’s far easier to score backward-looking political points against Bush than serve the forward-looking interests of 27 million Iraqis. Still, the latter is more important than the former.
I agree completely and this is exactly what’s often missing in the debate in America. Sure, some people act as if Iraq will turn into a peaceful and prosperous country once the US withdraws, but most people know this not to be the case. Instead of truly addressing this issue, quite some people simply yell “bring our troops home” and that’s that.
Cohen looks at the situation, and the potential for success there still is – and the risk of a premature withdrawal – and, of course, the two opposing views: one that says that real progress has not been made, another that says that real progress has been, but that it’s coming from the bottom-up. Cohen writes:
Both views of Iraq are right: the situation is awful and, four years on, cleverer U.S. commanders are winning a few. The enduring horror counsels a swift exit. The positive shifts bolster a catchphrase Cordesman found doing the rounds in Baghdad: “strategic patience.†I side with the latter, provided the patience is indeed strategic and not just a means to kick the mess into the post-Bush world.
He goes on to explain that such a strategy should “involve the following elements”:
- Local Sunnis willing to work with the US have to be supported and their power has to be bolstered
- Although the Shia-led government is weak, the US should pressure it into agreeing to share oil, money and power with Sunnis and Kurds
- The US has to talk with Iraq’s neighbors. To achieve this, the US should involve the UN
- The US has to recognize that “all Middle Eastern problems are tied and that the U.S. needs a coherent diplomatic strategy for containing jihadist fanaticism through ideological persuasion”
- Help and protect the Iraqis who supported the US
I basically agree with Cohen, although I do have to object to his statement that if the US wants to have peace in Iraq (and the Middle East in general) it shouldn’t support Israel as much as it does. I find that to be silly; the idea that Israel is responsible for the problems in the Middle East seems to have taken possession of quite some people, but that doesn’t make it true. Of course, no nation should be supported without asking questions. This goes for Israel as well. If and when Israel does something wrong its allies should say something about it. The reality is, however, that this is already happening. Those in the Middle East who argue that in order to achieve peace in the region, the West has to distance itself from Israel, are often the same ones who call for Israel’s destruction. It seems to me that we might be wise not to do everything they say.
Having said that, I can agree with just about every other point Cohen makes. The UN and other countries should indeed be involved – sadly, the US cannot bring peace and stability to Iraq by shear willpower.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Cohen’s Strategy”
Leaving aside the idea of withdrawal, since we’ve been there and done that, I’d like to mention our support for Israel.
Can anyone explain why a country with a thriving economy receives 3 billion dollars in aid annually from the US? Or is it anti semetic to even ask?
The point about Israel is that if we’re perceived to be millitantly one-sided, we lose our credibility when we try to assist in finding a road to peace. Unlitmately, we lose leverage when we try to help Israel. Being seen as Israel’s moughpiece is a position of weakness, and it’s a disservice to Israel’s interests.
Admittedly, it’s a tricky business to find the perfect balance between defending Israel vigorously and doing so slavishly, We have not done a good job so far, and I fear Israel will suffer the consequences.
As for Iraq, we go over and over the same ground..
Personally, I have only one new insight. It’s beginning to bother me a lot how little attention is paid to the costs of continuing the war by those who energetically advocate for our continued engagement. Already, one of those costs is a broken ground forces military. Should something new arise where they are necessary, our gas tank would be running on empty., Just how much more should the US weaken itself to save Iraq?
Presenting one-sided, rese tinted scenarios is not a convincing argument in my book. Take into account the costs as well ad the benefits, and I’m much more likely to lsiten.
Michael – My first question is why do you think that the US can make things better by staying in Iraq. To me it is the height of arrogance to believe the USA can fix every problem. The last 5 years of incompetence is a better indicator of our abilities than words echoed by pundits. Is it possible that our presence might make things worse? Every person and every country has limitations. Is it possible the US has found it cannot do nation building 8000 miles away with a people it neither understands or has any affection for. I believe we are at that point.
If the US really does tell Israel when it does wrong why have we not said anything about the current settlement expansion which is larger than at any time since Netanyahu’s reign. Why is the Israeli High Court retroactively approving the new construction in Modi’in Illit which was never authorized and built on land confiscated from Palestinians by the settlers.
When it comes to even protecting American citizens from the whims of Israeli descrimination, we are toothless. Read the following news story about the Yacoub Family Here you have American children born in the US and US citizens denied exit from Ben Gurion airport where they arrived because there was some Palestinian bloodlines. As a Jew this freaks me out because of all the stories I heard from my grandparents about the Nazi witch hunts. Back then the Nazi’s tried to figure out if some relative in the present or even distant past had Jewish blood. If it was determined there was Jewish blood in the veins first it was discrimination, then it evolved into imprisonment and eventually the worst occurred. Here Israel starting down the same path, Palestinian blood equals evil no matter what your nationality is.
So Michael we once again disagree.
I have to agree with the other commenters. Our support for Israel has everything to do with our problems with other ME countries. There is no doubt that most of these countries will never recognize Israel and that their societies are virulently anti-semitic, and that translates into resentment of our role as Israel’s friend and protector.
