[Originally published in The Valley News.]
There are really only two options for America in Iraq. One is to “stay the course.” The other is to “cut and run.” That stark choice stems from the fact that Iraq has never existed as a real country.
It is often stated that if the United States were to cut and run, the “country” would devolve into civil war. That statement is quite true. It’s also true that no matter when we leave, Iraq will devolve into civil war. Our continued presence in Iraq will stifle, but will never end the longtime animosities that exist within that “country.”
The rationale for staying in Iraq is that the U.S. military surge, which does seem to be working, will give the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds time to settle their differences, create a harmonious government and find a way to establish and maintain the peace. That is the bet on which the Bush administration is laying all its coin, including the most important American treasure, the well being of U.S. soldiers.
Anyone who has even the slightest understanding of Iraq knows that the three main groups are unlikely to settle their differences. They have no reason to. Each seeks power at the expense of the others. Each has demands that the others will not meet. None is prepared to compromise. There will be no magical transformation of Iraq into a “democratic, Muslim state.” Worse than that, the odds of today’s Iraq ever becoming a real country are nil.
After the Mongol invasion of Mesopotamia (roughly the geographic area now called Iraq) in the 13th century, order was maintained by a series of repressive foreign rulers. A military coup in 1958 brought the first homegrown but still repressive, Iraqi rulers, and in 1968 the Arab Socialist (Bath) Party took over and controlled the country, still repressively, until the U.S. invasion in 2003. Throughout its history, order has been maintained by repressive governments — strictly by coercion and intimidation and often by terror.
This has been particularly true in the past century because leaders had to deal with the animosities between the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds. Left to their own devices, they would have taken each other on in a heartbeat. However, as long as America stays in Iraq, our presence will mitigate the conflict that is part of the historical fabric of life there. We are today’s purveyor of repressive order. We forcefully intervene to try to keep that order.
When America leaves an Iraq in which ethnic and religious differences are unsettled, more conflict will come. It doesn’t really matter how long we wait to leave. There is sure to be major loss of life. Iraq’s neighbors will get involved. Iran will support the Shia, Saudi Arabia and others will support the Sunnis. God knows what will happen to the Kurds! having already attacked the PKK, the Turks may well invade Iran’s Kurdish region. Whatever finally happens there, It is unlikely that any one of the three entities will prevail at the expense of the others. Their foreign sponsors and enemies won’t permit that. Remember, neither side prevailed in the recent Iran-Iraq war.
Ultimately, the conflict will run out of steam and the antagonists will then, and only then, sort out their differences and reach some sort of settlement. It’s possible that such a settlement could be reached before the needed catalyst. But that miracle can only happen with urging from the United States, something the Bush administration is clearly disinclined to do.
One can speculate endlessly on what such a solution would look like. It would almost certainly result in some sort of partition of what is today Iraq. It is equally certain not to be democratic and, given the IMPACTS of the U.S. invasion, it probably will be anti-American. Certainly, the longer we stay, the worse it will get. Wishful thinking will not alter that reality.
As sad and as horrible as it is to say, unless suppressed by a strong internal power such as Saddam Hussein, or by external power like the United States, conflict between the three major groups in today’s Iraq is inevitable and will remain so for years if not decades to come. The argument that we must maintain a military presence in Iraq until there is a “political solution” is absolutely absurd. If a solution is ever to come, which is highly unlikely, it will come only when there is no other alternative available. Until that time, the only contribution provided by the American troops is that they represent precisely such an alternative to a real solution.
So, the choice is starkly simple. Since the result is bound to be the same at virtually every point in the future, should we wait it out, or should we consider an early exit?
