30/08: The Futures of Iraq: Guest Post by Martian Mariner
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
In response to Farmer's post and comment on Bush's legacy being Iraq, MM made the following comment.
I didn't mean to hijack your post, Farmer, but I'll go ahead and answer your question, with another question, of course. Salvageable for whom? For Bush? No. It's not going to happen in time for him to get credit. It falls to Bush to have the legacy of getting us into the mess of Iraq, not for fixing it.
The more important question, when it comes right down to it, is "Is Iraq salvageable for the Iraqis?" I'm torn on this one. Part of me wants to say no, for many reasons. One of these is that the concept of an "Iraqi" is only 60 years old, which may not be enough of a history to draw upon in an effort to reunite, especially in a region united by tribe and religion before political idealogy or "national" sentiments as the West views them. Another reason is that the US screwed up the country beyond repair. I'm not going to get into the initial invasion, but just say that our conduct of the occupation since then has been atrocious. We have spent far too much time, money, political capital, and American and Iraqi lives on first "shock and awe" and then "boots on the ground". We should have had the primary focus of maintaining Iraq as a nation-state, with functioning infrastructure and a viable economy. A third reason would be the exodus of the very Iraqis most likely to salvage Iraq. The number of Iraqi professionals - doctors, engineers, lawyers, diplomats - who have fled the violence of Baghdad for the security of cities from Damascus to Detroit has drained the nation of too many skilled workers. The repair of the country, if it happens, will be done by outsiders, or, maybe, by returned Iraqis. But not soon.
So the side of me that wants to say yes does so very reluctantly. I said that it might be salvageable for the Iraqis, but we could still go about this in a couple of different ways. If the interests of the US are held paramount, than we should stay, investing far more than we are now. We would have to maintain our current troop levels, and double our spending, ensuring that all of the additional spending goes to restructuring Iraq, rather than to security. Encourage the return of Iraqis, promote the rule of law, implement piecemeal market reforms (gently...), repair means of oil production, ensure distribution of wealth. Done by us. It might work. Maybe.
Or, we could leave. This might be the best for individual Iraqi citizens, just not for the nation. It's hard to worry about repairing your country's legal system when you're worried about your neighbor killing you. I'm not saying that if we left, the killing would stop. It would probably continue for quite some time, and Iraq would never look the same. I think it would gradually partition, much like India and Pakistan, along religious lines. Whether they were officially separate countries or not, Shiite would cease to mix with Sunni, and the Kurdish independence movement would continue to slog ahead. The Shiite south might become an Iranian satellite, ruled by JAM. The Sunni Triangle+ might be harshly ruled by AQI. US interests would suffer, to say the least - our enemies would have gained new territory, our oil would be cut off (or left in the ground), and we'd risk losing what few allies we have in the region. But the average Iraqi citizen? He might go back to his plow, shop, or practice, since he could leave his family at home, surrounded by neighbors who think like him, protected by dangerous men who are also connected to him.
I didn't mean to hijack your post, Farmer, but I'll go ahead and answer your question, with another question, of course. Salvageable for whom? For Bush? No. It's not going to happen in time for him to get credit. It falls to Bush to have the legacy of getting us into the mess of Iraq, not for fixing it.
The more important question, when it comes right down to it, is "Is Iraq salvageable for the Iraqis?" I'm torn on this one. Part of me wants to say no, for many reasons. One of these is that the concept of an "Iraqi" is only 60 years old, which may not be enough of a history to draw upon in an effort to reunite, especially in a region united by tribe and religion before political idealogy or "national" sentiments as the West views them. Another reason is that the US screwed up the country beyond repair. I'm not going to get into the initial invasion, but just say that our conduct of the occupation since then has been atrocious. We have spent far too much time, money, political capital, and American and Iraqi lives on first "shock and awe" and then "boots on the ground". We should have had the primary focus of maintaining Iraq as a nation-state, with functioning infrastructure and a viable economy. A third reason would be the exodus of the very Iraqis most likely to salvage Iraq. The number of Iraqi professionals - doctors, engineers, lawyers, diplomats - who have fled the violence of Baghdad for the security of cities from Damascus to Detroit has drained the nation of too many skilled workers. The repair of the country, if it happens, will be done by outsiders, or, maybe, by returned Iraqis. But not soon.
So the side of me that wants to say yes does so very reluctantly. I said that it might be salvageable for the Iraqis, but we could still go about this in a couple of different ways. If the interests of the US are held paramount, than we should stay, investing far more than we are now. We would have to maintain our current troop levels, and double our spending, ensuring that all of the additional spending goes to restructuring Iraq, rather than to security. Encourage the return of Iraqis, promote the rule of law, implement piecemeal market reforms (gently...), repair means of oil production, ensure distribution of wealth. Done by us. It might work. Maybe.
Or, we could leave. This might be the best for individual Iraqi citizens, just not for the nation. It's hard to worry about repairing your country's legal system when you're worried about your neighbor killing you. I'm not saying that if we left, the killing would stop. It would probably continue for quite some time, and Iraq would never look the same. I think it would gradually partition, much like India and Pakistan, along religious lines. Whether they were officially separate countries or not, Shiite would cease to mix with Sunni, and the Kurdish independence movement would continue to slog ahead. The Shiite south might become an Iranian satellite, ruled by JAM. The Sunni Triangle+ might be harshly ruled by AQI. US interests would suffer, to say the least - our enemies would have gained new territory, our oil would be cut off (or left in the ground), and we'd risk losing what few allies we have in the region. But the average Iraqi citizen? He might go back to his plow, shop, or practice, since he could leave his family at home, surrounded by neighbors who think like him, protected by dangerous men who are also connected to him.
an okie gardener wrote: