Saturday, February 24, 2007

Iraq and Counterinsurgency, Part One

I've been thinking about this post for a few weeks now and hope that the time has allowed me to gather my thoughts and write something that addresses the Iraq situation in a constructive manner. Jingoism on both sides of the aisle in Congress and simplistic and reactionary debate in the media hasn't gotten to the heart of what we face in Iraq. There are two major problems as I see things:

1. The current situation in Iraq is destabilizing the region and could lead to further conflicts in the near future.
2. It may be too little too late for the U.S. to address the situation in Iraq.

In this first post, I will begin with a few thoughts on the first point--I may return and address this more fully in the near future.

Instability in the Middle East

Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq there was a stalemate between Iran and Iraq--despite many years of conflict, neither ever really got the upper hand on the other and they were coexisting (the Iran-Iraq War lasted from 1980-1988). The same can be said of the greater Middle East--though there were certainly tensions between Israel and her neighbors and the Israel-Palestine situation was far from peaceful, this did not appear to be at a point that would erupt in broader conflict. Likewise, the internal situation in Iraq was 'contained,' in the sense that Hussein could not strike his neighbors and his ability to act internally was also constrained by the U.S. policy of containment. According to some estimates, Pres. Clinton's cruise missile attacks in the nineties were far more effective than thought at the time and came close to crumbling Hussein's government. ("Desert Fox actually exceeded expectations," wrote Kenneth Pollack in The Threatening Storm..."Saddam panicked during the strikes. Fearing that his control was threatened, he ordered large-scale arrests and executions, which backfired and destabilized his regime for months afterward." Fiasco, Thomas E. Ricks, p. 19)

Despite this relative stability, some policy-makers (particularly the neo-conservatives) thought that this stability was counter-productive and should be shaken up in order to advance American interests in the region. Post-9/11 and after the seemingly easy and successful operations in Afghanistan, these policy-makers turned their attention to the Middle East and Iraq. One of the goals of the neo-conservatives was to destabilize the region and to make it a more receptive ground for U.S. initiatives and for the pursuit of U.S. interests. If this is correct, they achieved the destabilization and in the process made the region actively anti-American rather than ambivalent towards the U.S. (This paragraph is largely speculative as I haven't had time to research it properly. I may return to it in the future. It is based on more reading from Fiasco--"I think--and this is just my opinion--that the neocons didn't really give a shit what happened in Iraq and the aftermath...Who cares? There's some bloodshed, and it's messy. Who cares? I mean, we've taken out Saddam. We've asserted our strength in the Middle East. We're changing the dynamic. We're now off the peace process as the centerpiece and we're not putting any pressure on Israel."--Fiasco, p. 87 quote from Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni.)

Regardless of whether or not policy-makers wanted to change the dynamic in the Middle East to upset the applecart, increase American influence in the region and make it less tenable for state-sponsors of terrorism, the region is less stable. There are reports of growing tensions between Sunni and Shia Moslems outside of Iraq's borders. The Sunni in Iraq are receiving support from Sunni-dominated nations (such as Saudi Arabia) and, as is more widely publicized, the Shia within Iraq are being supported by Iran. Removing the dynamic tension between Iran and Iraq has strengthened Iran's presence in the region and given President Ahmadinejad a platform for his extemist rhetoric. Additionally, the pressure on world oil markets has made Iran flush with cash and this has further increased its influence in the region and bankrolled its nuclear program.

No comments: