Barry Rubin's recommendations for Iraq: get out of the way and let the Shi'ites clobber the Ba'athists and the jihadists.
The US's choice in Iraq, by Barry Rubin
Dear President Bush: You are at the crossroads in Iraq. If you handle the crisis properly you will be seen as victor and win reelection; otherwise you will be reviled as a total failure who led the US into an unnecessary war.
What is the key? Don't forget the reason you sent US troops to Iraq, and don't let foolish pride drag you into an endless, unwinnable war that will drive you from office.
The US attacked Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and prevent him from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. This has been accomplished. Saddam will not be making a comeback and the terrorists who are now attacking American troops will not take over Iraq.
The task of the US government at this point is to set up a broad-based government in Iraq and leave.
There is no question of pacifying Iraq. The support the American presence enjoys there which is considerable is based on the supposition that it will not stay too long. If US forces are still in Iraq by next summer, opposition will grow; if you leave sooner, the American intervention is more likely to be remembered as liberation.
As for the idea of transforming Iraq into a model democracy, forget it. The conditions are not right, by a long shot. It was a dream based on a lack of knowledge about the country. But there is just too little time and too many factions.
The assassination of Hojatoleslam Abd al-Majid al-Kho'i, a moderate and modernizing mullah, and then of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, a militant but flexible one, shows there is no limit to the methods extremists will use to destabilize Iraq.
You are not the person to deal with this brutal competition. It must be fought out by the Iraqis themselves. They will do things to win that no American army could dream of doing, including murder, torture, bombarding mosques, and intimidating the population if necessary.
Consider the speech by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim at his brother's funeral let the words sink in:
"The occupation force is primarily responsible for the pure blood that was spilled in holy Najaf, the blood of al-Hakim. This force is primarily responsible for all this blood and the blood that is shed all over Iraq every day.
"Iraq must not remain occupied, and the occupation must leave so that we can build Iraq as God wants us to do. Our injured Iraq is facing great and dangerous challenges in which one requires strength."
He was not saying, as many of your enemies outside Iraq are (including the state-sponsored Egyptian media), that the Americans killed Hakim. No, he is explaining that by not crushing Saddam's remaining forces and the incoming holy warriors, US forces cannot maintain order.
Get out of the way and let us do it, he insists. And if the US doesn't let Iraqis take care of the problem themselves, the Americans will become the main target of far greater attacks, opposition, and hatred.
The US need not worry about the terrorists who have been attacking its forces taking over Iraq. The Shi'ite Muslims, like Hakim's followers, will see to that. There was a new banner hanging at the entrance of Najaf declaring: "Killing Ba'athists [members of Saddam's party] is a national and religious obligation."
They will take care of the problem in their own way. It will not be very nice, but the great majority of Iraqis will be better off for it.
ALREADY IT has become clear that the fear of Iranian influence in a future Iraq, even a largely Shi'ite-ruled one, has been exaggerated. The Hakims and other Shi'ites don't want to be ruled from Teheran. Years of patronizing behavior by the Iranians has convinced Iraqi Shi'ites that they want to set their own course.
Why, then, should the US insist on staying?
An attempt to produce a democratic Iraq will fail and, in the end, produce more unnecessary violence. If the US helps create a new government and it is challenged, are American troops going to protect it forever? Are you going to take responsibility for its every action, whatever corruption or repression it commits?
Iraq is the exact opposite of Vietnam. In Vietnam the US commitment was to prevent the communists from taking power. That implied a permanent effort and, in the end, failed. The goal in Iraq was to bring down a regime. That battle has already been won.
If the US establishes a government and leaves, this will not be running away from terrorism, it will be the completion of the mission.
Of course some people will accuse the US of cowardice and being defeated. But these are the same people who, if the US stays, will accuse it of imperialism and being defeated. Moreover, the terrorists in central Iraq will not be laughing at America very long. They will soon be running for their own lives from Shi'ite vengeance.
The US would still retain a commitment to the Kurds in the north. The basic arrangement is that as long as they do not try to declare an independent state, the US will help them. They will be able, at least for some years, to cut their own deal with the Shi'ites for continued local self-rule in return for cooperation.
Under the regime that emerges the great majority of the Iraqi people will be better off than they were under Saddam. Nor would the Iraq emerging from this struggle necessarily be anti-American or extremist on regional issues. If most of Iraq is going to be ruled as a quasi-Islamist state, the US is not going to stop that from happening by a military presence.
On the contrary, if America sets itself up as the champion of pluralism and secularism, it will turn these themes into the enemy of the Shi'ites and ensure that such things are totally rejected. There will be bloodshed and atrocities, but they will happen anyway and if you fight this out there will be a lot more than otherwise.
But if America leaves on good terms with the Shi'ite leaderships it might build good relations with the new regime that emerges. The most important thing is to ensure this government does not threaten neighbors (including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel) or form an alliance with Iran.
Mr. President, a substantive victory is still in your grasp. But if you stubbornly decide that you are going to stay in Iraq and shape its future no matter what happens, you will ensure your own defeat both in Iraq and in the November 2004 elections.
jpost.com |
