Iraq's Civil War

[Lemur]

Good article over at Foreign Affairs. The bit that jumped out and grabbed me by the throat:

As long as the Bush administration remains absolutely committed to propping up the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or a similarly configured successor, the U.S. government will have limited leverage with almost all of the relevant parties. By contrast, moving away from absolute commitment -- for example, by beginning to shift U.S. combat troops out of the central theaters -- would increase U.S. diplomatic and military leverage on almost all fronts. Doing so would not allow the current or the next U.S. administration to bring a quick end to the civil war, which most likely will last for some time. But it would allow the United States to play a balancing role between the combatants that would be more conducive to reaching, in the long run, a stable resolution in which Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish interests are well represented in a decent Iraqi government. If the Iraqis ever manage to settle on the power-sharing agreement that is the objective of current U.S. policy, it will come only after bitter fighting in the civil war that is already under way.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Might be some truth there.

We are demonstrably unwilling to pay the price needed for victory under our current framework.



If we are unwilling to pay that price, the parties over there will be aware of that and will plan accordingly.

Thus, delaying the removal of U.S. and coalition forces from Iraq begins to seem foolish. We should sauve-qui-peut as rapidly as we can pull out the heavy equipment and de-militarize our bases.


Note:

I hate this.

[Pindar]

Lemur,

This is a very interesting article. Thank you. I haven't gotten the new Foreign Affairs yet so I liked the piece.

I'm not sure I agree with the stance of the author. I don't think civil war is an accurate portrayal. I don't think violence or death alone justify the term. It seems to me under his criteria the U.S. Civil War couldn't have ended in 1865. I think civil strife is a more appropriate referent.

As for U.S. postures: 3000 odd U.S. dead is militarily insignificant. The real issue is political and this is where the Administration has failed. It is a question of rhetoric, and Bush is no rhetor.

As for Iraq's government: I think this may be another mistake by the author. The government is the legitimate legal force for the nation (ratified by an impressive display of popular will). The author seems to abandon a principled stance out of a fear for an inevitable failure: a Shia majority government being forced to move in an Iranian direction. I don't think his view of Iraqis or the Shia is necessarily correct. Arabs willingly bowing to Persians over any extended period would be a first in the Middle East. Second, there doesn't appear to be any cohesive Shia stance. Rather, there are a variety of Shia parties/groups with their own agendas. Finally, I'm not convinced that real displays of power i.e. killing threats to the government in an unfettered way wouldn't have results.

[Tribesman]

As for Iraq's government: I think this may be another mistake by the author. The government is the legitimate legal force for the nation (ratified by an impressive display of popular will).

As a lawyer you should know that that is not true .
The legal requirements for forming a government were not kept , the law states that failure to form a government within the time limit must result in new elections .
Since the time limit was exceded (by a long way) new elections were required to have a legitimate government .

[Pindar]

As a lawyer you should know that that is not true .
The legal requirements for forming a government were not kept , the law states that failure to form a government within the time limit must result in new elections .
Since the time limit was exceded (by a long way) new elections were required to have a legitimate government .

I don't know that my J.D. requires I know Iraqi legal norms. I don't know about this. What law are you referring to? For my part I trace legitimacy to popular sovereignty. I'm unaware of any Iraqi politicians that have overstayed their terms or are not ultimately amenable to the citizenry under the strictures laid out under the new Iraqi constitution.

[ShadeHonestus]

As a lawyer you should know that that is not true .
The legal requirements for forming a government were not kept , the law states that failure to form a government within the time limit must result in new elections .
Since the time limit was exceded (by a long way) new elections were required to have a legitimate government .

Didn't the national assembly vote on the extensions? Didn't Shia's and Kurds have the majority needed to ratify, but instead backed in hopes of brining the Sunni's back to the table and open the floor to further talks? If I remember correctly the Constitution was submitted before midnight of the deadline, but they put off a vote which was within their right to encourage those very talks. So what you would rather see happen is a constant re-electing of the parliament every time constitutional negotiations broke down or worse yet, a national assembly which is paralyzed not by speeches and deadlock, but by threats of violence. Ironically the Sunni's who consistently threaten Iraq with civil war were the ones who largely boycotted elections in the first place. I think what this largely boils down to is a faction facing life for the first time as the minority.

[ShadeHonestus]

Lemur,
Second, there doesn't appear to be any cohesive Shia stance. Rather, there are a variety of Shia parties/groups with their own agendas.

RE: The Life of Brian, The Popular Peoples Front of Judea and its splitters.

