Iraq Is Disintegrating; Now What?

Iraq as we know it is falling apart. The only question now is if we can facilitate an outcome that does not lead to a regional war. Now that the US Government has been handed a mandate to change course in Iraq, the question is what to do. With the independent Leiberman in the mix of the new majority, support for the war in the Senate may remain at 50%. This may be sufficient to force a compromise between the President and Democratic leaders. Monica Duffy Toft at washingtonpost.com says it comes down to whose side do we pick to support in military outcome that seems inevitable. Civil war in Iraq, means regional war, whether it be by proxy or involving bordering countries. Turkey and Iran are committed to containing the Kurdish threat. The Sunnis in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are very concerned about a Shi'ite Cresent stretching from Iran to Lebanon, threatening to stir unreset in their Shi'a minorities.
Monica makes no hint that she gets this dynamic, she just talks about how war historically leads to the most stable outcome. How jaded is that? War could lead to sabotage at 20% of the world's oil sources and destroy the world economy.

Some 3 1/2 years after the U.S. invasion, most scholars and policy analysts accept that Iraq is now in a civil war. But many policymakers have not been willing to face up to the consequences. The key question is how Iraq will be stabilized. It is an important question, because the stability and prosperity of a post-civil-war state depends in large measure on how the war ends. The fighting can stop in a variety of ways -- by military victory or negotiated settlement. Historically speaking, military victories have been the most common and have most often led to lasting resolutions. So while a negotiated settlement may seem the most desirable end point, this resolution is frequently short-lived even with third-party support.


A negotiated settlement is what the United States has attempted to implement for the past two years in Iraq, and it is failing. The process of writing and adopting a constitution and electing a president and parliament were all designed to give each of Iraq's communities a say in the government. Although the Kurds and the Shiites participated fully in the process, the Sunnis did not. Consequently, the Sunnis do not see the government as representing, much less protecting, their interests. Although the Kurds participated in the formation of the government, they have maintained their distance while strengthening their own militia. The trend lines in Iraq are toward a continuation of this fragmentation. So the argument in favor of a sustained U.S. presence to help enforce a peace settlement ignores both the situation there and past precedent.


Military victories, by contrast, historically result in the most stable outcomes. The reason is that typically a strong faction with a robust military is preserved. In these instances, problems with democratization, governance and political institutions certainly remain, but the state that survives retains its monopoly on the legitimate use of force and is able to leverage that legitimacy to stabilize and institute peace. Only after peace is achieved can issues of democracy, development and justice be dealt with.