|
||
How Ideas Kill -- Sen. Biden and "Soft Partition"
There were some interesting reactions to my post yesterday on proposals for the "soft partition" of Iraq. Many people think that "soft partition" is an interesting idea, as I did originally. Some thought I was being particularly unfair to Sen. Joe Biden, who was cited as the intellectual inspiration for the plan.
Let me be clear: I respect Sen. Biden in many ways, and the idea may very well be a good one -- but only if the Iraqis choose it for themselves. But today it's only an abstract notion being pushed by Washington politicians and think-tank types. The Iraqi government rejects it and polls show a lack of Iraqi enthusiasm for it. Some regional experts are convinced it will fail, that Iran and Syria will benefit, and that it will lead to even more bloodshed. Still, soft-partition advocates seem attached to their idea.
Ideas like that led us into war. Let's not let another one keep us there.
Ideas by themselves are neutral, morally and practically, but context is everything. Ideas and proposals have been used lately to manipulate public opinion -- or to keep us in the war a little longer while leaders try to come up with the next idea. They can also tell us a great deal about the mindset of their proponents.
Michael O'Hanlon, the war advocate who is now misleadingly labels himself a reformed war "critic," recently co-authored an "academic" paper that promotes the "soft partition" idea without clearly defining it. How does "soft partition" differ from Federalism, already permissible under the Iraqi constitution? If it's not different, why aren't the authors calling it Federalism?
Sen.Biden also uses the fuzzy language of 'soft partition.' Again, the idea - as an idea, absent its political context -- may very well have its merits. But here are the problems with "soft partition" in real life:
It would be imposed on the Iraqis, without considering their preferences as an independent nation: If the Iraqis want something called "soft partition," then I would agree with Sen. Biden that we have a moral obligation to assist them. The most important point, however, is this: Unless any decision about the country's future is made democratically by Iraqis, we have no right to impose it by force.
It provides a rationale for the continued occupation of Iraq: As long as we convince ourselves we have a better idea about Iraq's future than the Iraqis do, we have a good reason for continuing to occupy their country against their will. This idea is not a good enough reason to keep on killing and dying on foreign soil, unless and until a) they adopt it themselves, and b) they ask us to help them implement it.
As proposed, there's not enough of a role for the international community: Any solution to the Iraq crisis must include the international and regional communities in the planning stages, and not be presented as yet another unilateral U.S. decision. That's important for both moral and practical reasons. First, partition won't be accepted by the Iraqi public if it's imposed by the U.S. Secondly, we will want international help if we get involved in a task as monumental and risky as relocating civilians.
We need to involve regional experts, in a way we failed to do in planning for this war: What do legitimate scholars -- not policy mouthpieces looking for a State Department appointment - say about the viability of the plan? Proposal advocates don't draw enough on region exterts.
We need to view ivory-tower 'think tank' exercises with more skepticism: Washington is filled with theoreticians who have sketched out grand designs in white papers - designs that crumbled to dust when faced with real-world exigencies. Every such idea should be vigorously debated, prodded, and analyzed by cold-hearted skeptics. The days of greeting each new proposal as a 'liberator' should be over forever inside the beltway.
Buzzwords Obscure, Not Instruct: Why wasn't the "surge" called a "temporary increase in troop levels"? To sell it to the public. Why is this plan called "soft partition," instead of either "partition" or "Federalism"? I don't know. But we must demand that terms and ideas be clearly defined and described. Don't sell us, tell us. (And yes, I've read the proposals. I find them vague -- especially on the definition of terms, and on explaining how the Iraqis will embrace the concept.)
If Sen. Biden and his think tank associates think they have a workable plan for Iraq, they need to propose it ... first, to the Iraqis, and then to the international community and the American people. But in the end, it is the people of Iraq who must decide the fate of their nation.
Dear God, haven't we learned that simple lesson yet?
Sen. Biden failed to make a decision in the real-world context before when he voted for the Iraq war resolution. He has excused himself since then, saying he didn't know how badly the Administration would mismanage both the diplomacy and the war. That means he didn't understand the greater context -- ongoing inspections on the ground, widely reported stories that the decision to attack had already been made, who would lead the effort - when he cast his vote.
As for O'Hanlon's forecasting abilities, here's a 2003 sample:
The U.S.-led mission in Iraq is still quite likely to succeed over a time period of roughly three to five years. The lack of any unifying ideology for the resistance there makes it unlikely we will face a snowballing mass insurgency.
Mr. O'Hanlon thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. Sen. Biden thought that giving the President some vaguely defined "authority" -- one that just happened to allow him to start a war, too -- was a good idea. But, as the nation learned to its great sorrow, context is everything.
It's time American leaders learned a simple lesson: In the wrong context, ideas can kill.
Comments for this post are now closed
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
Two more partition options:
Option 1: Cede all oil-rich territory in south Iraq
to the Shia. Then, secretly, cede all oil-rich
territory to the Sunni. While everyone enjoys
this good joke, remove our forces. Call this
'The Native American' Option.
