The soft partition of Iraq is not a function of American strategy; it is oblivious to American strategy

ARTICLE: “U.S. Intelligence Offers Grim View Of Iraqi Leaders: Doubt on Bush Tactics; But Report Also Depicts Plans for Withdrawal as Raising Risks,” by Mark Mazzetti, New York Times, 24 August 2007, p. A1.

Count on intell to talk out of both sides of its mouth: the surge isn’t stopping any soft partition, but if we withdraw, it’ll get bloodier.

Something for everyone and a nice middle ground left over for anyone: the soft-partitioning of Iraq is basically a done deal, despite all the experts dismissing the “option.”

The bottom line is unchanged: we are not providing enough security to an Iraq that--quite frankly--is too far gone for us to manage that level of effort. Sunnis and Shiia are turning inward for protection, much like the Kurds did long ago, and so the partitioning and attendant killing proceed apace.

Talk of “preventing genocide” is fine (and it certainly sounds noble), but it’s roughly three years too late. The systematic targeting of enemy tribes began long ago, and reached a level of self-sustainment well before we bothered to surge. The delta in deaths between us maintaining a high level of troops spread out around southern Iraq and us drawing down and pulling back to next-door sanctuaries in Kurdistan and Kuwait is nowhere as near as some would have you believe. We narrowed that difference a while back.

Now, we’re into the question of maintaining U.S. popular support for active and direct presence and engagement in the region, just like in WWII. That conflict rapidly segued into a long war all its own with the Sovs, and this one is nowhere near over WRT radical extremism within Islam.

The question of note remains the same: are you more interested in credit on Iraq or winning the Long War?

Right now Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Tehran are running our foreign policy more than the Bush Administration is, which is a sad state of affairs to witness. The “great decider” seems now more content to follow history than to make it, all hopes for a legacy-minded second-term foreign policy being dashed.

Watching this length Bush post-presidency unfold while the man is still in office is the most painful sight I’ve come across since Jimmy Carter was in power.

The problem is, the only thing that got damaged with Carter was our pride. What’s being destroyed here is a lot more valuable.

And please, spare me the stabbed-in-the-back bullshit on Bush. The only reason why we find ourselves backed into this idiotic corner is because this administration has refused any serious attempt at a diplomatic surge (for several years now!), believing, in the same neocon dumbass mindset that brought us the postwar non-reconstruction, that military matters rule all, so we can't have any diplomacy until we get the war "won." This sort of binary Cold War thinking is so painfully out of date as to be almost criminally negligent.

We're playing with last century's talent and thinking, so why be surprised we're being outgamed by every rogue and its proxy?

Comments

[nykrindc]

With regard to your argument that the situation is too far gone for us to manage, does that mean that you view Sen. Biden's plan as two years too late? In terms of implementation, since he proposed it almost two years ago now. Or do you think there is still a role for the US to at least try to minimize the bloodshed/violence through such a plan?

[Gilbert Garza]

“The question of note remains the same: are you more interested in credit on Iraq or winning the Long War?”

Someone’s, even Bush’s (however politically or personally motivated they may appear to Tom) having earned and having gotten credit for a real and sustainable nation-building success in Iraq might be helpful in winning the Long War, even if this success has come after a long hard struggle, many mistakes, and much learned about counter-insurgency and winning the peace. A person denying this might be accused of having political or personal motivations of his/her own that are being unhelpful in winning the Long War.

[Babylonians]

What's wrong with partition people? If someone has a better idea, it's time to suggest it! We'll just repeat what Thomas Friedman said in a NYT op-ed recently: "Does George Bush or Condi Rice have a better idea? Do they have any idea? Right now, we’re surging aimlessly."

[Nate Bernitz]

Anti partition argument1) Bush admin deligitmized b/c backs out of one thing that they're stayed strong with. Shows bush can't lead. Currently support of troops only thing keeping United states together. Everything else in US under Bush is split along religious lines which is enough reason for uproar, but the Iraq war is string holding civil war back. Thus, partition opens floodgates for the regime to be toppled by the people, allowing second argument to be even worse in magnitude than before2) Administration seems weak on international policy, US is attacked• Condoleezza rice assured that US will remain a force in the middle east after Iraq, partitioning Iraq all but assures that won’t occur.• US seems weak on countries that attack them (US claims Iraq is behind 9/11)• Implies US can’t win a war against a much weaker country• US is racist and imperialistic by drawing borders in Iraq- leads to international outrage• Army is depleted, can’t handle another war3) US will have to engage is further violence in Iraq• Despite sectarian cleansing attempts, Iraqis remain deeply intermingled and intermarried in a mosaic that could be changed only through campaigns of intimidation and mass murder.

[Terrance Brown]

there is nothing wrong with a soft partition...