Plan B: partition
As they say, no plan of battle ever survives contact with the enemy. Even if you believe in this war, which I do, there's no use pretending that it's gone as smoothly as advertised. The Republican Guard hasn't defected; the fedayeen have been unexpectedly fierce. Army officials interviewed by the Washington Post now say that they effectively need to restart the war. This may just be a wobbly week; it's too soon to draw any firm conclusions. But, if the US is to rethink the invasion, as some military officers are suggesting, it makes sense also to revisit the objectives. Taking Baghdad: why bother?
First, it will not be possible to speak of liberation, if it can only be achieved by siege and urban warfare, with substantial Iraqi civilian deaths. "We had to destroy the village in order to save it," said a US military press officer during the Vietnam war. It will require that kind of moral contortion to believe in the liberation of Iraq, if the assault on Baghdad is too bloody.
Second, the coalition has already freed two-thirds of the country, and most of the Kurds and Shiites who have suffered most terribly under Saddam's rule. And this is a true liberation, in which the people genuinely welcome US and UK troops, for the moment, anyhow.
Third, particularly if the US supports a Kurdish advance on Kirkuk, many of the strategic objectives of the war can be met. The north and the south contain most of Iraq's oil reserves. Without control of the country's only significant export, Saddam or any successor would be less able to afford a threatening military even than he was under sanctions.
Fourth, to the extent that the US plans to establish decent government in Iraq, it may be easier to do so without balancing the interests of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in a model multi-ethnic democracy. Iraqis often say that only a strongman can hold the country together. Let it fall apart, and establish good government in states less artificial than Iraq. Kurdistan already has a free press. Best to build on that.
Finally, it is clear we underestimated the Sunni Arab attachment to the current regime. The Sunni Arab establishment has not turned against Saddam. They are being loyal, not so much to Saddam, as to their own interests. Iraq's Sunni Arabs are colonialists within their own country, taking the lion's share of oil revenues. What better way to penalize them for their complicity in the tyranny than to dismantle their internal empire?
So, a proposal: partition Iraq. It was worth trying a lightning strike on Baghdad, to overturn the entire regime; but it hasn't worked. Now's the time for a bold U-turn. The US should complete the liberation of the north and south of Iraq, and establish protectorates in both those regions: a free Kurdistan and a Shiite state between Baghdad and Basra. Rump Iraq -- a Saddistan, we can call it -- can support the bloated apparatus of tyranny -- without subject people, and without oil.
Let's remind ourselves why the US intended to preserve the integrity of Iraq. Turkey was fearful of an independent Kurdistan, and Saudi Arabia hostile to the empowerment of the Shiites. And the US did not want to alienate the Sunni Arabs who dominate Iraq. Well, Turkey betrayed the US, and has forfeited its privileges; anything that makes the Saudis fearful is fine by me; and the Sunni Arab establishment failed to turn against Saddam. So screw them all.
Other objections? Ethnic populations are mixed, in cities such as Kirkuk, and any division of the country would trigger ethnic cleansing, and a flood of refugees. More than a million Shiites live in Baghdad, and would suffer particularly if the US established a Shiite state in the south. True, though coalition forces could perhaps occupy the far eastern suburb of Baghdad in which the Shiites live, even if that turns Baghdad into a Middle Eastern version of cold-war Berlin.
Won't the Shiites fear a return of their masters? Yes, until Saddam's head is on a stake, but their enduring nervousness will also make them welcome a US occupation of their region for long enough to establish it as a viable entity. And the killing of the local Baathist thugs will bolster their confidence.
Iran would have too much influence over the south? Probably, but at least Iran shows some democratic tendencies. It remains, despite its theocracy, one of the more hopeful countries in the region. Better a Persian Gulf than an Arab Gulf.
And won't we be too proud to admit the war, as originally conceived, has fallen short? Yes, probably. This administration has staked far too much on total victory to be satisfied with less. Particularly after Bush's father stopped short, last time. But imagine the moral legitimacy of this war, after block-by-block fighting in Baghdad, which will make even supporters of the war queasy. Some frankness with the public -- never a Bush strong suit, admittedly -- could go a long way. Something like this... Yes, we thought the regime would collapse like a pack of cards. It didn't happen. Yet coalition forces control two-thirds of the country, with minimal casualties. The Kurds and Shiites want us there. We always said we saw this as a war of liberation. US troops have liberated the parts of the country that want to be liberated. We're pragmatic. Forget Baghdad. ·Ethnoreligious map -- and some earlier items on nickdenton.org... ·The sanctity of borders [August 2002] ·Nation-building in Iraq: let's not [September 2002] ·The Basra strategy [October 2002]
#
