Thursday, July 19, 2007
On Keeping the Peace
I recommend you read, listen or watch two excellent sources of material on Iraq - General Patraeus's interview by Hugh Hewitt and Charlie Rose's interview of John Burns. They cut to the absolute heart of the matter at this moment in Iraq. The General's counterinsurgency strategy is working and will continue to quell the Al Qaeda-driven sectarian violence. And in the absence of the forceful application of a counterinsurgency strategy -- which today can only be executed by the US military -- Burns makes it pretty clear that the result will be "cataclysmic" violence -- likely a genocide, not simply against Sunnis by Shiites, but rather extremists against the center. According to Burns, the US military acts as an "inhibitor" of violence, not an instigator or source of provocation.
The good news yesterday was the reported capture of the senior Iraqi member of Al Qaeda. This was no accident. As General Petraeus articulates, the "operational tempo" of American elite forces is unprecedented, and they are grinding up AQ leadership and rank and file. This is not merely good; it is spectacular.
Here is what leaves me confused. Democracy works best from the middle - a strong middle class, and a bias towards compromise and therefore moderation. While we do a spectacular job eradicating the Sunni salafist AQ and its leadership in Iraq, why do we let Moqtada Al Sadr and his Mehdi militia survive? To allow Iraqi leaders to compromise and make political progress as a democracy does, the extragovernmental extremists must be eliminated simultaneously. It does us no good to eliminate one force of extremism and allow the other to survive. His survival in the absence of the opposite extreme will only strengthen him and allow him alone to threaten the center when we have eliminated his enemy.
It seems to me that we would be well served to eliminate not just AQ in Iraq, but theMehdi army and its leadership as well. Al Sadr is a permanent long term threat to Iraqi democracy and a Pax Americana in Iraq and the Middle East much like the Khamenei in Iran and Nasrallah in Lebanon. So what on Earth are we waiting for?
9 Comments:
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Thu Jul 19, 03:57:00 PM:
"Pax Americana?" Ha! Have you lost your mind? Who are you--Crassus, Julius Caesar? Phew...perhaps you're right... maybe we should just kill all them in Iraq--the people we were there to "liberate" (before Al Qaida even remotely shows up). Gotta have that Pax Americana. I have a list of other nations and peoples we need to get involved with, too. Hell maybe in Africa. That way we wouldn't have any more of these nettlesome liberal movies like Syriana or The Constant Gardener. LOL This is better than a Dave Chappelle episode...Pax Americana. Good God. Can we flush that term, along with "nigger" and "states rights?" Pretty please?
By antithaca, at
Thu Jul 19, 04:29:00 PM:
Simple Answer?
The Sunni extremists will attack the United States.
The Shi'a extremists won't. At least, not quite yet.
By 
, at
Thu Jul 19, 05:25:00 PM:
The "Shia Extremists" (called 'Iranians') have been "at war" with the "Great Satan" (called by some the United States) since 1979.
Okay, no more scare quotes. :)
I think the reason why al Sadr has not been 'eliminated' yet is because he does have a significant following in the Shia community in Iraq, and there is STILL, at this point, a chance for reconciliation, however slim.
I think al-Sistani would be opposed to this, if his opinion was solicited, so there is another argument against it. I think al-Sistani is consulted with frequently, in a very circumspect way.
Iraq has a recent history of the Sunni minority persecuting the Shia majority. If we did away with al-Sadr, with extreme prejudice, it would look to many Shia Iraqis that we were doing the Sunni's bidding.
The reverse reason is also why we had to de-Baathize the government institutions after defeating Saddam Hussein's government and army. The Shia had to see that we were serious about rebuilding the Iraqi national institutions, and fostering national reconciliation by eliminating Saddam's Baath party influence.
I think there was a point in the spring of 2004 when we could have had al-Sadr killed and had more limited ramifications. But now he is too much of a player; however, he may overplay his hand and discredit himself with his association with Iran.
I think that the majority of Shia Arabs in Iraq are under no illusion as to their status in an Iraq which would have a "puppet" Iranian government, if such a thing would come about. The Arabs in Persia are not treated particularly well.
Probably all wrong in analysis, but that's one man's opinion.
-David
By Purple Avenger, at
Thu Jul 19, 07:02:00 PM:
...maybe we should just kill all them in Iraq...
The democrat's surrender plan with subsequent genocide handles that aspect.
By , at
Thu Jul 19, 07:53:00 PM:
Ah, what Tigerhawk thread would be complete without the King of Blather, Christopher Chambers, showing up?
By , at
Thu Jul 19, 08:38:00 PM:
Hmmm. {disclaimer}I don't necessarily condone this{/disclaimer} Maybe a best-case scenario for us might be if:
1) We make substantial inroads into the Mahdi army that they begin coming over and laying down arms.
2) Sadr comes back from Iran (again) to reassert control and goad on followers.
3) Sadr runs afoul of an interdiction operation and gets caught in the crossfire. Preferrably of an airstrike on a house or complex that also takes out majority of Mahdi leadership (such as it is).
Aside: What do you have against a Pax Americana? The left (and fellow travelers - like islamists) all over the world already have declared us an "evil empire" and "great satan". Why not step into the role and give them all something to really fear?
By , at
Thu Jul 19, 10:24:00 PM:
I was going to make an ad hominem attack on Christopher Chamberpot, but why bother? Of course, I do agree with him about Syriana and The Constant Gardener.
Why isn't Moqtada Al Sadr nuked by U.S. forces? Well, he is an elected member of the Iraqi parliament. Other than that, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be nuked.
BTW, when Hitler came to power in 1933, some members of the German general staff were appalled and wanted Hitler out. There was a discussion in Britain about whether or not they should support the renegade German generals. They decided not to, inasmuch as Hitler came to power via a democratic election.
Og Ogillby
By , at
Fri Jul 20, 01:02:00 AM:
Send all those liberal holiwood and politicians pampered kids on those peace keeping missions and bring our troops home
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Jul 20, 08:20:00 AM:
"The left (and fellow travelers - like islamists) all over the world already have declared us an "evil empire" and "great satan". Why not step into the role and give them all something to really fear?"
I totally think that our national anthem should be changed to the Imperial March from Star Wars. No words need be added... they would only detract from the dread.
