Political reconciliation or security first in Iraq?

[NoStateofMind]

I tend to believe that political reconciliation would be best. With a politically united Iraq, security would come naturally. But trying to provide security first to sustain political advancements are futile, as they have been shown to be so far. Comments?


McCain seems a little off to me

 

[Lemon law]

In some ways I believe you are correct and it must be political first. But unfortunately, if my view of Iraq is correct, and what Iraq has devolved into is feudalism, a political solution is semi impossible without breaking the power of an almost infinite set of local fiefdoms.

And these local fiefdoms have had more than four years to set up and are the local reality for the largely uninvolved Iraqi population. And by now the various insurgencies have largely segregated the population of Iraq into camps that have already ethnically cleansed most of the opposition. So the local leaders can now concentrate in reaping the rewards of
power and control secure in the knowledge that the anarchy in Iraq will be somewhat permanent. With the trick being, not to directly confront any superior force such as the US military or even the Iraqi army. But when small groups of the same offer a target of opportunity, its their big chance to keep the pot of anarchy boiling.

And there Shinseki was right, its gonna take 500,000 troops to police the streets 24/7/365
or its a perpetual game of wackamole. Less than 500,000 troops just means the insurgencies will just lay low where the military concentrates and run wild everywhere else.

Meaning the key will be the uninvolved local population. When they can feel they have the 24/7/365 protection to fink out on the local war lords without signing their own death warrant, then the local insurgent leaders can be taken out one by one. Until then its hopeless.

Until then the best that can be hoped for is to have local Anbar type political victories where groups who bring violence down on the local population get the old heave ho. The problem is, you replace the violence by empowering even more entrenched fiefdoms that are ever more difficult to confront.

In the case of European feudalism it took the better part of a thousand years of bumping and grinding to evolve into what we think of a real country. And that would never have had
happened unless the local fiefdoms had been forced to ally together to repel a foreign foe.
But in Iraq, the US military keeps the foreign foe away so why should Iraq ever develop a
sense of national identity? Its probably going to be a matter of every little insurgency in it for themselves for a very long time.

 

[maluckey]

Lemon Law,

I agree with most all of your above statement. One part I disagree with after living here for quite some time, and in the business of interfacing directly with the Iraqi legal system is that Shinseki was not entirely correct. 500,000 troops would certainly have allowed those troops to stop people from whacking each other while the troops were there. However...unless the U.S. wanted to stay there for 60 years as in Germany, Shinseki was likely not on track in this particular matter.

What is going on is similar to a Hatfield v. McCoy type of fighting. Law enforcement for the short term only stops them from shooting at each other while they are there. As soon as they leave, it starts all over again.

Until a SECULAR and LOCAL law enforcement takes over. Nothing here is likely to change. It'll take several generations for the old wounds to heal over, and the United States doesn't have that sort of patience with this one.

 

[Fern]

Political reconciliation or security first in Iraq?

I'm sort'a of the opiniom it's a false question. If I had to chose, I'd say security first.

But what kind of security, or be secure against who? I believe that there are some groups who's primary objective is to prevent political reconciliation. AQ is an example (Iran another). When you have AQ running around stirring up sectarian fervor, such as bombing the historic/holy Shia mosque, I think you can basically forget about political reconcilliation.

Then you've got the Al Sadr -types, large home-grown groups. He seems to be working against any political reconciliation, particularly any that will marginalize him and his group.

Plus, any of these groups (AQ or Al Sadr) who may be directly attempting to undermine efforts at reconstructing infrastructure, such as oil and utiities, must be stopped. The reduction of government revenues and decrease of gov services to the common Iraqi all serve to minimize any desire on their part to see a political reconcilliation. When the gov has revenue and the provides basic services, I think the common Iraqi will be ar more interested in their government and likely to support it. Why support something ineffectual and inconsequencial?

OTOH, we may have some "Hatfield & McCoy" type stuff. Unless that is of extraordinary proportions, I don't think it will pose any challenge to achievng political reconciliation.

So, security is very important IMO.

Political reconcilliation? Our gov (State Dept) is pursuing a *top down* method and I'm not sure that is appropriate. Moreover, the *benchmarks* to track any political improvement were created by our State Dept. I'm not sure that they got these right.

I've heard that there is some political success. Very important stuff too, just not on the State Dept's list. Two elements indicating success are:

1. Money has started flowing from Bahgdad to other outlying areas. IMO, you tend to care more about the central gov when they are funding you. Why care about them, and support them, if you're getting nothing?

