Peace Has Broken Out!

Well not quite yet. Strategy Page has posted one of their periodic War Updates A Perspective on the on all the world's wars going into the new year.

Worldwide violence continues to decline, but most people are unaware of this because the mass media will feature whatever wars and disorder they can find. This is an old journalistic technique, and it's good for business. But not so helpful if you are trying to keep track of what's really happening out there. Oddly enough, the most bloody conflicts (like Congo) get the least media coverage. Reporting tends to be distorted by how accessible wars are, as well as how easily your viewers could identify with the combatants. The media also has a hard time keeping score. For years, Iraq was portrayed as a disaster until, suddenly, the enemy was crushed and the war was won. Even that was not considered exciting enough to warrant much attention, and that story is still poorly covered. Same pattern is playing out in Afghanistan, where the defeats of the Taliban, and triumph of the drug gangs, go unreported or distorted. If you step back and take a look at all the wars going on, a more accurate picture emerges.

snip

All this continues a trend that began when the Cold War ended, and the Soviet Union no longer subsidized terrorist and rebel groups everywhere. The current wars are basically uprisings against police states or feudal societies, which are seen as out-of-step with the modern world. Many are led by radicals preaching failed dogmas (Islamic conservatism, Maoism), that still resonate among people who don't know about the dismal track records of these creeds. Iran has picked up some of the lost Soviet terrorist support effort. That keeps Hezbollah, Hamas, and a few smaller groups going, and that's it. Terrorists in general miss the Soviets, who really knew how to treat bad boys right.

They then have a country by country review. I will copy the two in which we currently have the most interest. The links by each country go to SP’s archive for that conflict.

Afghanistan

The headlines in the media are all about a stronger and more widespread Taliban, but it's the Taliban who are increasingly getting hammered. There hasn't been a "Taliban Spring Offensive" for the last three years, and the key Taliban financial resource; heroin in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, has been under heavy attack for the last year. The opium crop declined 25 percent this year, and drug gang income even more. The Taliban expected drug gang profits, al Qaeda assistance, and Pakistani reinforcements to turn the tide. But al Qaeda is a very junior, and unpopular, partner, and the Pakistani Taliban are sending refugees, not reinforcements. With all that, violence nationwide was up, mainly because there are more foreign troops in the country, being more aggressive against the Taliban and drug gangs. Foreign troops lost 295 dead in combat during 2008, and that increased 76 percent, to 519, in 2009. That's about half the casualty rate for foreign troops in Iraq during the peak year of 2007. Foreign troops lost 711 dead this year (a 37 percent increase), the casualty rate running at about the same rate of last year because there were more foreign troops in action this year. The Taliban roadside bomb weapon is losing its punch because of more MRAPs, and specialized intel and engineer troops moved in from Iraq. This has not helped civilians, who suffer far more deaths from Taliban action. In fact, independent minded tribes, warlords, corruption and drug gangs remain a greater threat to peace, prosperity and true national unity, than the Taliban (on both sides of the Pakistan border). The "Taliban" are not an organization, but a Pushtun movement that is active on both sides of the border, among less than ten percent of the 40 million Pushtun in the region. The Pakistani government finally agreed to take on the pro-Taliban tribes and various Islamic terrorist organizations. That has put pressure on Taliban on either side of the border. There is no longer a safe haven for the Taliban. Violence inside Afghanistan is growing, largely because of the drug gangs, and their support for tribes (especially pro-Taliban ones) that oppose the corrupt national government. The foreign nations, fighting their war on terror in Afghanistan, have finally realized that there has never been an Afghan national government that was not corrupt, and changing that is going to be more difficult than fighting the Taliban or finding bin Laden. NATO is now fully aware of the trans-national nature of the Pushtun tribes and the Taliban movement. The "war in Afghanistan" is more of a "Pushtun Tribal Rebellion," and is being handled as such.

