“Iraq may be on path to civil war, CIA officials warn.”
I don’t want yet another round of “Jane, you ignorant slut” on the Iraq war. This was one of the things I feared, but we didn’t know and don’t know still what will happen. I just hope they’re wrong.
What to do next? Again, I don’t know. I’m not an expert or even a well-educated non-expert on this, and it’s hard trying to think of solutions when you’ve been pessimistic about the whole enterprise from the start. I’ve never had any patience for the cut-and-run splinter of the former antiwar movement, and I have serious doubts about the U.S. transition plan. But I also don’t believe this, from Tacitus a few days ago:
“If our principle partners in the war and occupation — supposedly the ones with the more colonial experience — are publicly presenting a disunited front, then, barring an American willingness to inflict serious wartime horrors on defiant Shi’a, the occupation is over….
The dreaded end won’t come because we were unwisely strong. It will come because we were unwisely weak. Remember that.”
Juan Cole offers this suggestion:
“What I don’t understand is why they don’t just have elections for two houses of parliament. Go back to the old Saddam scheme of 19 provinces (he had created an extra one for Sunnis) and give each province 2 senators. Such a senate would slightly over-represent Sunnis and might help mollify them and convince them that the Shiite-dominated lower house would not be able to excercise a tyranny of the majority. Another benefit of such a province-based senate is that it would give Kurds an incentive to want several provinces instead of just one.”
I’ve no idea if that would work, but it’s at least as good a suggestion as anything else I’ve heard.
It think it’s pretty obvious that Bremer and the U.S. are no longer driving events — it’s Sistani and the hundred thousand Shia he can apparently put in the streets in both Basra AND Baghdad.
Just when I finally managed to get myself envisioning positive outcomes in Iraq, Tacitus went all gloomy. Ugh.
I have this feeling that it’s a serious possibility now…and nothing short of a diplomatic masterstroke is going to avert it.
I really hope someone’s doing very long-term contingency plans on all hell breaking loose in the ME.
I have to say, between this and “weapons of mass destruction related program activities” and the blithe, casual talk about the draft on Tacitus, today I feel:
1. like Cassandra
2. furious.
I don’t know whether they were deceiving themselves or just us, and I don’t know which is worse.
Sorry, I know this isn’t very helpful, but for God’s sake. And people still talk like Clark and Dean are these raving appeasers for thinking this might be a bad idea.
Katherine,
definitely deceiving themselves…I think they are true believers, but with this odd dedication to “practicality” that enables them to bend when necessary…it only looks like they have no conviction of values from where those opposed to the war stand,.
I think two things are at work. One is a natural resistance to admitting one is wrong and holding out until the last possible moment for a sign that things will turn around, and the other is a conviction that Bush, himself, is important in the WoT and that any significant change of course has to look like he caused it, because appearing to be in command is very important here.
Neither helps me believe we’re going to come out of this one in better shape than we went in, but I’m determined to not let the Iraqi’s take the fall for our lack of planning…we said we’d give them a government they can live with (more than that actually, but I’d settle for that at this point), and to leave them to whatever new horror anything less might bring is simply not an option.
For me that’s the only way to justify the innocent lives this war took. I reserve the right to say the cost is too high if it comes to that, but the one thing I’ve been able to agree with the Tacitians is that now that we’re in Iraq we have to see it through.
I know we can’t leave. There’s still a decent chance Iraqis will be better off when all is said and done, and that’s worth something. I’m about ready to give up on us being better off than if we hadn’t gone in, but that milk is long since spilt.
Let’s just sit back and look at this a while, before you get all panicked.
First, this is the CIA. Yep, the same CIA that didn’t know whether Iraq had divested itself of WMDs or not. And still doesn’t.
Second, these are the Shiites. Less well-armed than a decade ago, and in the presence of a much stronger military force. The only thing that makes this an even remote possibility is that we’ll (unlike Hussein) refrain from just killing all of them that we can get our hands on.
The CIA officers’ bleak assessment was delivered orally to Washington this week, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified information involved.
Third, this is, once again, the CIA, divulging supposedly classified information to the newspapers. This is credible how, again?
There might be something to this, but I’m for waiting and seeing before I go all doom-and-gloom. I’m going to assume that it’s not extremely hopeful doom-and-gloom on the part of you and Edward, Katherine. That would just be wrong.
You assume, and yet you imply that it might be–with no basis at all for doing so–and reprimand us just in case.
I’m going to assume that it’s not extremely hopeful doom-and-gloom on the part of you and Edward, Katherine. That would just be wrong.
Slarti,
you should back up that passive-agressive accusation…playing it both ways by rubbing the protesters’ faces in it when things are going well, but pulling the patriot card and daring them to say “I told you so” when things are not going well is a bit too transparent to concede you the moral high-ground without some more concrete evidence you deserve it.
“First, this is the CIA. Yep, the same CIA that didn’t know whether Iraq had divested itself of WMDs or not. And still doesn’t.”
That includes the Bush Administration, you know. Cheney still says that it’s not a closed issue, despite the fact that Kay’s team has withdrawn. Apparently if there still are Iraqi WMDs, it’s okay to not bother searching for them.
“Second, these are the Shiites. Less well-armed than a decade ago, and in the presence of a much stronger military force. The only thing that makes this an even remote possibility is that we’ll (unlike Hussein) refrain from just killing all of them that we can get our hands on.”
Less well-armed, but with a religious leader and a foe unwilling and politically unable to suppress a true popular revolt.
“Third, this is, once again, the CIA, divulging supposedly classified information to the newspapers. This is credible how, again?”
