The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq contains few, if any, surprises regarding the situation on the ground in that bloody country but offers “a glimmer” of hope that things can improve significantly:
A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document.In a discussion of whether Iraq has reached a state of civil war, the 90-page classified NIE comes to no conclusion and holds out prospects of improvement. But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption.
The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus.
Reading between the lines of what was leaked to the Washington Post, the NIE nevertheless seems to me to make the correct judgements and draws the right conclusions:
Sources familiar with the closely held estimate agreed to discuss it in general terms yesterday on the condition that they remain anonymous and not be directly quoted. But Negroponte and others in the intelligence community have made frequent references to its conclusions in recent testimony.On Tuesday, Negroponte referred to the NIE in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Iraq is at a precarious juncture. That means the situation could deteriorate, but there are prospects for increasing stability” that depend on the commitment of Iraqi government and political leaders to take steps to end Sunni-Shiite violence and “the willingness of Iraqi security forces to pursue extremist elements of all kinds,” he said.
Congress, which requested the Iraq NIE last August, has pressured the intelligence community to complete it in time for consideration of Bush’s new strategy. Intelligence officials have insisted that their best experts were working on the project at the same time they were meeting the demands of policymakers for current intelligence reports.
In the end, we can send 10 times 21,000 troops to Iraq. But if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continues to avoid tackling the political problems that are fueling the sectarian violence, then all is for naught and we might as well redeploy our troops to Kuwait or some other base now.
I don’t envy the task of the Prime Minister but to date, he has been his own worst enemy. His cozying up to Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army is only one of his problems. The fact is, the Sunnis see Maliki trying to establish Shia hegemony over the rest of the country and indeed, this is what has been happening. The coalition of political parties that governs Iraq are dominated by Shia nationalists who refuse to back Maliki in taking the steps necessary to broaden participation of the Sunnis and Kurds as well as adding the secular parties to the mix. Every plea we have made, every attempt to engage the Shia parties in the kind of nation building that will take the fire from the hearts of both Shias and Sunnis and start the healing process which would begin to reduce the violence has been rebuffed.
The Shias, by their lights, don’t see the need. They point to their victories at the polls and have expressed the fear that if they give up too much power to the Sunnis and Kurds, their own voters will turn on them. Then there is the threat of assassination by one of the dozen or so militias. Sadr has made it clear that Iraq will be a nation dominated by Shias and any politician that advocates sharing power with the Sunnis does so at their own peril.
Meanwhile, the Sunnis are trapped by history and by the blood on their hands from generations of oppressing the Shias and Kurds. The only way out for them is amnesty. And at the moment, amnesty is a non-starter for Maliki who would have to please both the radical Shias represented by Sadr and the Americans who would not look kindly on pardoning insurgents who killed our soldiers.
So the insurgents believe they have no choice. They must fight or die – either at the hands of Shia death squads or in battle against the Americans. Getting the Americans to go away may seem to be the height of stupidity since the American Army is the only thing standing between the Sunnis and a human rights tragedy that could dwarf what is going on in Darfur – a bloodletting and refugee crisis that would involve more than 5 million people. But the insurgents, who have made common cause with al-Qaeda in Iraq in some instances, feel that their only play is to try and reclaim power. And they know the Americans would never allow that to happen.
This Gordian Knot cannot be cut by American troops no matter how spectacularly they perform in the field. It won’t be cut simply by reining in the militias or killing Shia and Sunni extremists, although this would be extremely helpful and give the Iraqi government some breathing room to initiate at least some political reforms. It might not even be possible for the Iraqis to cut it alone. I can understand the resistance by the Administration to a regional conference on Iraq that would include the Iranians and the Syrians. But the Saudis are apparently going to start taking a more active role in defending their Sunni brethren while Iran shows no signs of slacking off in their support for the militias. It would make sense that a regional conference, with a well defined agenda, could come up with solutions that would use the influence of those two nations (and possibly Syria) in helping the Iraqis achieve a consensus on how to move forward toward political stability.
This most recent NIE, if it does nothing else, will, I hope, disabuse those who are inclined to believe that the application of military power alone by America can do much to solve the long term, systemic political problems that keep the insurgency going. At this point, we can do little more than act as a buffer between Shia extremists who seek revenge and Sunnis who are being hunted down and killed by both regular and irregular forces. For this reason alone, our continued presence in Iraq is well worth the effort.