Option 2: Make sure everyone has plenty of
guns & ammo. While everyone is locking
and loading, remove our forces. Call this
'The Kilkenny Cats'.
Secret codicil to each: We come back later for the oil.
Biden's partition plan is the opposite of what it says it is (commonly known as a lie).
The partition is a plan to keep American interests tied down in labyrinthian complexities that will nourish the military-industrial complex and the Delaware corpocracy in perpetuity. Israel, Korea, Taiwan, Balkans, Germany - name one partition that hasn't turned into a giant sucking machine.
We need to get out of Iraq the way Reagan got out of Beirut. We lose nothing and gain everything.
Ideas can kill? Agreed.
The idea that impeachment is off the table is one of them.
The Iraqis can decentralize/partition/federate/whatever any time they want - it's in the Iraqi constitution. No-one besides the Iraqis themselves has any business worrying about it, and no-one besides the Iraqis has the *means* to bring about a partition anyway. Aside from "bring more democracy" to Iraq, which we can be pretty sure would only be about partitioning Iraqis from their oil.
Senator Biden’s strategy for ending the war in Iraq is NOT about imposition, or dictating, or even an effort to conduct an imperial foreign policy! It is about presidential leadership, plain and simple. It is also NOT about creating borders. On the contrary, it is about keeping Iraq united through a devolution of power from the central government to the regions and is completely consistent with the new Iraqi constitution.
Senator Biden has also been working tirelessly in the Senate to put that body on record as being opposed to permanent US military bases in Iraq and to US control over that country’s natural resources.
Senator Biden would wholeheartedly agree with you that the US cannot impose a military or political solution on Iraq and that it will be up to the Iraqis to get themselves on a track toward stability. However, the US does have a moral and a leadership role to play in facilitating a process to reach a political solution by working with the Iraqis along with the regional and major powers, under the auspices of the UN.
I’m not sure what proposal you are talking about when you say that “there’s not enough of a role for the international community”, but you are most certainly NOT talking about the Biden strategy!
In other words, what Senator Biden has been talking about, ad nauseam for anyone who has bothered to listen, is ...get ready for it...DIPLOMACY! Since we haven’t seen much of a diplomatic effort in the last six and a half years - in Iraq or anywhere else - it is understandable that a plan, such as the Biden strategy for Iraq, could be misconstrued as not being wholly reliant on diplomacy.
There will have to be intense and lengthy negotiations but the US is simply in no position to impose anything on anyone... besides, that’s not Joe Biden’s style. Furthermore, strong US leadership, should it ever materialize, would be welcomed in the Arab world and, I dare say, the Persian world, too!...not domination or imperialism but LEADERSHIP! A Biden presidency would be synonymous with leadership.
Diplomacy?
Like the kind he was enabling when he voted for the war?
Not his style?
Like imposing an occupation?
Hey, altohone!
Actually, and contrary to popular belief, a vote for the Iraq Resolution (2002) was not a 'rush to war' but a 'march to peace'. Yeah, I'm serious!
The context within which that vote took place is critical to an accurate understanding to what that vote was all about. You should check out what Senator Biden was saying - ad nauseam - before and after that vote took place and you will see what I mean.
At the risk of sounding like a bad broken record, Senator Biden's strategy for Iraq is NOT about imposition, dictating, or even about conducting an imperial foreign policy. Senator Biden's plan sets out a process to facilitate a political solution in Iraq by working with the Iraqi factions, regional and major powers, under the auspices of the UN.
Of course, if the Iraqis don't want anything to do with a strategy that would offer them at least the hope of achieving stability through political accommodation, then Biden's strategy would envision complete withdrawal and concentrate on containment of the chaos to prevent a regional conflagration.
You may also be surprised to know that Senator Biden has been working tirelessly over the last few years in the Senate to put that body on record as being opposed both to permanent US military bases in Iraq and to US control of that country's natural resources.
I hope you will reconsider your opposition to Senator Biden and at least check out his record for yourself.
The point you are missing is that the Biden/Gelb plan was written from the Iraqi constitution. Their constitution included a Federation.
The plan was not something that they pulled out of thin air. This is what the Iraqi gov't
wants. The plan was also based on the success of the Kurds.
I am finding alot of people think they know about the plan without really reading it.
Here is one of my favorite links - What it is, and what it is not on bottom of page
http://www.planforiraq.com/plan
It's so simple, RJ, that you really only had to state one reason we shouldn't be considering this:
It's not our country.
Why is that so hard for all these serious people to understand?
We can't even fix our bridges, repair our levees, or keep workers in regulated industries safe.
Who the hell are we to tell some other country what they should be doing?
Especially when we're the ones who screwed 'em all to hell anyway.
Dear Brother RJ,
Great follow-up post, it spells it out clearly without ambiguity. Kudos! Agape.
The Iraqis laid out the framework to form a federation in their Constitution. I remember those late night documentary specials showing the convoys of representatives bussing into Baghdad with high hopes and long nights and discussions... and I remember the purple fingers.