By contrast, moving away from absolute commitment -- for example, by beginning to shift U.S. combat troops out of the central theaters -- would increase U.S. diplomatic and military leverage on almost all fronts. Doing so would not allow the current or the next U.S. administration to bring a quick end to the civil war, which most likely will last for some time.

By this reasoning we should step back our military role to let the factions and foreign influences fight it out against each other and civilians in hopes of gaining a better diplomatic stance. Anyone else see a glaring problem with this?

[Xiahou]

Well said Pindar. I agree.

[Pindar]

The Popular Peoples Front of Judea and its splitters.

By this reasoning we should step back our military role to let the factions and foreign influences fight it out against each other and civilians in hopes of gaining a better diplomatic stance. Anyone else see a glaring problem with this?

Quite.

Well said Pindar. I agree.

[Tribesman]

don't know that my J.D. requires I know Iraqi legal norms. I don't know about this. What law are you referring to? For my part I trace legitimacy to popular sovereignty. I'm unaware of any Iraqi politicians that have overstayed their terms or are not ultimately amenable to the citizenry under the strictures laid out under the new Iraqi constitution.

Thats a lot of words to say yet trying to avoid saying isn't it .

[gunslinger]

I'm no lawyer, especially on the international side of things, but could you please point out which authority passed the law giving the Iraqis time limits to fill government positions? Is this a U.S. Law? A British Law? An Iraqi Law? A U.N. "Law"?

Doing so would not allow the current or the next U.S. administration to bring a quick end to the civil war, which most likely will last for some time. But it would allow the United States to play a balancing role between the combatants that would be more conducive to reaching, in the long run, a stable resolution in which Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish interests are well represented in a decent Iraqi government.[/indent]

A balancing role between combatants? Is that like in MTW when you attack the stronger side of two opposing factions just to keep them "equal" so they'll keep fighting? IF there is a civil war in Iraq (a point which I don't concede) then I can only think of three stances for the U.S. or any other country to take:

1. Ignore it until the genocides are over i.e. Rwanda.
2. Use military force to create a buffer zone between opposing parties i.e. U.N. peacekeeping force in Bosnia.
3. Pick the side you want to win and provide them with varying degrees of military assistance to achieve their goals i.e. Vietnam, Korea, and many many others.

I think the last thing any country wants to do in Iraq or anywhere else is "play a balancing role between combatants."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tribesy:

Over a year ago, I seem to recall you ridiculing the assertion that Saddam's failure to comply with the strict letter of the ceasefire agreement following the ousting of his troops from Kuwait was a valid pretext for US/coalition military efforts against his regime. Remember that argument? It ran along the lines of: he's not keeping the agreement so the war is back on.

Now you seem to be arguing for the strictest possible interpretation of the provisions of documents governing the set-up/establishment of a new government in Iraq (you may be right as to your assertions, I have yet to review them to know for sure). Your position runs thusly: A two-week deadline is a two-week absolute that the participants themselves may not alter. If it takes 15 days, all of it has to be trashed and started over, no?

Does this not seem to be something of a double standard?

[ShadeHonestus]

Can anyone link the provision that calls for new elections on those time frames? If there isn't one than simple things like the budget not being in on time would constitute for a failure of government and a new election...

When it came to the constitution and its being ratified, I saw only democratic compromise to make things work for all parties involved. Even those factions who wanted to take their votes and go home or threaten violence because they are learning that they can't have their way.

If there are these strictly laid out and accepted provisions without room for negotiation and compromise, then I'll gladly concede those points and call the whole thing a shame as any such law would violate the foundations of a democracy.

[Tribesman]

Over a year ago, I seem to recall you ridiculing the assertion that Saddam's failure to comply with the strict letter of the ceasefire agreement following the ousting of his troops from Kuwait was a valid pretext for US/coalition military efforts against his regime. Remember that argument?

Nope I stated that the ceasefire conditions were under the authority which was used for those conditions , the same authority that approved the original action , and the process to remove the suspension that the ceasefire gave and revert to the original approval clearly stipulates that a new vote was needed . The coilition didn't bother with the new vote to remove the suspension and reactivate the original approval so it cannot be a valid action can it .
Now you can say that the countries had their soverign right to act how they wanted , but the authorty for the conditions were under another body so they cannot be used as justification unless they go through the same body .

Honestius , that constitution thing , thats the part that says it must be printed and distributed for people to look at and discuss before voting , by rushing to amend the incomplete document for the last minute push to meet the deadline that part was not fulfilled was it .