The Lessons of Basra

Posted April 8, 2008 | 12:03 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

The Bush administration's refusal to recognize that Iraq is not one nation but is instead a tribal society has now gotten U.S. troops fighting for one Shia group in its efforts to marginalize another Shia group. The U.S. is now taking casualties and squandering billions warring not foreign fighters, Al Qaeda, insurgents, or even the Sunni minority (which supported Saddam) -- but with Shias against Shias. That is, the U.S. is now being dragged ever deeper into the killing fields of a civil war, taking sides, fighting to help one camp to settle a score with another faction on the same side!

The Bush administration claims that all it does is to impose the rule of the central, national government, based on a Shia majority, headed by Prime Minister Maliki -- against some local rebels. In actuality, it has become clear that Maliki fears that his faction will loose power in the forthcoming local elections and hence is using the U.S. troops to try to weaken his intra-Shia opposition, headed by Muqtada al-Sadr. In effect, Americans are now dying in Iraq to prevent democracy from having its way, fearing that the "wrong" people will get elected. (Muqtada al-Sadr has connections to Iran, but the same is true of Maliki).

Above all, the time is overdue for the U.S. to recognize that Iraq is not a normal nation. It was not composed by some national liberation movement that unified the tribes in the area in a joint effort to free themselves from a colonial power. On the contrary, Iraq was concocted by foreign powers, especially the British, in the 1920s, by throwing together some Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia groups which had precious little in common. The U.S. should now let each of these groups run its own turf, and then encourage them to work together in a very loose federation that leaves local matters -- including security -- to each group. This is already the case in Kurdish parts of the country and increasingly in many of the other areas in which only one ethnic group dominates. The few remaining mixed areas would need some international protections, as the Serbs, for instance, are granted in Kosovo.

One of the most often heard comments is that politics does not work in Iraq and that a political solution is needed. All this is true enough, but one reason politics does not work is that the U.S. keeps choosing sides and now is trying to promote by use of force one group over the other. Equally important, inter-tribal politics -- essential for Iraq -- works differently then electoral politics. Muqtada al-Sadr has not been elected by his Shia followers, but he speaks for them. Sunnis are ruled in part by Sheiks. Such Mullahs and tribal chiefs have their own way of doing business. It is futile, the last five years have shown, to try to insist they do politics our way.

The U.S. will be able to quickly and greatly reduce its footprint in Iraq if it lets the Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds take responsibly for their local affairs and lets them duke out their inter-faction fights with each other, on their own.

Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at The George Washington University and the author of Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy. For more on the subject, visit www.securityfirstbook.com He can be reached at comnet[at]gwu.edu.


Comments
7
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:

Iraq seems not terribly determined to exist. Being there has been instructive, a mirror of our own intransigence in politics. And the main argument is identical in nature if not in detail. It is about who gets the money, but then that is always what war and politics are about.

Give them fifty years and there will be no discernable difference, as in Palestine or in Washington. The die is cast and outrages are recorded, to be hashed and rehashed for lifetimes. Of the worlds successes, I look to American race relations, where a determined and enlightened few have made a life"s work of recharacterizing the subject to a point where our younger citizens no longer give it a thought. But we do not have a generation to continue occupying Iraq and the rule of law that would support a like effort is almost nonexistent.

The moral imperative of fixing what we broke may be the sole supportable rationale for remaining in Iraq. But on the other hand, while the Muslim world will blame us for the damage they simultaneously clamor for us to leave.

A three way split of Iraq seems inevitable as civil strife will drive populations to seek safe harbor with ethnic kin. It will happen more slowly if we remain longer than it would if we leave precipitously. A signal of American withdrawal will put Iraqis on notice that it is time to make demographic adjustments. Unfortunately, the oil in the ground can"t be moved.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:13 AM on 04/09/2008

It is hubris to suggest that we should tell people how their own country should be run or divided. If Iraq is going to be carved up into three countries or develop into some form of federation, then it is up to the Iraqis to decide - not us - we are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

What is now northern Iraq was added by the British because they realized that it had oil - the area had always been considered part of Turkey but after WW I, the Turks were in no position to argue. Do people even remember the recent Turkish invasion of the Kurdish area earlier this year.

As far as elections are concerned - we say we are for free democratic elections but we're not - we didn't even have one in 2000 here in America. Look at Gaza - we pushed for a free election and Hamas got elected then the Israelis and us got upset over the "terrorists" in control of Gaza. Have a free election in Egypt and the Moslem Brotherhood wins hands down.

If we had allowed free elections in Vietnam in 1953, like the peace treaty between the Viet Minh and the French called for - Uncle Ho would have won in a walk and we would never have wasted 58,000 American lives and who knows how many Vietnamese dead. But free and democratic elections are a great thing and we support them in theory - unless

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:31 PM on 04/08/2008

Nice try Etzioni, but carving up Iraq in to 3 or more smaller pieces is something that most Iraqis (apart from the Kurds) do not want, and it is certainly not in Iraq's national interests.

The US invades, occupies and destroys a functioning, civilized country, and by malice aforethought or incompetence, foments sectarian animosities by playing favorites with different sects at different times, and you try to pass this off as "the US being dragged in to this civil war" as if the US is the victim? Absurd! By it's presence and it's actions, the US is guilty of creating the civil strife that is currently raging.

Why would the US want civil strife? Well, if all was quiet in Iraq, then the ordinary Iraqi might start to ask why US troops are not leaving (and if you think the US has any plans to leave under any circumstances, just listen to Bush and McCain). As it stands, >70% of the Iraqis already want the US out.

Furthermore, this "break up Iraq" strategy is also very conveniently something that suits Israel's strategic interests perfectly. A broken Iraq would no longer pose a military threat to Israel, and more importantly, an independent Kurdistan would be an ally, and a reliable source of cheap oil for Israel. Plans for an oil pipeline to Israel started leaking triumphantly only a few months after the US invasion.

BTW, I don't begrudge US soldiers or average Americans when I say "US". Just the ruling elite.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 04/08/2008

On a question of "political policy," sir, I entirely agree with you.

But this line of reasoning will be no more successful with this "colonial occupying power" (the United States) than it was with the first one (the British).

The current Texas rulers of the United States need "a democratically elected government of Iraq" to do exactly one official act: to sign the demurely-named "Hydro-Carbon Law" ... which, quite of course, is readily available on the Internet.

Maybe the best thing to do is... just read it. Maybe start with the usual WikiPedia content. Couched in mountains of sodden lawyer-speak is the biggest give-away in world history. Sixty-eight years after the first carving-up of Persia, the two "colonial occupying powers" would finish the job. Except...

... except it wouldn't actually be those nations that get the prize, but rather, "companies." So even the United States of America, as a country, gets to "provide the dead bodies, but buy the oil."

It's a thoroughly rotten war-crime proposition that not a single country on this planet should even consider to accept. Including the United States.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 04/08/2008

Regime change is a bankrupt policy. Yes, Iraq is different than other nations. The US has a history of tampering with Middle Eastern governments. Multi-ethnic and multi-sectarian society in Iraq is different that elsewhere. Conditions are dictating tactics and policy. The conditions change as the tampering is directed first in one direction and then another. The military is trying to balance power in the middle of this mess, which it helped to create.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 PM on 04/08/2008

Huzzah.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 04/08/2008

End America's Goddamn War Crimes Now!

The fruit of this war crime will be rotten.

BushCo Iraq War Crime has always been about Empire, Profiteering, Armageddon and the rapture.

Our continued meddling only causes more harm.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:45 PM on 04/08/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in


 
 
Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ask.com