How to end Iraq's civil war -- let it rip(?)

It's nasty and brutish, says EDWARD N. LUTTWAK, but the war will be shorter if the United States lets it play out

Sunday, June 18, 2006
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06169/698973-109.stm

Civil wars can be especially atrocious as neighbors kill each other at close range, but they also have a purpose. They can bring lasting peace by destroying the will to fight and by removing the motives and opportunities for further violence.

England's civil war in the mid-17th century ensured the subsequent centuries of political stability under Parliament and a limited monarchy. But first there had to be a war with pitched battles and killing, including the decapitation of King Charles I, who had claimed absolute power by divine right.

The United States had its civil war two centuries later, which established the rule that states cannot leave the union -- and abolished slavery in the process. The destruction was vast and the casualties immense as compared with all subsequent American wars, given the size of the population. But without the decisive victory of the Union, two separate and quarrelsome republics might still endure, periodically at war with each other.

Even Switzerland had a civil war -- in 1847 -- out of which came the limited but sturdy unity of its confederation. Close proximity, overlapping languages and centuries of common history were not enough to resolve differences between the cantons. They had to fight briefly, with 86 killed, to strike a balance of strength between them.

And so it must be with Iraq, the most haphazard of states, hurriedly created by the British after World War I with scant regard for its rival nationalities and sects. The sectarian hatred -- erupting during the Saddam Hussein era and at full boil since his ouster -- is now inflicting a heavy toll in casualties.

the rest: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06169/698973-109.stm

It will 'rip' when/if we leave, whether it's our aim or not. It's ripping now.

Interesting piece though, bound to take some hits . . .

I have argued for a long time now that Iraq is in the throes of a civil war already, and out presence only aggravates the situation. The Iraqis are going to have to start solving their own problems sometime. That is why I am not afraid to advocate an immediate withdrawal of our troops.

Not a civil war; not enough organization. Ethnic strife, disintegration of society, maybe eventually decent tribal warfare. Not civil war; it doesn't rise to that standard.

Luttwak's been around for a while. '99 Foreign Affairs article was popular in RW circles re: Kosovo, and theorized to be good for the I/P and Palestinian-internal conflict. Post hoc it works with numerous conflicts, and is an attractive alternative to failing 'kumbaya' solutions (sit-talk-find common ground-make peace). And there are situations where it's arguably better, but you have to make the right kinds of choices about what's moral. But there are examples where Luttwak's strategy doesn't work (so it's not a sufficient solution), and where the kumbaya method works fine (so it's not a necessary solution).

The problem is that Iraq is plausibly a situation where Luttwak's strategy won't work. We can't tell.

Moreover, Luttwak's is an uncontrolled 'get to end of war' process, all peace is good peace. But not all peaces are, in fact, good. Some make greater conflict inevitable, others are too oppressive, and others are locally peaceful, but export conflict. And the final result may be one in which the US winds up embroiled in some conflict or some attack. So it may not even save US lives.

That leads to a situation where the quick-and-painful strategy may not be the best strategy, or even the easiest for us. Nobody can put odds to most of these things, with any reliability.

One option is 'stay until it's done', whether kumbaya or help-militarily; the other is 'if we leave, it'll be better,' whether we justify it by Luttwak's thesis, or assume all will be peace and light when the last American boot leaves Iraq. All we're left with is assumptions and guesses. Handy, convenient justifications for doing exactly what I want to do, however, make me nervous. They're tempting, and it's easy to decide that it's not just the easiest solution, but the best. I like Luttwak's solution for some conflicts; I've thought them through, looked at plausible outcomes, and the downside was small. Iraq ... too complex and chaotic.

I do think that he doesn't allow for more diplomatic intervention, but maybe he assumes it.

At any rate, he's correct that it won't end as long as we're there.

with a side order of genocide...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=92532&mesg_id=92532

The Mods moved it to the 9/11 forum - go figure?

I think the war in Iraq will ultimately lead to its partition, with some territory probably going to Iran.