But if the government of Prime Minister Maliki continues on its course and refuses to engage the other factions in a dialogue that would lead to a truly non sectarian government of national unity, we should look very hard at exploring other options up to and including a redeployment of our troops outside of Iraq.
UPDATE
Allah points to this McClatchy dispatch from yesterday that blames the US for the rise in influence of the Mahdi Army. The story quotes American troops on the ground in Baghdad saying that the the Iraqi army is lousy with Sadrists and that their plan is to wait for us to leave and then carry out a nationwide massacre of Sunnis.
Bryan points out in an update that this is not entirely accurate, that Sadr appears to have lost total control over his own militia and that there are several agendas at work among Sadrists.
First of all, there is nothing very new here. Perhaps the idea that roughly half the Iraqi army in Baghdad is made up of Sadrites would be news – if it were true. Maliki has deliberately tried to sprinkle Kurdish units in with the Shias to head off just such an eventuality. The problem is, in the past, the Kurds have been reluctant to go to Baghdad and have gone so far as to mutiny against the idea – probably because they realize all too well the truth in some of what has been reported here. I agree with Bryan that it is the local police who are truly lousy with Sadrites and that the army is trusted to a much greater degree by all Iraqis.
Bryan’s take below sounds about right:
The case of JAM is, as I’ve mentioned before, not as simple as the press usually makes out. Of the entire JAM militia, probably half are truly loyal to al-Sadr. The other half joined up for various reasons from needing the money to being threatened if they don’t join to having a grudge against Sunnis to wanting to tamp down local petty crime, etc. JAM isn’t a monolithic force in the way that Al Qaeda is, all joined by one ideal. There are factions within it, and those factions can be and are being exploited politically by the US forces. That also takes time. I will say that all the panic in Washington these days strengthens the hand of Sadr, since he seems to be on the winning side right now and everyone who chose to side with us seems to be on the losing side. The momentum right now is undoubtedly with the Sadrists, not because of the infiltration, but because anyone who is on the fence in Baghdad is being compelled by events to choose a side, and one side appears to be running away. The rational choice for an awful lot of people will be to join the side that is staying and looks like it will have a great deal of power after we’ve withdrawn. Had we stayed and not shown so much panic over the years, those who sided with us would be in a stronger position in Iraqi society than they may be in the coming months and years–if they survive that long.
None of this is to minimize the threat of militia infiltration into the ISF. But stories like the one above present the negative gotchas–see here, the whole Iraqi military is nothing but JAM–while leaving out the positive things our troops might have said about the ISF or how they see the infiltration being dealt with. The same troops at FOB Justice who were candid with us about JAM infiltration in the ISF also noted that some units are standing up fairly well and some are taking their missions very seriously and doing them well. You’ll hear about that in a bit more detail in tomorrow’s Vent, actually.
1:21 pm
I read an excellent first hand account about what it is like to deal with the Iraq IP’s from Sandbox
http://gocomics.typepad.com/the_sandbox/2007/01/i_got_them_ip_b.html
Depressing…
2:19 pm
“And at the moment, amnesty is a non-starter for Maliki who would have to please both the radical Shias represented by Sadr and the Americans who would not look kindly on pardoning insurgents who killed our soldiers.”
I am curious why you never comment on the Badr Brigade,
“Because of their opposition to Saddam Hussein, the Badr Brigade was seen as a U.S. asset in the fight against Baathist partisans. After the fall of Baghdad, Badr forces reportedly joined the newly-reconstituted army, police and Interior Ministry in significant numbers..[snip]..The Badr organization has allegedly been involved in many incidents of kidnapping, beating and torturing Sunni Iraqis, reports appeared that they were also attacking and murdering gay Iraqis. [1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badr_Organization
It strikes me that these guys are at least as much trouble as Sadr’s lot. Why do you not concern yourself with them?
2:29 pm
As I’m sure you’re aware, Badr organization operates mostly in the south although they’ve been more aggressive lately. With our focus on Baghdad, we probably won’t run in to too many Badrites there.
