Who Lost Iraq?: And How to Get it Back by Emma Sky, Foreign Affairs
Republicans and Democrats each share some of the blame for the situation in Iraq -- the former for the way in which the United States entered the country and the latter for the way in which it left. It was only between 2007 and 2009 that the United States had a coherent strategy in Iraq, matched with the right leadership and the necessary resources. The current turmoil dates back to just after that period, to 2010, after Iraq's second post-Saddam national election.
At that time, some senior officials argued that the United States should uphold the constitutionally mandated right of the winning bloc, Iraqiya, headed by Ayad Allawi, to have the first go at trying to form a government. They maintained that the United States should actively help broker an agreement among Iraqi elites to form the new government and warned of the already apparent autocratic tendencies of Nouri al-Maliki, the incumbent prime minister.
Other officials argued that Maliki, despite his narrow electoral defeat, was the only conceivable Shia leader who could hold the position. He was also, they said, a friend of the United States who would agree to allow the United States to maintain a small contingent of forces in Iraq after 2011, when the existing agreement between the two countries expired. In the end, it was Iran that stepped in and, by pressuring the Sadrists to support Maliki, secured him a second premiership. The price Iran extracted from Maliki was his support for the removal of all U.S. forces…
Comments
From a Washington Post Article:
"Possible Kurdish secession
U.S. officials traveling with Kerry, who arrived late Tuesday in Brussels for a NATO meeting, said he had raised the question of possible Kurdish secession during his hour-long session with Barzani, but that most of their discussion focused on strategy to form a new Iraqi government.
In an interview, Kerry was asked about Barzani’s “new reality” remark.
“A united Iraq is a stronger Iraq, and our policy is to respect the territorial integrity of Iraq as a whole,” Kerry told NBC."
Perhaps it is time to change our policy and start to deal with reality. Unless the current government in Iraq is replaced with a vicious dictator who can force all three sides into submission, it might be best to help three new countries form with the minimum of chaos and bloodshed rather than fighting against that outcome to the bitter end, effectively expanding the Syrian civil war into Iraq.
MF, I am unsure if the Saudis or any other GCC country would mount any military action into Iraq minus some sort of dire threat against them (and ISIS might be that dire threat). Of the Saudi officers that brought up Iraq, a few expressed a guarded admiration for Saddam because, in their words, he was "a strong leader who kept everyone under control". Several Iraqi & Saudi military leaders that I spoke with felt that Iraq needed a strong-man like Saddam and the fact that the country went to "merde" after our arrival validated their claim (for them).
I'm not saying that the Saudis will get involved. But given recently publicized disagreements between the USA and KSA, indicators that KSA may start acting in ways not consistent with US wishes, & the fact that KSA tends to be quite supportive of Sunnis outside of KSA, it seems prudent to take Saudi perspectives into consideration when looking at what is going on in Iraq and the growing involvement of Iran.
Qatar was involved in Libya in 2011, UAE has assisted with US efforts in Afghanistan; KSA may be thinking of taking advantage of the recent successes of their Gulf allies & decide that it is in their collective interest to invoke the Peninsular Shield program to counter the ISIS/ Iran "threat". But that is just guess-work on my part.
<blockquote>But it is not the borders that are the root of the problems of these countries. It is the political leadership, which has failed to develop inclusive and robust states. Grievances against the governments of Maliki and Bashar al-Assad in Syria have created the environment in which ISIS can prosper. And, ironically, although the ISIS has railed against national divisions, the tensions between its international jihadist agenda and the nationalist agendas of most Sunni groups will inevitably create friction and infighting. For now, though, ISIS will find plenty of Sunnis willing to join the fray.</blockquote>
This paragraph's first sentence is completely wrong and perhaps a vestige of a British citizen unwilling to take responsibility for poorly drawn borders that they should have never been involved with in the first place because colonialism was wrong.
The rest of the quoted paragraph is true but so what. The article's last paragraph seemingly implies that some manner of inclusive government could <strong>actually</strong> exist. In an "Iraq" that is 60% Shiite, 20% Sunni, and 20% Kurd in fairly non-intermixed areas the Shiites would always dominate politically if one country remains. The big problems appear to be how to divide oil money, sea access, and big intermixed cities if "Iraq" was divided. However T-barrier enclaves and a Berlin-like approach could solve those issues. As for the oil issue, what if we get Saudi Arabia and the GCC Sunni countries involved to defend their own Sunni interests?