Except it’s not just the CIA. David Ignatius, a prowar Wolfowitz admirer, reports:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30722-2004Jan20.html
“The most worrisome sign of the deteriorating situation is that many Iraqis are quietly preparing for civil strife. People are talking about ways to get out of the country; they are drawing closer to their ethnic and religious communities …
The worst may be yet to come. Each of the main stakeholders in Iraq’s future — the Shiite Muslims, the Sunni Muslims and the Kurds — has been battling to lock in its own gains, at the expense of the nation as a whole. Even senior U.S. officials talk about the danger that Iraq may be slipping toward civil war.”
Emphasis on “senior U.S. officials”.
“I’m going to assume that it’s not extremely hopeful doom-and-gloom on the part of you and Edward, Katherine. That would just be wrong.”
Yes, yes, people who were against the Iraq War are all traitors who cheer every dead American soldier. You’ve found us out. *yawn*
You assume, and yet you imply that it might be–with no basis at all for doing so–and reprimand us just in case.
Admittedly, yes. I confess I was targeting Edward with that remark more than you, Katherine. Sorry if you got splattered. I’ll apologize to Edward, too, if he says it isn’t so.
you should back up that passive-agressive accusation…playing it both ways by rubbing the protesters’ faces in it when things are going well, but pulling the patriot card and daring them to say “I told you so” when things are not going well is a bit too transparent to concede you the moral high-ground without some more concrete evidence you deserve it.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, Edward. What protesters? Which rubbing faces in what, exactly? This isn’t even about things not going well. Read again, and comprehend this time.
I’m not auditing my statement, Slarti.
You said you’d apologize. I meet the requirments and will accept your statement in iambic pentameter.
That includes the Bush Administration, you know. Cheney still says that it’s not a closed issue, despite the fact that Kay’s team has withdrawn. Apparently if there still are Iraqi WMDs, it’s okay to not bother searching for them.
One point lost on you. The quality of CIA intel in Iraq has suddenly changed in the last year or so?
Less well-armed, but with a religious leader and a foe unwilling and politically unable to suppress a true popular revolt.
Is there an echo in here?
Except it’s not just the CIA. David Ignatius, a prowar Wolfowitz admirer, reports:
Reading the entire article, I find Ignatius much less obsessed and worried about the possibility of civil war than you portray him as being. Him being pro-war or an admirer of Wolfowitz doesn’t carry any weight with me.
Yes, yes, people who were against the Iraq War are all traitors who cheer every dead American soldier. You’ve found us out.
I have no idea what you’re attempting to say, here, considering that I’ve never once said anything remotely resembling that.
Ok, Edward, I was out of line. My apologies.
I’d (by way of apology) buy you the drink of your choice at the bar of your choice, except for the distance factor.
Apology humbly accepted.
By the way, some Tacitians are congregating in NYC in October for just such an occasion (buying me drinks, if they lose the bet)…you’re more than welcome to join the party.
“I’ve never had any patience for the cut-and-run splinter of the former antiwar movement”
Hey, I resemble that remark! 😉
“For me that’s the only way to justify the innocent lives this war took. I reserve the right to say the cost is too high if it comes to that, but the one thing I’ve been able to agree with the Tacitians is that now that we’re in Iraq we have to see it through.”
Edward, is it at least possible that we cannot meaningfully “see it through?” That is, that our continued presence causes at least as much instability as it prevents? Could there be limits on what is POSSIBLE for the US to accomplish in Iraq that fall well short of whatever seeing it through means to you or Katherine or anyone else?
Jim,
I tried to express that a dedication to our obligation should not have a cost that outweighs what good it would bring (which is a rather awkward way of saying, we should be reasonable in this), but that we do have an obligation here.
Well, I’m not a “pay any price, bear any burden” sort, there could come a time when withdrawal becomes the least bad option. But I’m not there yet.
Classy of Tacitus to call unwillingness to inflict ‘wartime horrors’ on the Shi’a unwise. Besides the fact that it’s patently untrue, it’s creepy.
My ever-tenuous relationship with Tac’s site grows tenuouser.
OW is a comfortable port of call in these stormy times.
“For me that’s the only way to justify the innocent lives this war took”
Edward, don’t ever play poker.
This is the mindset of people who, the more they lose, the more desperately they need to play to win back their blood money, and the more they lose.
Also, thank you for not saying ‘blood and treasure’.
Ya know, I’m probably repeating myself what with all the Tacitan cross-over here, but I’d guess Edward’s gonna win his bet. I’m coming to the opinion that we went in there with a list of “wins” that read something like these (in reverse order of importance and liklihood):
1. Create a free country that would challenge Iran and SA through its secularity and the rest of the ME economically to become better places for their people to live.
2. Create a single country that does not threaten Turkey and is strong enough to stand up to Iran or SA if need be.
3. Let the country break up into 2 or 3 countries too busy trying to get themselves together to bother anyone.
4. Find and destroy actual WMDs (I honestly think that not finding them has totally surprised the administration).
5. Find evidence of WMD production.
6. Gain a base in Iraq from which we can pressure SA by keeping oil flowing and launch future missions against other possible state sponsors of nuclear terrorism.
7. Even if we leave with no base in the ME (outside of Kuwait/Qatar), get rid of one guy in the region who while not involved in 9/11 directly, would have no compunction toward offering assistance to those willing to use WMDs against the US. And in the process, show the leaders in the area that we will not sit by while they arm terrorists with WMD. Make sure they know that there will be personal consequences for them no matter what kind of chaos their country falls into as a result.
I believe I neglected to apologize properly to Katherine.
No excuses, Katherine. Humbly, I beg your pardon. You’ve been nothing if not a voice of reason, and I was way out of line.
not a problem.