You are correct, though. However, there is a better chance that the Badr Organization can be melded into society without destroying them given their close connection to the SCIRI and al-Hakim being one of their top commanders at one time (not sure if he still is).
Despite the close connection with Iran, I think that the Badr Organization may actually end up helping us leave Iraq in the end.
3:44 pm
Rick,
Why do the newly freed slaves have to reach out to the slaveholders? The Sunnis have much to apologize for past sins, they should be reaching out to the Shia to make amends. This reluctance by the Sunnis is the same approach as was Democrats demands that President Bush needed to reach out to Democrat after the 2004 election; it was the Democrats themselves that should have.
5:02 pm
It’s interesting that you seem to have alot of faith in the NIE assessment. I wonder why that is so? Is it because it reflects your bias? Did the NIE of October 1, 2002 also reflect your bias?
Quote from NIE, October 1, 2002:
“We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.”
“Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”
5:10 pm
What “bias” are you referring to?
Thems the facts – part of the story anyway. As far as the 2002 NIE, that was thrown together in less than two weeks. This is the product of many months of analysis and discussion.
Are you saying that what I wrote is reflective of some kind of “bias” that prevents me from seeing what’s really going on? Why not tell me what you think is happening in Iraq? How swell everything is. How there aren’t 1.8 million refugees or 200 pple being murdered a day in sectarian bloodletting. Or that the government is universally loved and respected by all Iraqis.
If we are going to win any kind of a victory, it is going to be because we deal with Iraq as it is not as we wish it to be.
5:16 pm
“This most recent NIE, if it does nothing else, will, I hope, disabuse those who are inclined to believe that the application of military power alone by America can do much to solve the long term, systemic political problems that keep the insurgency going. At this point, we can do little more than act as a buffer between Shia extremists who seek revenge and Sunnis who are being hunted down and killed by both regular and irregular forces. For this reason alone, our continued presence in Iraq is well worth the effort.”
I was with you for the first two sentences, but the third one doesnt (to me) logically follow. If there’s not much we can do to end things, why is it well worth the effort to stay? I mean, if we were an effective buffer between the warring factions, I could see where you’re coming from. But surely experience has shown that we are not truly effective in that role.
5:22 pm
mmmm…depends on what constitutes “effective.”
I’d say right now we’re keeping the violence to an unacceptable but bearable level. But if we go, it will be a nightmare of a catastrophe – worse than Darfur as I point out. Sadr is dead serious – as serious Milosevic ever was – about cleansing Iraq of Sunnis. That would mean that 5 million people would be on the move – an intolerable situation. Especially since (and I violently disagree with Krauthammer about this) we were the catalyst that freed the Shias to carry out this pogrom.
I say that a mission to save the Sunnis is a worthwhile mission and one we are obligated to undertake – morally and in a strategic sense.
9:45 pm
But Rick, if we have to be a buffer between Sunni and Shia, won’t we have to stay for decades. I’ve read that Arabs will feud with each other for Hundred’s of years. This is a neverending blood feud. Your right, our military can’t solve this problem. When will enough already be enough?
10:26 pm
Home page.
Congratulations. This is the first time I see a Right Wing blog call it like it is in Iraq….. There is still some hope for you guys.
Your analysis is superior, correct, incisive, and above all based in reality not the usual delusion coming from your side.
I am impresed.
10:53 pm
A little idea that might work.
Iraq is moving toward partition weather we like it or not.
A little known fact hardly ever reported is that the Kurds are for the most part and for all practical purposes independent now, and have been for the last 15 years. Their independence is so open that they have their own Army (the Peshmerga) numbering about 100,000 highly trained, highly motivated Kurdish soldiers. In fact with the exception of our own U.S. Army, they are by far the best Army in Iraq. Kurds will not under any sircunstance take orders from the likes of al Sistani. That is a fact.
Where am I going with this?
If the entire North of Iraq with some of the largest oil fields and oil reserves in the nation is and will remain off limits to Shiite influence then why do we continue to fool ourselves in pretending that a) there is a Democracy in Iraq we can defend? , B) That Iraq can’t be partitioned if in all but name it already is? C) that the Kurds will accept to be the smallest, and therefore weakest minority in a proverbial real Democracy if it ever comes about. Given the fact that they have the strongest military, are by far the most organized, and are our true natural allies in the region how can any one believe they will just give all that up and be subservant to the Shiite… People they share nothing with? D) As pointed out by this blog, that the Sunni will just give up and accept beeing killed, cleansed out of their territory, and in effect expulsed out of their own country by the Shiite?
