The Iraq Flare-Up

So, as we all know by now, things are getting bad in Iraq. The military run by the Iraqi government that the U.S. Government has backed is now engaged in a pretty bloody battle with the Mahdi Army, run by Moqtada al-Sadr. I haven't heard anyone say very definitively who started shooting first, but the indications are that the Maliki government is the aggressor, trying to preempt any possibility of Sadr gaining any legitimacy in upcoming elections. Having gotten himself in over his head, Maliki now has American troops fighting Sadr's.

There are two other articles I want to point to. In the first, TPM reports that Iraqi police have begun defecting to the Mahdi army. The second is an op-ed piece by former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, making a case for why and how to get out of Iraq. The operative quote is here:

The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour byproduct of the destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it shatters Iraqi society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British colonial era, the longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups will have to compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. A serious dialogue with the Iraqi leaders about the forthcoming U.S. disengagement would shake them out of their stupor.

Brzezinski's article is flawed in the "how" portion of its reasoning. A lot of his fairly rosy outlook depends on diplomacy that he assumes will be successful. And of course, "shak[ing] them out of their stupor" doesn't necessarily mean that the Iraqis will wake up to reality and all of a sudden start getting along. More likely, as we're seeing now, it will mean intensified conflict in order to beat down the competition as soon as possible once the moderator is gone. U.S. withdrawal from Iraq may mean that Turkey will be more aggressive in Kurdistan, and it's very likely that large portions of Iraq will be directly or indirectly controlled by Iran, and it's almost absolutely true that the departure of U.S. troops will lead to warring among rival groups fighting for territory. The word "clusterfuck" won't even begin to cover it. But Brzezinski also offers compelling reasons to do it anyway, aside from the traditional too many deaths/too much money/diversion from Afghanistan arguments.

• The aforementioned dependency issue. As the current imbroglio demonstrates, the Maliki government has an unfortunate amount of control over where our troops are fighting. It pisses off the Iraqi people and projects the image of the U.S. as the warlords, meanwhile allowing Maliki's people to slack because they know that we'll do the work for them.
• The longer we wait, the worse the fall-out is likely to be. Whereas once we were fighting local warlords, we're now paying them to keep certain areas under control. The longer they have our support and funding, the more powerful these warlords will become, and the worse the fighting will be when we're gone.
  
• AQI. "Locally based jihadist groups have gained strength only insofar as they have been able to identify themselves with the fight against a hated foreign occupier."

This really is a lose-lose scenario. Security in Iraq is a joke, the infrastructure is in shambles, the government is composed of thieves and warmongers, who are competing for control with other thieves and warmongers who are only considered less legitimate rulers because the U.S. is not backing them. When we leave, there will be open war for territory, and a great deal of people will die. The real horror of it, though, is that that's the best option we have left.