It’s no secret, right?
Iraq is clearly either headed for or already entangled in a bloody guerrilla civil war. America has failed and there is little point to staying in Iraq any longer.
This mentality seems to be capturing both sides of the political spectrum, with the left triumphantly wagging their fingers “I told you so,” and the right sheepishly whispering mea culpa (see: Francis Fukuyama, George Will, William F. Buckley etc.).
Regardless of whether invading Iraq and toppling Saddam was a mistake, there’s no question it would be a grave error to throw our arms up in the air and declare Iraq a lost cause.
Admittedly, Iraq is in shambles. To vastly oversimplify, after the majority (and previously persecuted) Shia militias rose to positions of power and began to oppress their former Sunni superiors, marginalized and frightened Sunnis went the terror route in order to disrupt the democratic process, a tactic to which Shiite militias have responded in kind, resulting in what seems like an endless cycle of sectarian violence. There’s little use in pointing fingers now, whether at ourselves, at the insurgency, or at Iraqi leaders. Rather, we need to take a hard look at the facts on the ground, weigh our options, and from there, pursue a policy.
Firstly, is civil war in Iraq inevitable (or already occurring)? And if so,can we do anything about it?
That depends on who you ask. Our ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, President Bush, and recent top political leaders in Iraq (Prime Minister al-Jaafari, Talabani), vehemently deny such an idea. Meanwhile, political columnists and talking heads seem to scream daily that Iraq is irrevocably engulfed in all-out civil war. That’s probably somewhat of a doomsday approach. Iraq is certainly teetering on the brink of war—it would be overly optimistic to say otherwise—but there is still a diverse government in place in Iraq. The problem is it has no power nor is it considered especially legitimate. Still, the very fact that the most powerful and public Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, are clearly expressing their desire to avert civil war and continue the democratic process cannot be ignored. For the situation in Iraq to truly merit being labeled a “civil war,” these leaders will need to have resigned themselves to such a fate as well. As for the question of whether we could help: no, America most likely would not be able to do anything substantially positive if civil war broke out in Iraq.
Secondly, if civil war does become the reality for Iraq, would that really be such a bad thing?
According to a recent column titled “Let Them Have Their Civil War” published in The Washington Post by Professor Caleb Carr, the answer to that question is a definitive no. He defends the Shiite treatment of the Sunnis as understandable and just, and then impugns America’s right to interfere anyway:
“Not only is it impossible for Americans to stand in the way of an internal Iraqi balancing of the scales, it also reeks of hypocrisy. We went to Iraq, according to our president, to make Iraqis free. If that is so, and if their first decision as a free people is to declare war upon one another, just as Americans once did, where do we derive the right to tell them they may not? We cannot, again, condone genocide (we can even cut it short by keeping land and air units in the region); but neither can we any longer delay justice -- even if it is to be forcibly dispensed.”
There are plenty of others in the government, press, and academia echoing Carr’s view. They argue that allowing the various religio-political factions in Iraq to duke it out wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Carr, and those who agree with him, is utterly and dangerously wrong. If Iraq does spiral into civil war, not only will thousands of lives be lost, but the future government would almost certainly be an iron-fisted dictatorship. Such an embarrassment for America in the Middle East (Iraq being our baby) and such a triumph for terrorists and anti-Westerners would spell doom for democracy—beyond Israel—in the region. Conversely, success in Iraq would be a hugely symbolic and tangible victory for the U.S. as well as a possible coup de grace for the Islamo-fascist terrorist movement. Iraq may not have started out as the primary front for the war on terror, but it has certainly become it, and that makes the outcome of our activity there incredibly pivotal in how this conflict will play out. One simply cannot understate the importance of success in Iraq.
Having established that Iraq is not quite yet embroiled in civil war and that civil war must be avoided at all costs, what can America do to avert this disaster?
Well, as our increasingly less enthusiastic allies would say, therein lies the rub, right? It’s not too difficult to discern what needs to be accomplished in Iraq, but it is tremendously complex to implement. Essentially, the government needs to earn the trust of the Iraqi people. Polarizing figures like Jaafari must step down and Iraqi politicians in general must be willing to make substantial concessions to one another. The insurgency wants Iraq to be bogged down in civil war—that is their ultimate goal. They cannot be negotiated with. Given that, the Shia militias must be convinced to show restraint against their Sunni opponents, as difficult and unfair as it may seem to them. It is then in American hands to quell the insurgency, doubtless a trying but inevitable outcome.
It is for capable diplomats like Khalilzad to see that these goals are achieved. If they are impossible, so be it, but we must try. Caleb Carr wants to lecture about our moral rights to Iraq. Defeating the temptation to cut and run, above all else, is our responsibility and moral obligation to this hopefully nascent democracy.
