|
GEOPOL
analysis
Monday July 18 2005
by Pedro Cardoso
Iraq – Beyond the Fog
Part I –
Above the Fog
Regardless
of the reasons why the United States invaded Iraq, one thing is
certain, American commitment has not faltered. This is true even
after a recent leaked memo which showed US plans to dramatically
reduce troops in Iraq by early 2006. Do not be alarmed, from above
the fog, this makes strategic sense.
Currently,
the United States commands a political advantage in Iraq. Let’s
be honest, the most important objectives of the invasion have
actually been accomplished!
First, the
old Iraqi government was overthrown. Second, they had a real election.
Washington wanted change, regardless of how anyone perceives the
American strategy; these accomplishments put Iraq on that planned
path to change. But change isn’t enough, these very important
accomplishments must also help steer the country towards a pro-US
grand finale. As of today, that’s still a possibility.
January’s
elections were a blow to the armed resistance in Iraq. The truth
is, 80% of the population joined the political process and therefore
“accepted” the American invasion and subsequent plan
for them.
That 80% were
the Shia and the Kurds.
This completely
destroyed the popular armed resistance in Iraq. After the elections,
there was no chance that Shiites and Sunnis will ever join forces
to fight the US Army. Remember, for a brief moment that almost
happened….Al Sadr was actually able to join Shiites with
Sunnis in a two-front rebellion during the summer of 2004. Some
Shiites even joined fighters in Fallujah during the first stand-off.
But after the election, the insurgency became a Sunni-only affair.
Originally,
the United States did NOT want a one-man-one-vote election. Their
fear was understandable. A Shiite majority would open the doors
to Iran and cause internal sectarian clashes. Unfortunately, that
outcome was unavoidable. No one in Washington or the Pentagon
counted on Iraqis resisting so fiercely. For a brief period, US
forces were facing standoffs in both Fallujah and Najaf while
Sistani completely rejected the Federal Iraq plan. He pushed for
an election in which he knew the Shia would win and Sadr helped
him with his Mehdi militia. Iraq was at the tipping point, and
the US tipped it towards the safest bet.
At the time,
‘Giving’ the country to the Shia and Kurds outmaneuvered
the growing popular uprising even at the risk of Iranian intervention….to
address that, the Bush administration tried to stave off Iran
through pressure on Teheran, directly. The message was clear,
stay out of Iraq.
Unfortunately,
this is Iran’s back yard, and from above the fog, they have
options too. As John Clark (senior fellow at Sagamore) points
out, for all involved, the choices are very few.
Iran can only
disrupt Iraq or help stabilize Iraq – that’s it.
From what
recent reports indicate, they’ve chosen to help stabilize
it, but for a price: They want Iranian troops inside Iraq!!
Recently,
Iraqi officials have talked of negotiations between Iran and Iraq
where Iranian troops would actually help train the new Iraqi Government
Army. True or not, it shows the Iranian position.
This is where
troop reduction in Iraq makes sense for the United States (if
the memo is true). The election actually confined the resistance
to the ‘Sunni triangle’. The Kurds and their Peshmerga
fighters have been able to administer the North. The Shiite militias
(Mehdi, and Badr) have taken over security in the South. A reduction
in forces from the larger geographical theater to a more concentrated
effort on the Sunni resistance is beneficial both strategically
and tactically. Even at the price of unprecedented Iranian influence
in the country and disenfranchisement from the Sunni population...
Truth is; a new political reality has emerged with the elected
Shiite Iraqi government.
The new Shiite
Iraqi government has made a solid alliance with the Kurds. Talabani,
the elected Kurdish leader, actually spent many years in Iran.
The Shiites have also warmed up to Syria (who are neo-Shiites
themselves. Recently, water concessions have been made with Syria
which greatly help Iraq). Finally, the new Shiite government has
strengthened its ties to Iran and seeks to build a Shiite army
that can stand on its own after the US Army leaves.
This political
reality can be useful to the United States because, like Iran,
US options are also limited.
Part II –
Into the Fog
The single
most pressing challenge to the United States in Iraq is the Sunni
resistance. All recent moves by the US have been to address this
insurgency, even at the price of losing control elsewhere: The
risk of Turkish intervention is growing as the US leaves the Kurds
to run their own show in the North. Shiite militias in the South
have been legitimized and are filling power vacuums while the
US Army concentrates on Central Iraq instead. For now, this still
makes sense for the United States simply because these situations
are still reversible. It also shows how important the insurgency
is to the Pentagon.
In Iraq, US
options are either to leave or to stay. That’s it.
The reality
on the ground is that the United States has lost the war against
the Sunni guerrillas. Militarily, the US cannot beat them without
derailing all previous political accomplishments. The US has thrown
division after division against the insurgents only to see them
return even stronger. A troop re-assignment to the Sunni Triangle
will definitely help with a containment strategy, but it won’t
“break the back” of the insurgency. Interestingly,
that’s not the only trick up Washington’s sleeve.
Recent reports
show that the Pentagon will try to beat the guerrillas politically.
Rumsfeld finally admitted what has been rumored now for over a
year. The US is negotiating with the guerrillas. The reason for
these negotiations and subsequent ‘leaks’ is two-fold.
First, the US is threatening to exercise one of its two options….to
leave.
