Time to re-think

Time to re-think

This was not welcome news in Washington. Former President Bush strongly believed that Mikhail Gorbachov was a vital positive force that needed to remain in full control of the Soviet Union. He believed that the breakup of the Soviet Union would unleash forces of anarchy and the potential for significant proliferation of nuclear weapons. 

He and those around him believed that the breakup of the former Yugoslavia would set a bad precedent for the Soviet Union. Secondly, they were legitimately worried about the potential of violence in any breakup. They had no stomach and no interest in any military actions in Europe in the period before the November, 1992 Presidential elections.

The strong position emanating from the White House and senior State Department circles was that we did not want the breakup to happen. This coincided exactly with the views of the American Embassy in Belgrade, which not only did not want it to happen, they believed it could be prevented.  The Embassy at the time put all of its “eggs” in one basket, the government of Prime Minister Ante Markovic.

The Embassy believed that with our support, he could overcome the growing nationalistic tensions. So the CIA analysis was disregarded and the far more optimistic views and policy initiatives of the Embassy accepted. Consequently, all of the efforts of the United States government for the critical period in which the fate of Yugoslavia was sealed were directed at preventing its breakup.

Having just arrived in Washington from serving in the Region and knowing the strength of the various independence and nationalist forces, it was clear to me that we were “betting on a losing horse.” It would have been far better to have accepted the inevitability of the breakup and focus all of our efforts on ensuring that it would happen peacefully. This was the best and perhaps only chance to prevent the whirlwind of violence which subsequently engulfed this region.

We are now at that same point in Iraq. The United States and members of the International Community supporting its efforts in Iraq had dreams of the creation of a multi-ethnic, democratic Iraq which would be the catalyst for similar movements all over the Middle East. Even when it was clear that the initial hopes for a rapid transformation were totally unrealistic, there was still a determination and belief that step-by-step, a multi-ethnic government could be cobbled together in Baghdad and slowly but steadily stand on its own feet.

During this extensive period, enormous pressure was put on all the Iraqi political parties to participate in elections, to decide on a Constitution, to elect a permanent Parliament, and finally to form a government of national unity.

President Bush and others point to these achievements and say to “Stay the Course.” They call any critics as weak, second-guessers who would “cut and run.” They question openly their patriotism while “our boys are fighting for freedom.” They call it part of the “war on terror” in which we have no choice but to prevail.

The reality on the ground, however, and in the United States in shifting.  A few days ago, the Democratic former Vice-Presidential candidate, Joseph Lieberman, lost a primary election to an unknown adversary totally based on Senator Lieberman’s support for the War in Iraq. His challenger ran on a strong anti-war platform. With elections for the House and Senate coming up in November, that result was a strong wake-up call for all politicians. America’s patience with Iraq is coming to an end.

The reason for the growing anti-war sentiment in the United States is that every day seems to bring more bad news from Iraq. The reconstruction projects which the United States started years ago are still undone, victims of the increased security problem. The sectarian violence has reached the point where more than 100 civilians were killed each day last month.

A day does not go by without at least one horrific car bombing taking place. Now the news is breaking that American troops have committed some serious crimes against Iraqi civilians. Given the circumstances of the war, this was bound to happen. It follows the disgrace of the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Meanwhile, the American casualty rate continues to climb towards 3000 and the morale of the U.S. Army continues to drop.

The reality is that the world has been dealing for more than five years now with the rising impact of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The latest example is the rise of Hezbollah and Hamas and their willingness – and ability – to take on Israel, regardless of the consequences to Lebanon, Gaza, Palestine and the rest of the region. We will be dealing with that for at least the next five years as well and the War in Iraq is a massive weight on the United States, making it harder to operate effectively in other crisis situations.

There is a saying in this region “We are where we are.” It is a great phrase, because it pragmatically is saying, “forget about the rights and wrongs of how we got into this situation, accept it, and worry instead about what to do now.” That is what we all need to do in Iraq. Instead of making the same mistake that we made with the former Yugoslavia, we need to put all the energy of the International Community into bringing about a peaceful break-up of Iraq.

This is not a perfect solution by any means and the challenges confronting it are serious. But all the alternatives have been tested and found to be not workable.  It will take a massive diplomatic effort involving the United States, European Union, Russia, neighboring countries such as Iran and Turkey, as well as Iraqis themselves. It has to be led by the United States. Turkey, for example, would need carrots and serious guarantees to accept any sort of independent Kurdistan. A second issue would be the status of Kirkuk, claimed by many in part because of its oil reserves. The Sunnis would demand more of the oil and gas reserves than geography would normally permit.  Deciding on the status of Baghdad would not be easy. Ensuring that none of the entities ended up with bands of paramilitary militia causing havoc would be a major challenge.

One fact is sure. Iraq is heading more and more towards civil war and is already in such a state that genuine reconstruction is not taking place. American soldiers and others are in a hell for which there will be no reward. Setting a date certain for their withdrawal and vigorously working on a partition into three entities is the logical way out. After all, Iraq was always an artificial British creation arising out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. Just as in the former Yugoslavia, it is rare to have anyone consider themselves to be “Iraqi.” They are Kurds, Shia, and Sunni. All the wishing and hoping in the world will not change that. Even as this is written, leading Shiite politicians are publicly discussing such a partition. The Kurds have been in favor from the beginning. As the violence continues, more and more voices will come to the same conclusion.

It is unlikely that this recommendation will happen in the next couple of years, however, because it would be seen as a defeat by President Bush. So it is likely that he will prolong the agony and it will be left to a new President to deal with a situation which can only continue to deteriorate with a steady drumbeat of casualties on all sides. Just as his father did with the former Yugoslavia.