Snip

Iraq

Islamic terrorists are now a police problem. U.S. troops have withdrawn to suburban bases, and casualties are sharply down. U.S. deaths declined from 314 in 2008 to 150 in 2009, and 60 in 2010. This is way down from the 2007 peak of 904 (when there were three times as many U.S. troops around). Violence in general continues to be down over 80 percent from the bad old days of three years ago. More areas of the country are now at peace (as some have been since 2003.) The Sunni Arab minority has worked out peace deals with the majority Kurds and Shia Arabs. But some Sunni Arab Islamic radicals are still active, supported by Sunni Arab nationalists in the Persian Gulf, and former Saddam supporters in Syria. Some Sunni Arabs, who had fled the country, are returning, but nearly half the Sunni Arabs are still gone (either outside the country or hiding inside Iraq). The Shia militias have been defeated as well, mainly by Iraqi police and troops. Corruption and inept government are now the major problems, with potential Iranian meddling (or even invasion) a permanent threat. The major U.S. TV news operations have pulled out. The war is over. (bold text is mine)

Let us hope the trend continues.


Related: Democracy and Peace in a Unipolar World

NOTE: I have a love/hate relationship with this site. I don’t like their sourcing policy - they don’t - but if you want to you can usually find it with a quick google search, they have a tendency toward terminal curtness in titles style etc. but that is probably good marking. On the other hand they cover in a single place, in an easy format, items that would be impossible to keep up with otherwise, and there meta -analysis’ are usually among the most plausible and they do not spin their analysis to support agendas or either side in domestic politics. This type of article is SP at it’s best.

A March Up Country?

In 401 BC the Cyrus the Younger hired a large army of Greek mercenaries to take the Persian throne. Though they the won at the battle of Cunaxa, near modern Baghdad in Iraq, Cyrus was killed in the battle. This left the Greeks stranded in hostile territory and having to fight their way home. Xenophon, one of the senior leaders of the expedition, recorded their story in one of the classics of ancient literature Anabasis (The March Up Country) often subtitled Xenophon and the 10,000

Since we are talking about Iraq.

/rantmode=ON

I was very ambivalent about the war to begin with. There was a stable balance of power in the region, but stable balance of powers can protect genocidal governments for years. Sadam was accused of following what Hans Morgantahau called an anti-status quo policy, I thought it was a prestige policy, but the two are often difficult to tell apart, and he had invaded two counties. Saddam got more from the prestige of having (or having people think he had) WMD’s than he could ever get from using them outside Iraq, but what ever you think chemical weapons do to people it is much worse, and he did use them ine past. My pre-blog comments have long since disappeared off the net. Paul Cella expressed what I was thinking then and said it better than I did.

Whatever one thinks of the war the Secretary of Defense had very misguided ideas on how to run a Defense Department and fight a war.

And despite all that, owing more to the troops on the ground and the Iraqis, the military situation in Iraq, while difficult, is nowhere near as bad as the press reports would have you believe.

The original insurgency of pro-Saddam Baathists has been effectively defeated since the end of 2005. Of course like all insurgencies some idiots will be throwing bombs for years, but it is really an Iraqi police problem at this point. Al Quida is on the run, its policy of trying to get Iraqi support by killing Iraqis, only got Iraqis mad. They may be more than a strict police problem at this point, but AQ is not likely to overthrow an Iraqi government of any type. Since about the beginning of 2006 a number of armed groups that had been sitting out the original insurrengency decided it was time to use force to get a better bargaining position for the final settlement, maybe even settle old scores, and get rid of some competitors. This is a very different dynamic than previously, which could be analyzed in the framework of standard guerilla warfare. Now we have groups that purport to represent major portions of Iraqi society, though if they weren’t armed and willing to kill people it is doubtful how much support they would have. When commentators in the last year or so have been worried that Iraq was slipping into a civil war they are expressing a concern that these groups may be able to pull whole sections of Iraqi society in to combat with other sections. Some of these groups have better outside forign connections than the Baathists which is why we are seeing more foreign (especially Iranian) weapons and other support than the Baathists received

The role of military action is limited but critical. They have to keep all the non-government factions from getting into a military position where they can dictate their terms, hurt them enough that a peaceful settlement will get them more than they have the ability to take by force. This has to be done without alienating the larger groups the militants claim to represent. Basically this is protecting the Iraqi Governments efforts to reach a peaceful settlement. The war will not be won by a straight military victory in the field, but also it can’t be done without military operations. The war can be lost militarily.

This does not sit well with the traditional American: ”If you want it done right do it yourself” attitude - forging the peace must be done by the Iraqis themselves. It is going to take time. The famous American impatience is getting thin. Insurgencies lose in the long run almost all the time, usually only winning when the other side loses confidence or gets tired.


