The Republicans have been pretty successful in establishing the idea that the downturn in violence in Iraq is the direct result of a single initiative, “The Surge”. Surge, a word that was used when “escalation” was politicallynpalatable, described the posting of another 30-50 thousand troops in Baghdad. While violence is down all over the country, the Republicans continue to insist that the troop build up in Baghdad was solely responsible.
Go figure.
Iraq was in a state of civil war and there are three ways that a civil war can be resolved:
- one faction wins a complete victory over the other(s);
- the factions exhaust all military options;
- external players, e.g., neighboring countries, step in to contain the violence to keep it from spreading to their countries.
The result is often a combination of these three forms of resolution. Iraq seems to be an example of this. There were foreigners fighting primarily against the Americans along with Iraqis of various stripe. The Sunnis turned on the jihadists, the neighborhood clearing and ethnic rearrangement reached a logical conclusion, and the number of things that could be attained militarily reached an end.
The Shiites are not monolithic and have always displayed lines of fracture as they battled the Sunnis. The lines now are not so much oriented along lines of personal loyalty as they were in the past.
“The most prominent dividing line in Iraqi politics now is between the ‘powers that be’ and the ‘powers that aren’t,’ †Sam Parker, an Arabic speaker who works for the United States Institute of Peace, a policy center in Washington, told me recently. “The ‘powers that be’ spent much of the 1980s and 1990s in open opposition to Saddam. Nearly all of these leaders spent substantial time outside of Iraq. They have well-organized parties but lack a strong social base and have an outsize degree of influence in the national and provincial governments. Because of their disproportionate dominance of the political process, they only stand to lose by any movement toward political openness.
“The ‘powers that aren’t,’ †Parker added, “are fragmented and weak. What they want is in.â€
Where does the U.S. stand? “They seem to be working hard for provincial elections,†Parker said, “which would make the system more inclusive and give the ‘powers that aren’t’ and the popular forces they represent an opportunity for a share of the power. But at the same time, the United States’ main priority appears to be buttressing the state security apparatus that belongs to the ‘powers that be.’ â€
We need more clarity about Iraq, not more meaningless recitation of four mostly monosyllabic words: the surge has worked.