Small Wars Journal

Iraq at Risk Again: How Did We Get Here So Fast?

Mon, 06/23/2014 - 6:49pm

Iraq at Risk Again: How Did We Get Here So Fast? By Connie Cass, Associated Press

It's crumbling so quickly: Just 2 1/2 years after American troops came home, Iraq is back in crisis.

And chaos in Iraq, a diverse nation that stands as a buffer zone between the mostly Sunni Mideast and mostly Shiite Iran, is troubling around the world.

There were plenty of warnings, of course.

A look at how we got here…

Read on.

Comments

Bill C.

Tue, 06/24/2014 - 12:29pm

How did we get here so fast?

By basing our actions in Iraq (and Afghanistan, and Egypt, and Syria, and Libya, and, and, and ... ) on our invalid ethnocentric premise, to wit: the so-called "universal values" premise, which suggested that:

a. If one were to "liberate" post-Cold War populations from their "oppressive" regimes,

b. Then these populations would, quickly, easily and mostly on their own:

1. Throw off their old, outdated ways of thinking; their old, outdated ways of life; and their old, outdated ways of governance and, in the place of these

2. Adopt modern western "universal" ways of thinking, life, governance, etc.

Such would not be the case.

Rather what occurred when these regimes were overthrown -- or compromised -- by our post-Cold War "universal values" concepts and actions was:

1. States tending to divide, disintegrate or otherwise be thrown into chaos.

2. States and societies allying themselves with our enemies (example with Iran) and/or

3. State and societies tending to order, organize and orient their ways of thinking, their ways of life and/or their ways of governance along lines which were even more detrimental to Western interests (for example: along Islamist lines).

Thus, if one asks "How did we get here so fast?," I believe that the "invalid premise" argument I have provided above should be considered.

Lesson Learned?

Absolutely, positively do not overthrow or compromise the so-called "oppressive" regimes.

Why?

Because these folks provide both (1) an invaluable, often irreplaceable service and (2) an invaluable, often irreplaceable capability:

The invaluable, often irreplaceable SERVICE that these oppressive regimes provide is that they (by whatever means) hold their states together.

The invaluable, often irreplaceable CAPABILITY that these oppressive regimes provide (via whatever means) is their ability to transform their state and society -- more along modern western lines -- without (a) significant cost to the United States and (b) with less chance of state and societal breakdown. (See the transformation that occurred, for example in Russia, China and Vietnam, via their standing [and not overthrown or compromised] regimes.)

QED?

Sparapet

Tue, 06/24/2014 - 10:26am

In reply to by Ned McDonnell III

Yeah...Perhaps we should use this event as a litmus test. If one is in the national security business and one is surprised by Iraq's unwinding, then one should promptly retire and never be heard from again. In fact, Congress should pass a law to that effect.

Ned McDonnell III

Tue, 06/24/2014 - 7:45am

I am not sure that the pace is "so fast". Saigon fell twenty-seven months after the ink had dried on the Paris peace accords. Like the former South Viet Nam, the administration of P.M. al-Maliki is fraught with corruption and has never attained the legitimacy required for a government to sustain its rule.