By
Larry Johnson (
bio |
blog)
I've earned the right to say, "I told you so". That is my prefix to this post, which explains why the United States is now in an untenable military situation in Iraq and has no option but a strategic withdrawal and a shift to a covert action program targeted at secular Sunni, Shia, and Kurds.
In November of 2005, I was among the first to warn that the Civil War was well underway in Iraq:
The multiple threats we face in Iraq will not be solved by an election. The differences dividing the ethno religious groups in the territory of Iraq cannot be bridged by a group hug or a sit down around a conference table. We have ripped the scab off of an ancient wound and unleashed a beast that cannot be calmed through diplomacy. We do not have the force structure in place in Iraq to contain the burgeoning civil war. Instead, we are becoming pawns that each side of this ethnic quagmire will use to justify their particular agendas. The British learned the hard way in the 1920s. It remains to be seen if we are willing to learn anything from history or just destined to repeat it.
I reiterated
the point in December 2005, on the eve of the highly touted "purple finger" election:
With voting already underway in Iraq we should harbor no illusion about the ultimate outcome--the Iraqi shias with the closest ties to Iran will secure the largest share of the votes. George Bush is right about one thing; this vote is likely to remake the face of the Middle East. Unfortunately, his vision that Iraq will become a launching pad for a new era of peace and understanding among the nations in the region is not only farfetched, but ignores what is actually taking place on the ground.
And I announced the civil war in February 2005 while Bush claimed we had turned another corner on the road to democracy. We did not turn a corner, we turned into a blind alley.
The denial in question is why most of the US media and the Bush Administration persist in refusing to accept the reality of the civil war already well underway in Iraq? What do we need in order to be convinced? Guys wearing blue and butternut squaring off in an peach orchard in Gettysburg? . . . .
The Shia, with expert guidance from Iran, will embark on a campaign of strategic assassinations. We are not likely to see the equivalent of a Gettysburg or Antietam. But, make no mistake, there will be significant bloodletting. Most of it will not be carried out in a spectacular fashion that television can easily broadcast. The murders, as we have seen in the last year, will be carried out in groups of 10 or 20 people at a time. People will disappear in the night and turn up in mass graves or stacked at a street corner in order to send a message to the rest of the community. Saddam was not the only one familiar with this technique in order to bring about "social order".
So, what next? America has redeployed its forces from western Iraq (see "Shift to Baghdad leaves western Iraq in Limbo") and concentrated on securing Baghdad. This will be seen in retrospect as the strategic mistake that lost Iraq for the United States. By shifting forces from the west and reducing pressure on the terrorist/insurgent lines of communications (i.e., their routes for shipping supplies and fighters into Iraq) our commanders inadvertently gave the enemy fighters a respite.
At the same time, the increased U.S. troop presence in Baghdad did not quell the violence. To the contrary. The attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens soared. At this writing, we are on track for the largest number of fatalities and wounded U.S. soldiers since January 2005. And the situation is likely to worsen as the U.S. military steps up attacks on the militia led by Moqtada al Sadr, who until now has avoided fighting U.S. forces since the last major battles between the two forces in April/May 2004.
What the United States needs to do, it cannot do. We need at least 250,000 troops in western Iraq to shut down the insurgent routes. We need 100,000 troops to take control of Baghdad and bring an end to the sectarian strife. and we need at least 100,000 troops to maintain the lines of communication supplying our own forces. We do not have the manpower to meet this requirement.
As a result, our troops are in the midst of a sectarian-based civil war without the resources or means to achieve victory. Our presence feeds the insurgency because we are unable to stem the violence. The average Iraqi believes this is a deliberate policy of the United States. They can't understand how a superpower cannot reestablish 24 hour electrical service. They conclude that the violence and lack of power are a deliberate decision by the United States to enslave the Iraqi people. And, our presence also is the major recruitment poster for the international jihadists, who long for a final confrontation with the United States.
Iraq is rapidly becoming a defacto partitioned state. The trick for the United States in the coming year is to withdraw its forces to regional bases and prepare for the next stage of the civil war. Once the United States withdraws, the battle between the Sunni and Shia will likely heat up and spread--there will be extensive bloodshed. The U.S. goal during this battle should be reacing out via covert action to the most secular Sunni and Shia groups. We must find a way to support Iraqi Sunni and Shias who genuinely want a more secular approach to society.
At the same time, we must seek significant international support and involvement in a peacemaking process designed to salve the weeping sectarian wounds. There is no easy way out and no pain free exit that allows us to leave with our head held high and an appetite for a $20 million dollar victory parade in Washington. But leave we must or we run the risk of aggravating the civil war and creating generations of enemies that will hound our grandchildren. The Captain of the Titanic "stayed the course" and the ship foundered. George Bush, Captain America, seems intent on repeating the folly of the Titanic's skipper. I've sounded the warning--icebergs ahead--it is time to change course.