The only way out of Iraq is give every one what they want…. Their separate ways. The Kurds already have a Nation as I just pointed out, The SHiite already have a bast region to claim home in Southern Iraq, and the Sunni control the center.
Granted that this has problems, but the problems are by far less complicated to resolve that the quagmire from hell WITH NO SOLUTION that Bush is hell bent in persuing. Bush is delusional incompetent that should have never been President is as simple as that.
Oil is the problem in this idea (Sunni have none), and Turkey does not want a Kurdish state at it’s door step. I don’t know about you, but if these are the “problems” to solve, then by all means SOLVE THEM and get it over with!!.... Or of course we can continue to call each other’s names, see our troops be killed ad infinitum, spend a trillion dollars to get the Iranians have Iraq handed to them in a silver platter, continue to ignore the real war on terrorism fort lack of resources, etc, etc.
Byden might be right who knows. I for one like at least part of the idea. In the end it might just happen by default. Like I said it is already a done deal in Kurdistan.
4:51 am
Oh, and on the Karbala attack, re:insurgent spec ops;
http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/4-us-troops-announced-killed-troops.html#c117044156539816444
Interetingly complex operation run by Sunni insurgents. I don’t see why they could do this but not the Karbala raid.
3:33 pm
“For this reason alone, our continued presence in Iraq is well worth the effort.”
Whaddya mean our, kemo sabey?
6:35 pm
JR:
So, the Sunnis stole the election from the Shites. Answers all my questions about their feud. And also about the two thosand year old feud between Demos and Repubs…great logic. Where Have I been?
6:46 pm
To gil:
Practical, pragmatic, and real. Great factional wars have ended up with partitions. Korea, Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe, etc. Lets get on with the real solution. We cannot make these people like each other.
2:21 am
Well, how really fascinating; a rightwing analysis of the situation in Iraq without any references to surrender, appeasement, cowardice, treason or cut-and-run. It’s really almost disorienting. Rather ironic, too; if we’d seen this kind of approach from the Right for the past couple of years, or, indeed, even since the election, Bush could have certainly have gotten cooperation for the escalation he’s trying to ram down the throat of the country now. But that, of course, would have meant acknowledging that that strategy in Iraq was wrong in the first place, an admission that is virtually unthinkable. After all, the war in Iraq was always secondary to – and, in fact, always driven by – the domestic war against Democrats, liberals, blacks, Mexicans, feminists, environmentalists, and the various other enemies of Republicanism. Accordingly, there was never an occasion when Bush didn’t declare himself the Decider or Cheney announce that the administration doesn’t give a rat’s ass about what the Democrats think; when critics of the war weren’t accused of appeasement, cowardice or treason; when – as with the State of the Union – smirking fratboy Bush didn’t sink to the level of Bubblehead Malkin or Michael Savage, by referring to the “Democrat” Party; or just yesterday, in which lackey Tony Snow didn’t once again try to tie Iraq to “the lessons of 9/11.” They just can’t help themselves; Bush’s natural arrogance and vanity would never permit him to admit that he was actually wrong about Iraq (excluding the “mistakes were made” crap), that Saddam Hussein didn’t have a damn thing to do with the WTC attacks, and offer to enter a new strategic partnership with the Democrats.
Nope, Bush is just too petulant to give up the sleazy attacks on his perceived enemies. And now the chicken(hawks) have come home to roost. Sorry, but there’s not a chance in hell the Democrats are going to put themselves on the hook and insulate the Republicans from political fallout, while the Decider keeps repeating the lies that got us into Iraq in the first place, and accusing the Democrats of appeasement and cowardice.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with Gil’s conclusion when he notes, “Congratulations. This is the first time I see a Right Wing blog call it like it is in Iraq….. There is still some hope for you guys.” I don’t see any hope at all; what I do see is an appreciable sense of panic that being saddled with sole responsibility for Iraq may consign the Republicans to political exile, combined with the cynical attempt to pawn off some of that responsibility onto the Democrats. Good luck with that.