And speaking of American Impatience.

Major political leaders in the US are demanding the withdrawal of American forces.

With all the discussion on the possibility of a withdrawal it seems that most of the discussion is an Americentric approach to US domestic politics. Some even give the impression that they see the issue is about George Bush, what happens to Iraq, neighboring countries, US ability to conduct international relations in the future, or even US troops in Iraq is unimportant or a distraction. Yes, one can have differences of opinion about Bush's policies, I do, but harming our country and others for what ultimately amounts to patronage and contacts is just plain stupid.

A refreshing voice comes from Austin Bay who asks:

What happens if the United States and coalition forces withdraw rapidly from Iraq? The U.S. and the Iraqi governments have their own scenarios. Iran, al-Qaida, Syria and Turkey have also analyzed potential outcomes.
. . .
Here are seven "scenarios" sketching "potential outcomes" of a quick withdrawal from Iraq. These scenarios are not mutually exclusive. You will find bits and pieces in all seven:

1)Three New Countries
. . .
2) Regional Shia-Sunni War: [extending well beyond the borders of Iraq] . . .The War Over Mesopotamia could last for weeks, or it could grind on for years.


3) Turkey Expands: Turkey takes control of northern Iraq to the city of Kirkuk. .. . . Turkey would pay a huge political price, however. It would lose all chance of joining the European Union. As ties with the West deteriorate, Turkey might become less secular and more Islamic in both identity and in political orientation.


4) Shia Dictatorship:


5) "Gang Up": . . . Rwanda in the desert. Shia Arabs and Kurds launch a coordinated campaign to eliminate Iraq's Sunni Arab community…. . .


6) Chaos: Iraq shatters into ethnic enclaves, . . .
the kind of disaster that allows al-Qaida to build training facilities and base camps for operations throughout the Middle East and Europe.


7) The Iraqi Center Holds: The democratic government proves to be resilient. The assumption behind this scenario is that Iraq's government is just responsive enough and its security forces are just strong enough to withstand attacks by extremists and give Iran pause. After several months of brutal warfare, the Iraqi Army destroys insurgent groups.

Out of seven "rapid withdrawal" scenarios only one -- number seven -- clearly benefits the majority of Iraqis.


Of course any of options one to six could have far reaching results that are good for no one.

Also Robert Kagan’s interesting article End of Dreams, Return of History in the latest issue of Policy Review makes the same point in a larger context.

Conflicts are more likely to erupt if the United States withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. . . . It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. . . . An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again.
HT” The Duck of Minerva

I sometimes sarcastically think that the President should sign one of the withdrawal bills then he and Chaney resign, now the fun part: watching the now President Pelosi try to get the law repealed, declared unconstitutional, or just telling congress she's going to ignore it “so impeach me!” I assume that she realizes how stupid the idea is and is only trying to force a veto for leverage in the general election. If she were to have any effectivness as president she could not start with a meltdown in Iraq, especilly as a result of her actions. But even if she didn't every country in the Middle East and Europe will explain it to her - the US broke it, the US fixes it.


But there is another scenario to be considered. When the withdrawl announcement is made, for an Iraqi survive in Iraq he will need to be more radical than the radicals. Intelligence sources will dry up. Any thing that depends on employing Iraqi’s will stop. Iraqi Army and Police units will follow their own agendas. While they might not attack US units they will have no incentive to cooperate. Many as a means to get equipment, revenge, or prestige will atack any US activity that is practical. Many, possibly millions, will want to be evacuated with US forces. In the the worst case US forces could very likely be stranded like Xenophon with no way home except to march against opposition to a coast where the Navy can pick them up. I suspect the better cases will not be much better.

Will the members of Congress who created the problem put legal obstacles in the way of allowing the troops to get home, allowing the Navy to pick them up, and allow entrance for the refugees? I don’t know. The political backlash might force them to support a fighting withdrawal, but this same wing of this same political party forced the abandonment of the Vietnamese boat people.


Since The March Up Country II - Petraeus and the 100.000 has no potential literary merit as a sequel, it is time to take US domestic politics out of the discussion and bring in some common sense by all parties.

/rantmode=OFF


all my Iraq posts

NOTE 08/14/2009: This post was published about a month before General Petreaus make his report to Congress requesting the troops for what became the “The Surge”