More Iraq Pessimism

A few articles sharing my skepticism that the end of Saddam means the end of conflict in Iraq. Mark Bowden of general bad-ass reporter fame writes in the Wall Street Journal that the problems in Iraq are the same as that of much of the world- the fact is, as nice as individual people may be, on a political level, there are a lot of places that are still pretty damned screwed up.

We Americans consistently underestimate the deep hatreds that divide people. Our political system is designed to wrestle peacefully with the divisions of race, class, ethnicity, religion and competing ideological or geographical interests, and has generally worked as intended--the Civil War being the one glaring exception. Generations have struggled to live up to ideals of tolerance and diversity. When we look out at the world, we tend to see millions longing to get past the blood feuds, to be, in short, more like us. George Bush and the neocon intellectuals who led us into Iraq are just the latest in a long line of evangelical Americanists. No matter how many times history slaps us in the face, the dream persists.

Nine years ago, in the epilogue to "Black Hawk Down," I quoted ... Michael Sheehan, ambassador for counter-terrorism as follows: "The idea used to be that terrible countries were terrible because good, decent, innocent people were being oppressed by evil, thuggish leaders. Somalia changed that. Here you have a country where just about everybody is caught up in the fighting. You stop an old lady on the street and ask her if she wants peace, and she will say, 'Yes, of course, I pray for it daily.' All the things you would expect her to say. Then ask her if she would be willing for her clan to share power with another to have that peace, and she'll say, 'With those murderers and thieves? I'd die first.' People in these countries . . . don't want peace. They want victory. They want power. Men, women, old, and young. Somalia was the experience that taught us that people in these places bear much of the responsibility for things being the way they are. The hatred and killing continues because they want it to. Or because they don't want peace enough to stop it."

... there is a principle here struggling to emerge: Before a state can exist where there are deep-rooted, competing interests, there must be some broadly accepted concept of a nation strong enough to at least compete with parochial interests. There must be some generally accepted idea of a nation.

Conservative pundit Dean Barnett agrees despite himself. Half-heartedly exaggerating the initial victory of the war, even Barnett concurs that sprinkling democracy into the Arab and Muslim world and expecting everything to work out is more than a little naive.

THE HOPE WHEN WE INVADED was that we’d be greeted with garlands of roses. To some extent, metaphorically speaking anyway, this worked out. The vast majority of Iraqis were in fact happy that we toppled Saddam. Other than Baathist dead-enders and several million suddenly skittish Sunnis, the country rejoiced.

The reason that those Sunnis were skittish, though, should have given us some pause. The problem with the “garlands of roses” metaphor was that it implied that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi body politic would be a proverbial piece of clay for America’s State Department wizards to shape and mold. Oh sure, the nascent Iraqi democracy would probably have screwy things like Kafiyehs and a constitutional clause dedicated to annihilating Israel, but the administration’s plans banked on the hope that the Iraqi people, above all else, would want to live in peace.

And that’s where the program parted with reality. The Islamic world hasn’t really excelled at living in peace over the past several decades. More specifically, Shiites and Sunnis have never been great in the peaceful coexistence department. Given the bad feelings that Iraq’s Shiites had after a few decades of abuse at the hands of Saddam’s Sunni henchmen, Iraq was a particularly problematic spot from which to launch what would have to be a historically harmonious Shiite/Sunni joint venture.

Angry Shiites can be a handful. One glance at Iran tells you all you need to know in that regard. For its part, Iraq’s Sunni population is no day at the beach and has more than its share of rabid elements. Bolstered by Al Qaeda fighters, the Sunni dead-enders soon became more problematic than ever.

WAS THIS ALL FORESEEABLE? Perhaps. I’d even say probably. It should have been obvious given even a cursory glance at Iraq and its neighbors that there would be a great number of people who, after Saddam fell, would have little interest in living in a peaceful, tolerant society.

None of this is to say that both the Sunni and Shiite communities aren’t full of good and wonderful people. But any serious appraisal of the situation has to take into account certain indisputable facts from the region: If Egypt had free elections, the Muslim Brotherhood would win. If Saudi Arabia had free elections, a Wahabist sect sympathetic to Osama bin Laden would win. A similar statement can be made of every country in the Middle East. (Except Israel, of course, where free elections are in fact held and Radical Islamic parties usually do quite poorly.)

SO WHY SHOULD IRAQ BE DIFFERENT? Perhaps a more pressing concern today is whether in fact Iraq is different. Things like the Saddam execution suggest the answer to the latter question is no. There is a deep undercurrent of savagery in the Iraqi culture that will not just inhibit the growth of a peaceful democracy there, but probably prohibit it.

Barnett concludes that the only answer is to fight even harder, and kill whoever needs killing.

How much killing will this take? That will depend on how many enemies of peace there are and how determined they are to live in a state of war. One thing's for certain - the more resolute we are, the less killing there will be.

Some might argue that we can’t get this done. But let us remember, the remnants of Imperial Japan came to embrace peaceful democracy. Eventually.

Sigh. Yeah Dean, all we need is a few good nukes and everything will be hunky-dory. Even Charles Krauthammer knows Iraq isn't sustainable- not the least because the Shiites' goals are to kill Sunnis, not join with them (and vice-versa). The only people with the slightest interest in NOT killing each other are the Kurds (and Turkey's planning to kick the crap out of them should they ever get their own country).

Krauthammer writes:

[Saddam's execution] was done on the first day of Eid al-Adha as celebrated by Sunnis. The Shiite Eid began the next day, which tells you in whose name the execution was performed.

It was also carried out extra-constitutionally. The constitution requires a death sentence to have the signature of the president and two vice presidents, each representing one of the three major ethnic groups in the country (Sunni, Shiite and Kurd). That provision is meant to prevent sectarian killings. The president did not sign. Nouri al-Maliki contrived some work-around.

True, Hussein's hanging was just and, in principle, nonsectarian. But the next hanging might not be. Breaking precedent completely undermines the death penalty provision, opening the way to future revenge and otherwise lawless hangings.

Moreover, Maliki's rush to execute short-circuited the judicial process that was at the time considering Hussein's crimes against the Kurds. He was hanged for the killing of 148 men and boys in the Shiite village of Dujail. This was a perfectly good starting point -- a specific incident as a prelude to an inquiry into the larger canvas of his crimes. The trial for his genocidal campaign against the Kurds was just beginning.

That larger canvas will never be painted. The starting point became the endpoint. The only charge for which Hussein was executed was that 1982 killing of Shiites -- interestingly, his response to a failed assassination attempt by Maliki's Dawa Party.

...The whole sorry affair illustrates not just incompetence but also the ingrained intolerance and sectarianism of the Maliki government. It stands for Shiite unity and Shiite dominance above all else.We should not be surging American troops in defense of such a government. This governing coalition -- Maliki's Dawa, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and Sadr's Mahdi Army -- seems intent on crushing the Sunnis at all costs.

So what's right? Do we betray our Iraqi allies and let them be killed? Or do we keep throwing ourselves on the grenade to try to slow down- forget even cleaning up- the mistake we made? At this point, it's starting to look like less and less Iraqis are interested in being Iraqi first and Sunni/Shiite/Kurd second. At what point does this overwhelm our goodwill? Should it?