I’m not advocating that we throw Israel to the wolves, but our open support does explain some of the anti-American sentiment in the region.
The best thing we could do for ourselves is limit our holdings and military presence in the ME, and work to become self-sufficient through the development of alternative fuel sources. That way we would be able to stay out of unneccessary wars, yet still support moderate leaders in the region. I think we should give up on nation-building and spreading democracy in other countries that lack the rudimentary building blocks for it.
The argument of too much support to Israel is, I think, misplaced. It surely is a festering sore and we are widely viewed as one-sided, but I see little alternative. There’s a lot of criticism of Bush that he’s not doing enough to promote the peace initiatives, but let’s be realistic – the US cannot force peace and it cannot force Israel to compromise through blackmail. The Palestinians are still in the midst of a civil war – for all the talk of peace initiatives, who represents the Palestinian side? Until the Palestinians get their own house in order under common leadership with the authority to make and sell a deal to their people, there will simply be no peace, no matter what Israel does.
JD,
My opinion is that the only way the US can make things better in Iraq is through partition. However, barring that, I think a nominal US presence will be required to keep things from getting worse and, more importantly, to keep Iraq’s neighbors from direct intervention.
And that’s one reason why I get annoyed with the false dichotomy of “support the war” or “against the war.” Iraq is not so simple as that and this conflict is too complex for such generics. Personally, I support a significant drawdown of forces. For the right wing, this makes me a “surrender monkey.” For the left wing, this makes me a Bushitler war supporter. ISTM the best, and most likely, course of action lies between those two extremes which is probably why most candidates support a continued, though different, presence in Iraq.
” I think a nominal US presence will be required to keep things from getting worse and, more importantly, to keep Iraq’s neighbors from direct intervention”
Entropy – What evidence do you have that the US can do a better job with a reduced force than Iran could do in helping the Shia and Saudia Arabia and Syria and Jordan could do helping out in the Sunni areas? I say let the Iraqis go to their natural constituencies, either in a confederation or as smaller soverign countries.
Perhaps I’m wrong but I believe Iran and the Saudis will do better at helping Iraqis than the US can do. They know and understand the people. If our interest is in the actual Iraqi people is paramount I vote for Iran and Saudia Arabia. If geopolitical concerns are more important than the people of Iraq, the US should stay.
Helping out? Do you think Iran and Saudi Arabia will peacably assist their factions in rebuilding, etc.? Or, do you mean actively supporting each side in a full-blown civil war characterized by ethnic cleansing? It seems to me the latter is the likely scenario since ethnic cleansing is happening now. Iran is already arming its proxiesto a limited extent – if we leave Anbar and Sunni areas of Baghdad unprotected the Saudi’s will feel compelled to do the same. The danger is that such a situation could escalate into open intervention and possible war between Iran and the GCC.
I agree that the Iraqi’s should go to their natural constituencies, but there is much mixing at the margins and it seems quite unlikely that borders could be amicably established by the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
domajot – Why wouldn’t Iran help rebuild the Shia areas? It would help them solidify a long term relationship with the Iraqi Shia. Iran provided the money for Hezballah to rebuild Shite homes in Southern Lebanon for the same reason.
The ethnic cleansing has been going on for a couple years and Baghdad is almost completely Shia now (80%+) and within a year will be complete. I suspect we are closing in on defacto sectarian states now and that will be the ultimate conclusion. I don’t see a war breaking out between Iran and the Iraqi Shia against the Saudis and Itaqi Sunni. Each side will be armed to the teeth and there is nothing Iran wants in Anbar or Diyala provinces and would not fight the Sunnis for it. The Saudis and the Sunnis would not stand a chance of taking over the Iraqi Shia areas, especially with Irans help.
The ethnic cleansing between Shia and Sunnis will be complete by the end of 2008 (in my estimation). However, that still leaves the upcoming fight between the Kurds and the Sunni over Kirkuk and the surrounding oil resources. That battle will rage all next year and for several years after that.
Iraq will be what Iraq will be. All we can do is watch from a safe distance or watch close in with a constant drip of our casualties.
Entropy – The Saudis military is the best Arab army money can buy, but the training level and will to fight are questionable. The fighters and tanks collect dust, while US defense contractors make huge profits on Saudis armaments. The Iranians are better fighters, but their armaments are old US 1970′s jets and reverse engineered old Soviet weapons. They have purchased some things from the Chinese and Russians, but so what, Egypt, Jordan and Egypt have second tier modern US weapons. The Iraqis will have to fight it out.
Right now the south is going through a Shia power struggle, over which criminal gang.militia gains control. What did the British do to make Basra a success?
Rudi,
The Saudi’s will not be giving their F-15′s to Iraqi Sunnis just as Iran has not given advanced weapons to the Shia. Such hardware is not necessary to support proxies in Iraq. One only has to look at Hezbollah and Lebanon during the 1980′s to see what’s possible in Iraq. Lebanon, like Iraq, is a multi-sectarian state where the various sects receive material assistance from outside powers. It can happen in Iraq as well.