Did We Just Win a War?
By Michael Reynolds | Related entries in Afghanistan, IraqIn early September, 2006, I wrote a piece at my own blog, and here at Donklephant, (more here) asking whether we had just lost a war. Afghanistan was the subject, and sadly, I think I was pretty close to right. The attempt by Musharraf to compromise with the Taliban and their allies in the tribal areas left the enemy there free to choose when and how to engage. It meant the enemy had a safe sanctuary.
You don’t win wars against foes that can hold the initiative, and then scurry back to a safe place whenever they don’t like the way a battle is going. Picture a boxing match where one fighter is allowed to throw every first punch, and then can call a time-out whenever he likes.
It seems now that the new(ish) semi-government of Pakistan will continue taking a hands-off approach to the tribal regions. Which means that either some local solution is found to the Taliban — ie the tribes get tired of them and the trouble they bring — or we’ll be fighting for a long, long time to come. Any time it becomes a test of staying power between a foreign army with a very shaky supply line, and the people who actually live in a region, bet on the locals.
But this post isn’t about Afghanistan. It’s about Iraq.
It’s been hard to get any sort of clear picture of exactly what happened in Basra between Sadr’s militia and Maliki’s army. (This one has the ring of truth.) It’s still pretty murky, and the sequelae have yet to be sorted out. But here are the relevant points, as I see them:
1) Sadr stood down. The Iraqi Army is still in Basra. Sadr didn’t stand down and allow IA forces to patrol the streets of Basra because he was winning. Sadr lacked the ability to force the IA off his turf.
2) The Iraqi Army performed poorly by American Army standards. But they didn’t lose. And they didn’t fall apart. And given the history of Arab armies in recent decades, that’s pretty good.
3) The Maliki government seems to have dreamed this up on its own, not acting on American instructions. The Maliki government was certainly motivated by political considerations more than some abstract concern for law and order.
4) Iran appears to have played a major role in the outcome.
The details, and most of the “why’s?” are yet to be learned. But this is nevertheless a big moment, a reverse Tet offensive, despite what Frank Rich wrote today. If the prevailing anti-war narrative had played out we’d have seen the IA break, switch sides, and bear a triumphant Sadr off to Tehran on its shoulders. Didn’t happen that way.
What we seem to have right now is a Maliki government that is able to initiate major military actions, even against another Shiite entity, and carry that action through to an arguably acceptable conclusion. If that doesn’t sound like much, you should read some history of the War of Independence. Or early Civil War. Or early WW2. Bumbling, stumbling, impatience and overreach are givens.
So, where do we stand right now? We have a government (of sorts) under Mr. Maliki, which is able to win fairly serious battles. We have Al Qaeda in a lot of trouble, pressed by us and our Sunni allies (of the moment.) The Kurds seem to have reached an uneasy modus vivendi with the Turks. The Iranians have backed away from pressing a confrontation with the US. It may be that the Iranians are biding their time, waiting for a Democrat in the White House. But it may also be that they’ve concluded that their real interests are more about a stable and not-hostile government in Baghdad, than about picking fights with Americans and American allies like Saudi Arabia.
There are big problems remaining. Will the Kurds stay contentedly within Iraq? Will our new BFF’s the Sunni’s of the anti-Qaeda coalition remain tame? Can the uneasy kinda-peace within Shiite ranks hold steady? Can this bunch of crooks figure out how to split up the oil loot so that all five families (apologies to the Gambinos, etc…) can wet their beaks?
Big problems. But what happened in Basra isn’t nothing, it’s something. It looks like a win. A win that may foreshadow a big win, a “victory,” now defined downward to mean: stability, within the middle-eastern meaning of that word; a not-entirely-hostile government in Iraq; widespread but not Saddam’s Iraq Chainsaw Massacre level of human rights abuses; a press that will end by being tame but perhaps not Pravda-tame; and a version of representative democracy that will probably end by being the sort of hollow joke that democracy has become in Iran, but may surprise us by rising to, say, Mexican standards.
If that’s the way it plays out, we will have failed in most of our original goals. We’ll have had no positive effect on the spread of WMD’s, and in fact may have nudged both Iran and North Korea further along that road. We will not have created a shining city on a hill to which all oppressed middle-easterners will look for inspiration. We will not have demonstrated that we are the one and only big dog, capable of going it alone and brushing aside all opposition. We’ll end up poorer, deeper in debt to the Chinese and the Arabs, with an experienced but worn-out military, and a world deeply sick of our shit. But we might at least, a in a couple of years, be able to get out.
Yay.
This entry was posted on Sunday, April 6th, 2008 and is filed under Afghanistan, Iraq. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Michael R
There is no victory as a nation in Iraq because there was never anything for the USA to gain from our involvement in Iraq. The USA only stood to lose lives, prestige, and money - we didn’t have anything on the line The only groups that ever stood to gain in this conflict were the military contractors, the oil companies, some federal bureaucracies, bond brokers, Iran, Syria, and Israel.
