Will U.S. Forces in Iraq Pull Out as Civil Conflict Heats Up?
The current wave of insurgent attacks across Iraq is motivated by two immediate goals: take credit for the withdrawal of U.S. forces as a defeat for America and intimidate the Iraqi government from extending the withdrawal deadline beyond the end of the year.
And the Muslim holy month of Ramadan is also a time when insurgents often prefer to strike hard to link their struggle to Islam. But the key question now is whether the Iraqi insurgency has returned to the higher level of conflict seen before the U.S. military surge. Unfortunately, some trends appear to point toward the answer being “yes.” The Iraqi security forces’ poor training, morale, and performance remain endemic problems. Recall, for example, that when the Sunni insurgent group “Islamic State of Iraq” launched a major assault in March on the government compound of Salah al-Din’s provincial administration in Tikrit, it took a joint U.S.-Iraqi team to reclaim the provincial government building. Even so, the attack left over 60 dead and more than 100 injured.
Despite the decline of violence since the virtual civil war in 2006, the Iraqi army and police are still not fully capable of taking on counterinsurgency operations by themselves. This issue — rather than concern over potential foreign threats — is behind the desire by some Iraqi politicians, like Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to extend the withdrawal deadline.
A related concern is the way in which al-Maliki — justifiably dubbed “Mesopotamia’s Machiavelli” owing to his autocratic tendencies — has diverted the Iraqi security forces from cracking down on insurgent groups and toward being a tool in his personal feuds with political rivals, even within the ruling coalition. Last month, U.S. officers and officials were puzzled as to why an offensive by Iraqi security forces in Maysan province — on the border with Iran and a route for arms smuggling to the Iranian-backed Shia militants — failed to produce worthwhile results.
The explanation for this apparent failure, as Joel Wing of Musings on Iraq points out, is that the operations were merely a “false offensive” to serve as a warning to the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Although al-Sadr and his faction are an important part of al-Maliki’s ruling coalition, they are also a thorn in the prime minister’s side because of their demagogic anti-Americanism. For example, they call for Americans to be barred from entering the parliament and pressure provincial councils to stop U.S. troops from operating in their area.
In addition, the Sadrists’ vocal stance against the American presence and threats by al-Sadr himself to revive his Mahdi Army, a radical militia sympathetic to Iran, seem to have induced more parliamentarians into opposing any extension of the withdrawal deadline, much to al-Maliki’s chagrin. Thus, the false offensive served as a reminder to al-Sadr that al-Maliki could use the military against him. In 2008, the “Charge of the Knights” operation organized by al-Maliki forced al-Sadr to disband his militia in Basra and negotiate a ceasefire with the Iraqi government.
In the end, al-Maliki’s initiative in July achieved its aim, as al-Sadr backed off from his rhetoric, saying he would not bring back the Mahdi Army even if U.S. forces stay. However, al-Sadr is now warning of the prospect of “war” if American troops remain in Iraq.
Finally, it is evident that Sunni-Shi’a sectarian tensions are being exacerbated by developments in the Arab Spring. In particular, Iraq’s Shi’a politicians have been outspoken in their support for the protestors in Bahrain, yet they are standing firm with Assad’s regime in Syria as it continues its crackdown on the uprising.
This is so despite the fact that the Syrian unrest is in Iraq’s security and economic interests. After all, Syria has facilitated the infiltration of foreign Sunni insurgents into Iraq who have killed many Iraqis. Moreover, as a result of instability in Syria, Iraqi refugees are returning home from that country where they fled during the Iraqi fighting.
Events in Bahrain, on the other hand, have no bearing on Iraq’s domestic and strategic concerns. Unsurprisingly, Iraqi Sunni politicians have taken the opposite stance on entirely sectarian grounds. Thus, they sympathize with Bahrain’s monarchy while backing the Syrian protestors. Increases in Sunni-Shi’a tensions could bring a return to violence from both sides.
In short, amid performance problems for the Iraqi security forces, personal power struggles among politicians, and growing sectarianism, the recent wave of insurgent attacks could be only the start of more struggles during the coming months, regardless of how many U.S. troops remain in Iraq.
I say we back off to orbit and nuke the place.
There is something to be said for radiating a large swarth of utterly malign land and it’s malign people. Nuke it, then start looking for other targets. No shortage in the muslim world, for centuries a force for ignorance, hate, and murder. This despite what our Democrats say, when they are not calling Normal Americans “terrorists”.
If Obama really does pull out all of his troops, you will see a mad struggle for power between the Sunni and Shia factions in Iraq which will probably lead to yet another civil war. Unless we want to stay in Iraq forever and leave a substantial number of troops there, this will end badly for Iraq.
Nobody will probably mess with the Kurds because they have been defending themselves for generations. But there will be a struggle for the rest of the country and, seeing how blood-thirsty the Iraqis are, probably will not stop until the country finally does break apart into three separate mini-states: one Sunni, one Shia, and one Kurd.
Unless the central government gets a lot stronger, a lot better organized, and puts down people like al-Sadr in a big, big, way (like killing them), then the country will fall back into civil war and all of the work the United States did was for nothing. I don’t know if Iraqis are into this “democracy” thing. But I do know that if the US pulls everybody out, there will be no future for that “country.” Just more fighting, more killing, and more instability. Just watch out that another strong man, like Saddam Hussein, does not enter the picture and take over the country through brute force. I’ve got a feeling that if we pull out, that’s what is going to happen.
I don’t know if Iraqis are into this “democracy” thing. But I do know that if the US pulls everybody out, there will be no future for that “country.”
Actually, you say “bloodthirsty” also-anyway, add Iranian large amount of influence-has been there since we arrived-shadowing us and controlliing the
“black market”..Uncle Sam has certainly been spilling lots of dollars there, so it adds up to a very corrupt environment. (So, why is US spending almost a billion dollars on the “world’s largest embassy” in Iraq?)