I would not then, as Escow asserts, assume that the Iraqis really don't want what they've worked so hard to accomplish for themselves.
and No one is saying to not include regional and international stakeholders. I assmume Biden wants to draw down troops as quickly as the next guy, especially since his son is going.
Lastly, as some have noted, the groups are regionalizing already. This. is. already. happening. The trick is to stop the further splintering (although if it does, the constitution lays out how it can reform into it's larger region with it's neighbors and get turned into a 'state').
So what's the problem?! seriously.
Of course the current Shia led government would be against the plan as it takes away their central powers and divides the oil equally among the groups. And aside from MAYBE a couple regional "experts", how on earth does this not pose the best solution put forward?!
Of course there will be problems with this plan (but it's still a political plan) and everything won't go smoothly, but it is the best and only option so far and MUCH credit goes to Biden for introducing this and sticking to it.
PPS: Federalism=Soft partition. Same thing.
It's not our decision to make.
Plain.
Simple.
What don't Biden fans get about that?
Actually, my friend, Senator Biden is completely with you on that point!
Yes, the Iraqis should be the 'deciders.' But, they aren't doing it. Insahlla, god willing, is their template for action.
We have learned how not to fight a war. In fact, we always knew how to fight and win a war. We were just unwilling to do it. And, we beleived Pres Bush and Sec Rumsfeld. OK, they were wrong, and now we have to do it right. Fish, or cut bait. Is this thing all that important as many on the right suggest it is, then we have to go strong, like we should have done from the beginning.
This incremental slow bleed to win strategy is ridiculous. Using the Patreus model of 40 to 1 we are going to need many more boots on the ground. If Pres Bush is unwilling to do what is necessary to win, he should say, "Oops, my bad," and pull the troops backs.
But, if he is sincere in his rhetoric and what he truly believes if we leave, then it's balls to the wall, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, we're fightin' a war and we are going to break a lot of things and kill a lot of people until they submit. No more smart bombs, just big dumb ones. Whatever it takes. Make Idi Amin and Ghengis Khan blush. There is no such thing as a kinder gentler war.
We made mistakes, we know it. Now it's time to do it right ... or, go home.
I think this is a much stronger argument against soft partition. There is a problem as to how to let the Iraqis decide for themselves, since what they decide will be determined in part on how they are asked.
In general it seems safe to say that for the Kurds the problem with soft partition is the "soft" part. The Sunnis would probably prefer partition as a means to get away to protect themselves from the Shiites if not for the fact that the Shiites (and Kurds) have all the oil. So the Sunnis have a motivation to stay and fight even if they are likely to lose.
But the reality is that the best solution is the one that has our fingerprints the least all over it. At this point we have made ourselves the standard of illegitimacy in the region, and we need to find a way to make the final disposition one that is not our solution. How we do that is not easy. But I see no way better than to announce we are leaving by a fixed time that allows us to pull out smoothly (and take anyone whose life is at risk for helping us with us). And give the elected officials the first chance to work something out, knowing that if they fail the militias will do it eventually.
The Iraqi government may not favor partitioning of the country, but the reality on the ground is that its happening already. As Sunnis flee from the North and Shia push Sunnis from Baghdad, the country is coming closer and closer to this soft partition that Mr. Biden spoke of.
It would sure appear that Biden and others are doing what's second nature to political tacticians: co-opt the observable, call it your own and burnish your "prescient" credentials.
No matter what Biden, O'Hanlon or Svengali may posit as a way forward in Iraq, the Shia have already stated their intentions - and are acting aggressively to implement them. While scant lip service is payed to their Sunni Arab "brothers",regional autonomy is the S.C.I.R.I. objective, and "Unity" exists only as a euphemism in the illusory narrative offered to the world. Reconcilliation for Baath Party technocrats has been explicitly rejected (Hakim), a predictable, if not inconsequential outcome for an emerging 'Shiastan'.
To deduce that this "devolution" of centralized power will be attended by "Iraqi Unity" is more intellectually dishonest than naive.
I support the idea of partition for one essential reason, to separate the warring factions. I have heard that the Iraqis want to make a go of a unified government. And in truth, the same problem must be solved to form a federation as must be solved to consolidate a unified state. They have to share oil revenue.
The Kurds, as Eskow observes, are fine either way. The Sunni’s are in it to guarantee a flow of oil revenue and might rightly see that being front and center in the politics of a unified state is their best guarantee. This is a tough nut to crack. Although if by some collaboration of U.S. and international leverage, oil revenue issues could be resolved, the bitterness between Sunni and Shia would remain. Too much blood has been let and too much theology stokes the conflict.
Better to separate them. I suspect that if the international community would guarantee a revenue share for the Sunni under terms acceptable to the Shia majority, that Iraq would codify the foot powered partitioning that has already taken place. The issue is how much is enough and we are expending lives while they quibble.
I say we fund a Sunni state, pull our troops out and negotiate directly with the Shia for what it takes to keep the Sunni happy. Someone should do the math. I might be cheaper than the two hundred million dollars a day it takes to garrison Iraq.
Loading comments…
|
||
Posted August 21, 2007 | 12:58 PM (EST)