2. Sunni Bathists are quietly rejoining the gov and military. There's no offical (and controversial) *Amnesty program*, but they are quietly pursuimg it. That's a very effective way to reconcile, bring the other party into the *tent*.

And of course, we've all heard about the improvement at the tribal level. Particularly the Sunni's who are banding together and fighting AQ, instead of the Shia or each other.

I've begun believing the State Dept has made a mistake by focusing only at the top level for political reconcilliation, and should also work the *bottom up* reconcilliation. Perhaps developing a looser federation type gov structure where they can eventually begin co-operating on common national -type issues.

But there has been political progess, perhaps just not where, or how, we are looking for it.

Fern

 

[yowolabi]

Both at the same time. You're not going to organize a stable government in the middle of a war zone. You're also not going to unite people though a gun, unless it's against you. Progress must continuously happen on both fronts.

 

[Lemon law]

I still say its gotta be political because its almost impossible to break the powers of the insurgencies militarily. But there is something to be said for the yowolabi both at the same time.

 

[Jhhnn]

"Secular and local"... sounds like the Baathists... outlawed, naturally, to be replaced with the Iraqi's version of faith based initiative... and foreign born jihadis allowed access by the abolishment of the Iraqi govt, root and branch...

Heckuva job, Bushies, heckuva job...

Seems to me that the Admin would do well to heed your sig, Maluckey- as it is, they're arming all sides, backing nobody...

 

[Tab]

Political Reconciliation and Security in Iraq aren't two different things they're the same things.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Tab
Political Reconciliation and Security in Iraq aren't two different things they're the same things.

Bingo.

 

[palehorse]

They are most certainly related, but it's widely accepted that a higher degree of physical security must be achieved before any profound or final political reconciliation can occur.

We're getting there... in just a few more years, I believe the atmosphere will be much more conducive to establishing a genuinely stable central government.

As I always like to say: I'll be doing my part to make that a reality... will you?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
They are most certainly related, but it's widely accepted that a higher degree of physical security must be achieved before any profound or final political reconciliation can occur.

We're getting there... in just a few more years, I believe the atmosphere will be much more conducive to establishing a genuinely stable central government.

As I always like to say: I'll be doing my part to make that a reality... will you?

I disagree. They are going to happen in tandem, or not at all. The political problems are what are feeding the physical problems, unless we are willing to kill or lock up every Iraqi who has a beef, physical security alone is not a realistic goal. At the same time, political solutions are impossible when disagreements are much more easily solved with a bullet in the head. When the politics work, physical security can be achieved with much less effort. When the politics don't work, physical security seems difficult at best. Our problem in Iraq is that the government there is toothless and corrupt, and has been that way for too long. You can't force democracy to work, it's certainly not just a matter of superior firepower.

 

[maluckey]

Jhhnn,

I hear ya! That's my point. We are arming everyone both politically and militarily (by allowing local militias) then praying that they are the enemy of our enemies. Throwing dice as if they can't lose so to speak. Al Sadr was allowed to fester though he is wanted for Murder by the Iraqis. As a result JAM continues to be a major destabilizing factor in Baghdad. Graft and corruption run rampant throughout the Provinces, but without adequately trained police, courts and prisons....noting is done.

In the end we play all sides hoping to hedge the bet. I can't see how that's a good idea. Nor can I see how that fosters trust with ANY one group if they know that the U.S. plays all sides.

As far as the Baathists. The Baathist purge has been tamed for the moment over here, and now only the upper echelon are being purged. The ones who were members just to get a job are registered and allowed to continue their lives unhindered.

 

[Lemon law]

The other problem is that those who have the local fiefdoms also control the Iraqi government. And as long as they agree to disagree, there will be no real Iraqi central government to end their local fiefdoms.

The question is how long can this basic metric last? In theory forever, but something anything can send the country into civil or foreign war. The Kurds could well be the key. If they strike out for independence, Katie bar the door. The Kurds have already signed their own oil deal, but unless their oil money can buy them protection from Turkey, they may choose to sit on the fence and watch the oil deal vanish. If they feel the oil deal offers that chance, they may well reshuffle the entire deck.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

-snip-

.....but unless their oil money can buy them protection from Turkey, they may choose to sit on the fence and watch the oil deal vanish. If they feel the oil deal offers that chance, they may well reshuffle the entire deck.

Ahhh Yes. The oil might well give them a nice hand to play.

I think that there are two pipelines, either completed or in the works.

One passes through Turkey to the Mediteranean.

The other to bypass Turkey and goes into Israel at Hiafa.

Which would the Kurds choose? Who, and how, will they be rewarded for their choice?

Fern