A Wild Theory on Iraq

This last week's events (the bombing of Askariya Shia mosque) have really highlighted for me that the current policy is not working.

As I have stated before, following the logic of Nir Rosen, for me there is already civil war in Iraq and has been for (at least) 2 years. When I hear political commentators say that the American presence is the only thing preventing Civil War, I immediately translate that into--the American's are the only thing stopping increased, massive Civil War on a scale that is horrific. As opposed to the more low-level, awful Civil War already underway.

On the other hand, as long as the Americans remain, then the Shia are collaborators in the eyes of the Sunni.

What the mosque bombing and subsequent episodes have shown is that the Iraqi Government can only maintain order by curfews and massive military on the ground presence. They do not have the manpower or resources to keep such a curfew up full time.

The real power and legitimacy on the streets belongs to the clerics and the militias. The American army and ambassador are being increasingly squeezed out of the picture as the Iraqi government has no real authority (minus martial law) outside the International Zone (formerly the Green Zone).

I think the time has come to fundamentally re-assess the assumption that Iraq must remain a united country based on the borders carved out by British colonials.

Not to overuse the Spiral jargon, but if Iraq (and wider aspects of the Middle East, minus Iran) are basically red in nature, then it is blue (theocracies) that must come into power or already are in power (say Saudi Arabia). In a country like Saudi Arabia, there is a Shi'ite minority but it is not as large as the Sunni/Shia populations of Iraq.

When those two groups exist in such large numbers with different blue meme structures--and while they are both Islamic, there are deep differences (structurally, theologically) between Shia and Sunni, particularly modern Shia and Sunni theologies--then I'm afraid they will not be able to make it work.

A blue, order-based political structure that opens up economic rights and slowly allows political rights to seep down congruent with the rise of a middle class--who alone can properly handle such rights (from the perspective of rule of law anyway).

I think the first step is to declare Kurdistan an independent country--the Americans could begin to move a large bulk of the Troops there. The Kurds have the Peshmerga and have shown themselves to be the most progressive, well organized, well defensed bunch. Kurdistan would become the "2nd Israel" if you will of the Middle East: pro-American rule of law/democracy, economic trading partner, negotiator between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Western Europe, and US. They have Kirkuk and its rich northern oil fields. Non-sectarian.

Just have to allay Turkish fears that the Kurds would help foment Kurdish independence in Turkey--the Iraqi Kurds and the Turkish Kurds however don't particularly like each other, so that could be achieved.

---
Then the more dangerous issue of splitting the Shia and Sunni.

The great monkey wrench in any plan for a separtion of Iraq proper(Kurdistan is never really a part of Iraq) is that the middle of the country and the West, mainly Sunni, is oil-less. The rest of the oil (minus Kirkuk) resides in the Shi'a South.

The Shi'a have been oppressed long enough and know their time has come, on the treads of American tanks, but their time has come nonetheless. A strong alliance with Iran guarantees them weapons and training for self-defense in the case of an attack from the Sunnis. They are not going to negotiate in any real terms with the Sunni. And true be told, I can understand why--though I wish it were otherwise. I'm not sure I would particularly trust the Sunni if I were an Iraqi Shi'a.

What the Bush administration argued is that the increased Sunni participation in the last round of elections signals their increased desire to participate in the political process over the militant process.

The hope was thereby to divide and conquer--separate out first the foreign Salafi jihadis (like Zarqawi) from the anti-US, "nationalistic" "tribal" Sunni insurgency. Then split the Sunni insurgency from its base of tacit support among the Sunni populace.

Certainly not an insane plan. It has a logic. But I'm beginning to think more and more that it is predicated on a misreading of the data. The increased Sunni involvement in the electoral process to me signifies more that the Sunnis have decided to fight the same war against the Shia on two fronts simultaneously. The democractic elements therefore further exacerbating the sectarian tension not helping to relieve it.

Without an economic incentive, they, the Sunnis, have no cards to play and they know it. Therefore string out the guerilla campaign against the US as long as it takes to swap the strength of its support back home, the Americans leave, opening up the fight (some) among the Sunni have wanted all along--against the Shi'a collaborators.