Rather than looking at potential outcomes we would be wise to look at the facts that lead us into the war, the shell game of facts that kept us there, and allow for conclusions based upon those facts as they are, not as we want them to be. Any good news I hear from Iraq I can only think to myself “Why now?”, “Why not 2 years ago, why last week?”, “Why at the perfect time to change the results of what should be a land slide election for the Democratic party this Fall?”.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
If Maliki won the war, why did he essentially sue for peace last week? Why thousands of his soldiers including key officers switch to Al Sadr during the battle.
1. Sadr stood down
Yes, he stood down after intervention by Iran and by issuing a list of demands that Maliki seemed to have met.
2. The Iraqi Army performed poorly by American Army standards. But they didn’t lose. And they didn’t fall apart. And given the history of Arab armies in recent decades, that’s pretty good.
This is a ridiculous statement. Large numbers deserted. The armies of serveral Arab nations including Iraq’s a few years ago would have crushed this uprising. Also the US military was heavily involved with support in both planning, intelligence and bombs.
3 The Maliki government seems to have dreamed this up on its own, not acting on American instructions.
Um, you forget this occurred, what two days after Cheney’s visit with Maliki? Also this is one Shiite faction of the “government” fighting another, that usually defined as civil war.
4) Iran appears to have played a major role in the outcome.
This by itself, means we did not just win a war.
We didn’t win, because we still can leave without massive violence. Whenever we leave, there will be massive violence. Also whenever we leave Iran will be stronger.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Yeah you’re forgetting that maliki went to Iran to ask them to get Sadr to stand down, the IA didn’t win, it was only Iran’s intervention that got Sadr to stand down
April 6th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Also much of the IA did switch sides, yeah your article sounds like a typical right wing delusion, McCain was right, the winning side doesn’t sue for peace and Maliki sued for peace
April 6th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Terence:
So, pay no attention to the facts on the ground, instead obsess over events of 5 years ago?
April 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I’ve made the point before that we’ve technically “won” in Iraq, and that Bush’s consistent reframing of what victory means is making it a near certainty that any other plan of action besides his will be deemed a failure. Yet again, a measure of how incompetent his leadership is. Yeah, let’s paint ourselves into this corner…that’s a good idea.
Great post by the way.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Kevin:
1) I don’t believe it is clear yet who asked who to stand down. That matter is still in dispute.
2) Large numbers of colonial soldiers deserted. Large numbers of Yankees and Confederates deserted. Something like 5%, give or take, of a single green brigade deserted. Read some history of our own wars.
3) Cock crows, sun rises. Cock did not cause sun to rise. The best reporting seems to be that we had 4 days’ notice and we tried to talk Maliki out of it. Had we been involved earlier Maliki would have had air support from day one.
4) Oh? How so? I seem to recall France playing a rather large role in our Revolution. And if I’m not mistaken the USSR may have thrown just a little bit into “our” victory over the Nazis.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
That’s sad, man. Moqtada al Sadr totally schooled Maliki and the Iraqi gov’t. The Sadr builds his base from the ground up, his army lives with the people, they help the people like Hezb’o'llah in Lebanon. The Mahdi Army comes out of nowhere to attack, humiliates the Iraqi army, even gets Iraqi regulars to defect, then it blends back into the populace where no one can attack. This is guerilla warfare, it cannot be won by an outsider.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Avinash:
“your article sounds like a typical right wing delusion . . .”
Yeah. The right typically takes the position that we’ve won a pyrrhic victory that has left us weaker and broker and accomplished essentially nothing. Straight out of George W. Bush’s playbook.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Justin:
Thanks.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Mike:
Pyrrhic victory infers victory of some sort, what victory, the IA was proven to be weak and many deserted, Iran and Sadr’s strength and influence grows with the common people and he’s left in control of his forces, still armed and intact. And the Maliki gov was shown to be so weak that they had to go to Iran to get them to call Sadr off, how is that a victory?
when you say that it looks like a win and that Sadr stood down you sound like McCain who is totally lost on the facts, he only stood down because he was told to by Iran and only after maliki’s govt asked for peace
April 6th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Iran even confirmed their role
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5leYnvOpPqrVCiXxC65pROPNYBAD8VRT50G0
April 6th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“bear a triumphant Sadr off to Tehran on its shoulders”
Isn’t it kind of hard considering that Sadr is currently in Iran already? Loose handling of facts already got us (US) into trouble in Iraq, so there is desperate need for more educated opinions on the subject.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Michael R
You don’t know what the facts on the ground are to make a statement like that - and unless you have spent considerable time there, you never will. The news we get is controlled, manipulated, and rarely factual. In addition, Maliki and the “government” troops are fighting who exactly….al-Qaeda, Iran, Sunni’s - or are they fighting a Sunni/Shia group supported unanimously by every “neighbor” of Iraq against the US occupation?