Morgan, since I recall you had something to do with training Saudi forces, do you think the Saudis and GCC could ever be convinced to mount a military ground campaign into current Sunni areas of Iraq and Syria using U.S. airpower and attack/assault helicopter/drone support? The purpose as you articulate would be to establish stable control of Sunni areas without having to convince Shiite Iraq or Kurdish areas to give up control of their oil. Areas of Syria and Iraq could greatly benefit Saudi Arabia by allowing a oil pipeline to Turkey and water pipelines south to Saudi Arabia.
I know this sounds Machiavellian but the Saudis must be wondering if they are next if ISIS seizes Sunni areas of Iraq and Syria. Isn't a stable kingdom-dominated "caliphate" preferable to one controlled by extremists? Wouldn't Israel be able to accept a Saudi-dominated Sunni territory that includes parts of Syria and Iraq? We don't want to be the air force for the Shiites and Iranians as many well known pundits pointed out on Sunday talk shows. However, being the air force and helicopter/drone capability for moderate Sunnis against ISIS would show Sunnis we are not one-sided in favoring Shiite Iraq and ignoring the plight of Sunnis in Syria.
Would Maliki and Assad accept this? Given their own problems with ISIS, I would submit that if approached diplomatically they might accept a Saudi and GCC military intervention into certain pre-arranged areas. If they did object, so what? ISIS already has de facto control of many areas without any Syrian or Iraqi Army presence. Now that Syria has given up most of their chemical weapons our airpower could dominate them rather easily.
Who lost Iraq? The obvious answer is “the Iraqis, specifically, its current leader”. US politicians on both sides of aisle may have played a role but ultimately, the Iraqis squandered any positive momentum they had when the US left in 2011 and allowed everything to go to crap.
How to get it back? From who? ISIS? Who will do it? Does anyone outside of Iraq really need to “get it back”? After all, I think one could legitimately argue (as many are doing) that the Iraqi government kicked us out so the problem is theirs to solve. Why do we need to play a role?
Then again, the issue in Iraq could be viewed as part of a region-wide problem (as explained by Ms Sky) that could eventually involve Iranian and Saudi military action, potentially spilling over into Jordan, possibly even drawing in Turkey in the north. If the current situation devolved to this extreme, it is quite possible that this scenario would also turn the Persian (Arabian) Gulf into a Sunni-Shia shooting gauntlet, severely impacting global oil supply operations, and adversely affecting still-recovering economies….worst-case scenario that could merit US / western involvement.
Should the US decide to “get Iraq back from ISIS”, perhaps consideration ought to be given to suggestions that many US military personnel heard from Iraqi military & security leaders during OIF. It was not uncommon for Iraqi leaders to ask us “Why didn’t you (the US) just take over after getting rid of Saddam?”. It was my impression that the Iraqi leaders and officers were genuinely surprised that we didn’t simply take over the country after we routed their army and deposed Saddam. They seemed to feel that control would have been maintained and security improved.
Politicos are rightly advocating for the replacement of Mr Maliki, but are there any Iraqi leaders that all three major groups would accept? Maybe one option would be to replace the current Iraqi leadership with US / western leaders (occupation government/ UN interim government) as we are viewed as being unbiased towards Sunnis, Shia, & Kurds and would play fair. Another option might be to turn all of Iraq into “Greater Kurdistan” since the Kurds seem to be able to effectively govern.
Maybe another option would be to go in the opposite direction and encourage the controlled break-up of Iraq into three separate countries officially aligned towards Iran, Saudi Arabia, and an independent Kurdistan, or encourage the expansion of Iran to the west, Saudi Arabia to the north, and an independent Kurdistan.
I’m not too keen on sending US forces back into Iraq as I feel their current crisis is a self-generated one and, therefore, their responsibility. But if we do re-engage there, we may need to look hard at some extreme solutions if this area is to be brought under control….and I don’t think anyone in our country really wants to do that.