If the United
States left Iraq today, the Shiite militias would close ranks
and execute an all-out campaign to castrate all Sunni power from
Iraq; and they would do it Iraqi-style. Sunni guerrilla strategists
know this, they need the Americans. An American presence is not
only a buffer between them and a Shiite rampage; ironically, it
also helps to build the ranks of the guerrilla force. Without
a foreign occupation, the resistance would loose its most important
calling.
Second, Pentagon
strategists know they have two enemies in Iraq. One is the Iraqi
citizen who refused to accept Washington’s plan, and is
fighting a foreign invader. The other is a militia made of hundreds
if not thousands of Muslims who have heard the call to defend
their faith. Just like in the Afghan war, hundreds of religious
fighters have mobilized to fight an enemy of Islam. The difference
this time is that the CIA isn’t chartering flights for these
fighters or funding their training.
This time,
the United States is on the receiving end of their Jihad.
That’s
why the Pentagon has made a move to undermine the tenuous alliance
between these two enemies. When Rumsfeld admitted to the negotiations,
he was actually sending a message to the Jihadists “don’t
trust secular fighters; they are talking to us, at any moment
they can turn”. He’s building mistrust.
The truth
is, those negotiations aren’t happening. There are so many
disparate groups who’ve taken up arms that creating an actionable
relationship with all of them is impossible. These negotiations
are actually with tribal leaders. Most likely, the CIA has raised
the possibility that the war has tuned sectarian because of
the Jihadists and soon the US won’t be able to reign
in the Badr Brigades. The CIA is threatening Sunni leaders with
a Shiite-made bloodbath. The “leaked” memo talked
of what can be viewed as a pull-out. That’s a scary thought
for Sunnis.
It may work.
For a secular
guerrilla commander, nothing is worst than a bunch of loose cannons
running wild in their theater of operations. Prosecuting a guerrilla
war takes a lot of finesse. Just like the IRA, guerrillas in Iraq
plan on establishing a political arm and eventually to influence
the future of their nation. Joining the political process IS part
of the guerrilla plan, but on THEIR terms.
The insurgency
needs the support of the population, and in Iraq, the support
of tribal leaders is indispensable. This is made difficult when
bombs blow up in their markets and mosques. Guerrilla leaders
are looking at their future, and it doesn’t look good. Tribal
leaders who support the insurgency are also looking at the same
future. The only possible vision of success for the resistance
is if they become so disruptive, that the US is willing to give
them concessions; which is a possibility. But that caveat is dependent
on them being able to turn OFF the violence if they get what they
want. Jihadists would NOT accept that.
For the secular
guerrillas to have any favorable future they must either control
the Jihadist movement or eliminate it. We know which option Washington
prefers.
The Iraqi
insurgency cannot be defeated militarily as long as they have
the support of the citizenry. Guerrillas are like fish that swim
with the population. The US has dramatically shrunk that pond
with the elections, and now it aims to shrink it even more with
these “negotiations”. From “above the fog”
this seemed to make sense, but on the ground, the US may find
that things tend to turn nasty in Iraq very suddenly.
No one seems
to be prepared for the violence the Jihadists can unleash.
Right now,
the religious-fighters can play their most dangerous card. They
can start a civil war. While secular guerrillas have been striking
US and Iraqi targets of opportunity, Jihadists are on their own
campaign of “shock and awe”. Unfortunately, conditions
are favoring their strategy. The new Iraqi government is Shiite,
and it is cooperating with the US in fighting the guerrillas.
Since these guerrillas are Sunni, it doesn’t take much to
fan the flames of sectarian violence. Shiite patience is also
limited. It won’t take many more bombs before they start
taking matters into their own hands. There are already rumors
of militias roaming the streets and killing Sunnis under the disguise
of “government authorization”. If Shiites once dreamt
of a unified country where Sunnis would participate in power,
that dream is rapidly being shattered with every mosque bombing.
Shiites are very close to making a bold move.
The near
future will see a change in attitude within the new Shiite Government.
Sectarian offensives will soon happen under the disguise of “anti-terrorism”
operations. Sunnis will respond by supporting anyone willing to
retaliate. Shiites will join the Iraqi army for religious reasons
NOT nationalism. Iran will support and train the new Iraq army
in order to spread its influence and, by doing so, will cause
ALL Sunni neighboring countries to support the Iraqi insurgency
covertly.
That is what
the United States may not be prepared for.
There is hope
that Sunni intellectuals will forge a strong political arm that
will attract the guerrillas off the battlefield. Unfortunately,
the most prominent Sunni political leader Muhsin Abd al-Hamid
was mistakenly arrested and his house ransacked by US soldiers.
Not necessarily the vision of peace and participation that would
convince a freedom fighter to come in.
Elected Shiite
leaders have also tried to build a legitimate Sunni political
power base, but the assassinations and bombs just keep coming.
The Jihadists
have a terrible weapon on their side, human nature. Within time,
Shiites will find no pleasure in supporting a Sunni party, they
won’t be too careful when retaliating and as a result some
of the violence may become irreversible.
In this rare
case, it IS a battle of good and evil. How much killing can a
group take without going on a vengeful rampage? Only good people
can do that.
Pedro Cardoso
Disclaimer:
Please
be aware that Geo-Pol Analysis usually contains information about
socially and politically sensitive subjects. If you’re receiving
these reports it’s because you’ve been trusted to
understand its contents objectively. By readers sending this information
to third parties, Geo-Pol runs the risk of provoking unnecessary
and ill-informed responses. Such responses undoubtedly hinder
the progress of our discussions.
|