From the moment US announced the pullout- US has been secretly lobbying the Iraqi government to “let us stay” after the departure date? Looks strange to me..Oh, politics..
Get out. Now.
“Current wave of insurgent attacks.” “Holy month of Ramadan.” “justifiably dubbed “Mesopotamia’s Machiavelli” “operations were merely a “false offensive” to serve as a warning to the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.”
Get OUT!
These are not U.S. interests. Granted, there’s oil, and granted some darn guy there might be slightly more on “our” side than the next muslim yodeler, but these are internecine fights that American sons and daughters should NOT be a part of.
I realize that the Middle East is important to American interests. But I was in Viet Nam. If Iraq cannot find it’s own interior voice to stand up as a country, we can’t give it that voice.
GET OUT NOW!
Yes and out of Afghanistan, too. No American should die in a god-forsaken land to keep corrupt leaders in power, because our politicians have their heads up their arses. You remember Lyndon Johnson who used the fake Tonkin Gulf attack to send in 600,000 American troops and wouldn’t win it or remove them because, “I won’t be the first President to lose a war”. To be a president or congressman, you should have to have at least on son to send to war, if you declare war.
This is just one more example of the need for a generally emergent awareness among us Americans to get out of there with our massed armed forces and barrels of cash. We’re being played for fools.
I keep harping on the idea that it’s foolish for us to have the conceit that we can make a any lasting difference in an area breeding barbarism for centuries, even long before this Islamic hydra-cancer began rising up, and now of course, exacerbating the whole nasty, hideously complicated arena.
So “Democracy” has been seeded, we think; it’ll only be exploited by these myriad factions and made into a mockery of our well intended involvement.
And, always remember the horrific cost and logistics nightmare involved in maintaining our apparently exploited forces literally halfway around this Earth.
Our presence is tolerated in Central/West Asia only insofar as we’re a potential cash-cow. How much more evidence do we need?
More Pakistans?
Absolutely true. I am reminded of someone saying long time ago- we lose money
just to “maintain a presence” in the Middle East. Political decision -during Cold War- otherwise -US thought Russians would “take over Middle East”…
We placed a seed of American culture in Iraq, at great cost in blood and treasure, with the purple fingers, and a hung Tyrant. And just as this seed is begining to bare fruit with the Arab Spring, some want to “Run Away” and let the planting wither. I say we should protect this seed of American Culture, and eventually we will harvest the entire Islamic world.
Sadly, the accumulated inertia/force of all of those past centuries’ accumulation of accustomed barbarism inside Central/West Asia is much greater than the much more recently accumulated force of our Democracy since the 18th Century C.E.
Why should we want to “harvest” the whole Islamic world?
What a toxic, poisonous, subversive crop!
Oh just let them kill each, it is what they like to do. If you are afraid of Iran, just nuke them or go hide under your bed!
When we finally pull out, the same sort of thing as when we pulled out of Viet Nam will happen. Civil war will break out, and all Iraqis who worked for American forces will be the first targeted and will be begging the US to take them in. You think we have a ticking islamic time bomb now? Wait till the hoards of Iraqis get here and produce a generation of Iraqi-Americans. Those who come here might be mostly made up of people who appreciate America’s generocity and peacefulness, but that doesn’t guarantee their children will imitate them. Not after the radical clerics in this country’s mosques get done with them. All this will do is accelerate the day when we see Muslim militias marching in our streets firing weapons in the air, and taking over whole states and enacting sharia.
Are these hysterical rantings? Maybe. But complacency today could lead to a very costly tomorrow. Is “peace of mind” today worth the risk?
There are three choices for the U.S. One, stay their in a strong military presence for a very long time — or– two, take on Saudi Arabia and Iran with a might of military force and long term occupation simutaneously. Even then, there would be a constant threat from Pakistan looming — or — three, bring all our military out of the Middle East and let them and their people settle their differences internally. The U.S. has been a partner in meddling in the Middle East for so many decades and especially post WWII. We’ve overthorwn their government, installed new government and seen them overthrown. They’ve endured traditional lifestyles, westernized lifestyles and back to more tradidtional to extreme traditional lifestyles. America should NOT be about imperializing global religious values and government especially, those countries in which America has long made the decision to rely upon for energy resources.
Its long past time for America to regain its once respect and leave nations to themselves to govern and exercise whatever their religions are unless…they come tromping over here militarily to threaten our own sovereignty or that of our selected allies.
If Bush had studied ME history, he would never would invade Iraq. The ethnic and religious animosity toward each-other as old as Islam itself. The Arabs hate The Turks for destroying The Arab empire, The Turks hate the Iranians for their religion, The Kurd hate both The Turks and the Arabs for ethnic and political reasons. The Shiiat Arabs don’t get along with sunni Arabs, The Sunni Turks consider The Alevite Turks as apostates, and there is no need to say the hate toward the Christians and The Jews. If U.S thinks that she will solve the millennium of hatred, she better be prepared to stay in the ME for very long time pay the price in blood and treasure, so far what The U.S paid in lives and dollars is just a down payment. The ME will be stabilized after region wide war which will be bloody.
….agreed. They, all of them, separately and together, seem to deserve each other….let ‘em have at it.
Agreed, one and all, but, tell that to those dingbats in DC and the Pentagon and State Department, etc….
I think you will find that the history of the ME and the history of Islam are one and the same. Islam is a Hate and Death CULT which was spread by the sword and by Conquest and it demands constant blood letting. So much so that when Mohammedans do not have Kafirs to kill they turn on EACH OTHER. The ingrained TRIBALISM of the region just exacerbates the problem.