Last week I wrote a post about the chronic failure of American Intelligence Agencies to recognize the nature of the people we are fighting. I traced this from our State Department's past perfidy in covering up Yasser Arafat's direct involvement in the murder of American Diplomats to the current minimization of Iran's role in the violence in Iraq. These failures from the left (ie, slanting Intel in the service of maintaining a fantasy of peace) rather than the more familiar accusation of failure from the right (ie, slanting Intel in the service of supporting a belligerent attitude) have hobbled our prosecution of the war in Iraq and threaten to create an unnecessary disaster in Iraq. Please note that I am not arguing that Iraq is going well, or that victory is assured; what I am suggesting is that this war remains winnable and we should be reluctant to surrender prematurely.
Charles Stewart took issue with my post for a number of reasons and expressed the pessimism that so many currently feel:
There seems little doubt now that the US and its allies will withdraw from Iraq in the near future. Whether they do so under the smokescreen of some trumped up success or under the cloud of failure makes little difference (except to domestic politics) the result will be much the same in the region.
It is a bit like one of those horrible situations in a chess game, when you realize that you have no moves left. Maybe the game can be prolonged but there are simply no winning moves left on the board.
On a personal level I want to make it clear that I find this situation as distressing as many on the right .. if I could think of a way to produce a better outcome I would have no hesitation in suggesting it, even if it went completely against my beliefs.
To his credit, when challenged, Charles left a second comment which deserves to be read in full and in which he described many areas of agreement between his views and mine. He offered his view of the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal [with my comments in bold]:
Some things that are likely to happen in any given case.
The Malaki government will collapse. [I agree and am not terribly troubled by this.]
Iran's influence will continue to grow. [I also agree with this but think Charles sees this as more benign than I do.]
The Kurds will establish/maintain their autonomous region (either nominally within Iraq or not). [We have abandoned the Kurds before and if we do it again, they will suffer terribly and aside from the immorality of once again abandoning our second best friends in the Middle East, they will have no chance of maintaining autonomy without US troops on the ground in Kurdistan.]
US influence in the region will be significantly diminished. [Absolutely true, not just in the region but around the world, with potentially devastating results in the short and middle term.]
Except for the Kurdish region Iraq will remain chaotic and lawless for some time to come .. it will not be a significant regional influence (ie, a "beacon of democracy in the ME" or any such thing). [It will, however, become a beacon for Islamic terrorists.]
I see Syria as being more reactive than pro-active. It is likely to just "go with the flow" if things develop in its interests and offer only token resistance if they do not. [I agree; note how this dovetails with descriptions of sociopath typology below.]
Iran is more likely to be an instigator of developments in the region .. but my own feeling is that they will be cautious in wielding their power. There is little doubt in my mind that Iran could have done a great deal more than it has to de-stabilize Iraq - it has, in fact shown some restraint. I think this will continue. It is not in any nations interest to create total anarchy across its borders. That said, it will undoubtedly be the greatest single outside influence on Iraq's future. [Iran will be cautious until they either have developed enough Nuclear bombs to dispel with caution and/or their very brittle system begins to fail.]
I have referred to the past leadership of Iraq and the present leadership of Iran as Malignant Narcissists; this kind of character, which lacks empathy and does not see other people as having any intrinsic value, easily lends itself to sociopathic behavior. The systems which they rule over, Honor Shame cultures, reward sociopathic behavior; in other words, while a nation that embodies the precepts of Western Civilization tends to jail sociopaths who prey on the weak, nations like Iran tend to reward such people with power and spoils.
In every political system, there will be a certain percentage of "obligate sociopaths." Ted Bundy, for reasons of genetics, early experience, unknown "X" factors, etc, was going to be a sociopath no matter what kind of political system he grew up in. However, much more common is the "opportunistic sociopath." That is the person who will behave in a sociopathic manner when it is easy and rewarded.
Iraq has been an Honor Shame culture which rewarded the most brutal and sociopathic with riches and power. Much of the Middle East runs along Honor Shame dimensions. Our strategic success in Iraq involves helping the Iraqis evolve from an Honor Shame Culture to a Guilt Culture. To that end we need to kill the "obligate sociopaths" and convince the "opportunistic sociopaths" that their best chance of achieving any modicum of comfort is through allying with us. The best way to lose this battle is to fail to press our advantage when we have it and fail to present a convincing case that we are serious.
There is no doubt that our adventure in Iraq will be effectively over within 18 months. If Iraq still appears to be a failure next spring, the disgust of the American people will create such terror in our elected officials that the rush to the exits will rapidly grow from a torrent to a cascade. However, even if we "win" our footprint in Iraq will rapidly diminish. Either way, there is no chance of American troops being involved in significant combat in the run-up to the 2008 elections. (If I am wrong, it just means that the 2008 elections will see a landslide victory for Democrats of LBJ dimensions, followed shortly thereafter by a quick exit from Iraq.)
Here is the interesting point: I agree with the Democrats that the onus is now on the Iraqis. However, understanding who we are fighting and how best to fight them suggests the Democrats can either significantly help or significantly hinder our efforts to get out of Iraq with Iraq intact and our National interests intact.
The current Iraqi leadership includes a fair representation of "opportunistic sociopaths". Such people are perfectly willing to support ethnic cleansing, sectarian murder, and various other misbehavior that is causing Iraq to slide toward savagery, if they think they will be rewarded for it and can get away with it. If such people are convinced that the United States will leave before the Iraqi government is in a position to kill the "obligate sociopaths", they will have no incentive to correct their behavior. From most accounts, it appears that the Iraqi military is slowly gaining the ability to function well enough to assure a more fair, less sociopath-friendly government in Iraq. The longer we can stay and offer them our support, the more likely they can succeed.
Needless to say, watching from next door is another Honor Shame nation ruled by a mix of Obligate nd Opportunistic Sociopaths who use their interpretation of Islam to support their regime. The Democrats ands some Republicans may be able to ignore or forget who we are fighting, but our enemies know who they are fighting.
And here is a bonus question: Why is it that so many who are against the Iraq War and demand that we allow/force the Iraqi government to stand on their own and stop the violent men among them are often the very same people who are always willing to insist that the Palestinian government can not be expected to control the violent men in their neighborhood?
Recent Comments