The Sunnis, it seems, have done so much to organize militarily throughout the history of Iraq and enforce its will on the majority Shia because they are without natural resources. There are other factors involved of course, but that one looms very large. Not to sound Marxist for a second, but the economic, power ends can not be overstated in this matter.

The Shi'a have, generally though not without exceptions, moderated themselves in response to the murderous insurgency against them by Sunni extremists. God bless Sistani for coming out against violent retaliations--but I'm not sure how long his voice will carry the day. Tough to know that from here. The case of the Iranian-influenced Iraqi Shi'a infiltrating the interior ministry as a cloak to carry out illegal and covert murders and imprisonments (revenge killings) being a brutal counterexample to the otherwise, fairly moderate Shia response. Remember the Shia are facing bombings and drive-bys at weddings, Friday prayer, religious pilgrimages, and funerals. Weddings and Funerals for God's sake--from other Muslims!!!

For the a Shi'a nation to be declared in the South would require the US to make strategic and diplomatic alliance with Iran--something the Bush administration has unfortunately not been wise enough to achieve. The US guarantees Iran as the major player in that region of the world, its parent-like role in Shia Iraq (Shia-stan, if you like), and the promise of not attempting to overthrown the Ayatollah regime, in exchange for the withdraw of the nuclear bomb program.

The US would then have to bring a multi-nation conference consisting of Syria, Saudis, and Jordan to prop up the new (mostly) Sunni nation of the center/West. This is particularly important as, for example, even moderate King Abdullah of Jordan--who unfortunately has been saddled with being King of Jordan, but otherwise is to my mind, possibly the most intellligent politician on the planet--has warned of a rising Shi'a Crescent. From Hezbollah-ruled Southern Lebanon, through Southern Iraq, and Iran, the balance is definitely shifting.

The US would have to make clear it does not seek total Shia dominance in the region and would not stand for Shia-stan Iraq (whatever that country would be called, Sistani-stan?) invading Sunni Iraq (again under whatever new name).

Again, the key would be to find some economic policy for the Sunni-dominated Central-Western provinces. Minus that, they will fight. Period.

And that raises a larger issue. Bush has referenced recently energy-independence from the Middle East--modestly but the issue is gaining traction. Its strongest and most consistent voice has been Thomas Friedman in a series of NYTimes op-ed pieces.

Now, I'm all for the move to a hydrogen-based economy. But, as Thomas Barnett, has wisely pointed out, if moving towards a hyrdogen economy does not come with a parallel movement to wean the Middle East off petrolism, then it will be a debacle. The Middle East will not economically "innovate" just because they have to, assuming a scenario where the US, China, India, Brazil, W.Europe move away from oil to hydrogen.

The Insurgency in Iraq proves otherwise. The Iraqi Sunnis have not self-organized to economically innovate in the face of the loss of southern oil money. If we move away from oil without at the same time, promoting a new economic venture for the Middle East, the Middle East will become Sub-Saharan Africa (if its not or worse than SSAfrica already). It will be a sub-Saharan Africa with an ideology of trans-national terrorism, more militant expertise, and a religion with (one among many) a thread that supports martyrdom in the cause of fighting as a unquestioned avenue to everlasting glory.

That ideology has not yet spread very deeply into sub-Saharan Africa. Variants of the theme exist in Northern Nigeria, Somalia, and Ethiopia. But as the West works more and more on the Southwest and Central Asia, trying to bring it into the community of federated nation-states--assuming the project is even remotely successful--sub-Saharan Africa will be the last bastion of jihadist militancy.

But the first step being Iraq. I think Bush needs to re-draw the map and move the goal posts, no longer holding onto the notion that victory in Iraq is predicated on the unified, secular, nation-state he envisioned. I don't think that is reliable any longer--not within a year or two.

Again, this is a prognostication, so I could be reading this in 10 years thinking how off the mark I was--who knows, human societies, like Nature, are chaotic systems. They are inherently unpredictable systems.

But I don't think we can hold our troops there for another 8 years just hoping this current policy works. Whatever else can be said about Bush he has fundamentally re-shaped the world--for good or evil or both depends on one's perspective I guess--but change it he has. There is no turning back the clock.