I’m not obsessing over things that happened 5 years ago - you are…..this war has been illegal since day one and to say anything else is simply a lie. Fools claim that since we are already there, to discuss how we got there or our conduct these past few years is fruitless and doesn’t serve a purpose for today. That is the exact same thinking that put us here in the first place - the ability to re-frame an issue that no longer relies on facts. The facts still remain that the USA attacked a sovereign nation illegally, killed hundreds of thousands of civilizations, lied continuously, and supports a posture of aggression that belies the facts.
I can tell you this, Maliki was lucky to get out of the most current situation with his dignity reasonably intact…….this was a political defeat - and may very well have been a military defeat except for the involvement of US air cover. Thousands of Iraqi army regulars not willing to fight doesn’t mean they lack courage, it means they aren’t willing to fight against their countrymen – who can blame them? The real questions are too frightening to answer……Why is the US in Iraq, and why is the US now taking sides in a Civil War? The answer to those questions points directly to war crimes………..and the USA could never be guilty of war crimes could it?
April 6th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
The news we get is controlled, manipulated, and rarely factual.
Thank God you know the truth and can share it with the benighted masses.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
That’s better than speculating on everything I hear isn’t it?
April 6th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
The information I have; that the Sadr militia had been corrupted, that youths had taken on activity that was outside of its charter. The actual militia stood down and those that continued to fight were not affiliated. Sadr feed up with gangs on killing sprees and taking hostages and property, standing down cleaned house for them, so to speak. It was Shiite cooperation, I understand that Maliki and Sadr agreed, come in and fight we will not be involved and those you fight will not be ours.
I can only assume that the Iraqi army will back out and let Sadr’s militia secure the area
April 7th, 2008 at 4:52 am
Oen:
That’s where the tale will be told: are IA troops still patrolling Basra a couple of weeks from now. At this point I’m engaging in (hopefully educated) guesswork. But in Iraq, as in this bizarre election, predictions aren’t worth the virtual paper we write them on.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Al-Sadr has the votes to win the next election and by the looks of things Maliki does not - that’s the real story. If al-Sadr wins the US loses - if al-Sadr is taken down then Maliki stands a chance of winning. So will it be a theocracy or will it be a complete failure of Bush’s war with Maliki losing? My votes are with the clerics since the Islamic factions are the only nationally organized groups people can turn to for food, water, education, and justice.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Michael, I think you have a good take. As usual, you’re refreshingly anti-knee jerk, and respondent to actual facts. I agree that Al-Sadr had to have stood down because he could not establish advantage. I don’t know anything about WHY Iran got involved, but given the outcome, it seems that they had to have done it either to save Al-Sadr’s bacon or to help Maliki. After all, if Al-Sadr had the advantage, wouldn’t Iran have told Maliki to get bent?
FWIW, I’m not as troubled as you are by the defining downward of victory. I’m not UN-troubled either. But I always viewed the early pictures being painted by Rosie Scenario to inspire public support.
I always viewed the best-case outcome as one where a semi-stable government that passed for a democracy was somehow fitfully established, and where we got little or no credit. Or even much in the way of tangible diplomatic relationship advantages. Still, the longer such a semi-stable, semi-democratic Iraqi gov’t endures, the better Iraq serves as a starter model, not for a perfect solution, but for a viable alternative that’s more desirable than a theocratic kleptocracy. The jury is WAY out on how that’s going to come out. The judgement as made by the only relevant audience, the Iraqi people, will be related to delivery of very concrete things…reliable water and power, schools, civic accountability, etc.
We’re well-served as observers to remember that democracy is messy, contentious, and SLOW. Americans ought to be hyper-aware of this idea by now, but lots of folks seem to think watching things as they unfold looks just like the executive summary in a history book.
Maliki or whoever else leads Iraq would be well-served to approach the job like a mayor…deliver stability and services and some semblance of predictability and reliability. IOW, fill the potholes and make the trains run on time.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
After all, if Al-Sadr had the advantage, wouldn’t Iran have told Maliki to get bent?
Um, Maliki is heavily supported by Iran. The Dawa party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the Badr brigade, all the sources of Maliki’s support have long ties to Iran.
Iran stepped in because it didn’t want open civil war between two of its clients, Maliki and Sadr, at least not yet.
Of the two clients, Maliki is more aligned with Iran and Sadr is more of an Iraqi nationalist. Also when I say they are both supported by Iran, it may not be the same elements in Iran supporting both. Think of Chalabi being supported by the White House and the Pentagon, while the CIA and State Department were trying to warn people he was a fraud.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
My guess as to why Iran doesn’t want open Shiite on Shiite civil war yet, is street fighting would probably prolong the US presence in Iraq.
just to refresh your memory, click the website under my name