One of the countless mistakes made in the planning and execution of the Iraq war was the baffling Pollyannaism of the planners. It’s one thing to put an optimistic face forward, but an entirely different thing to be legitimately surprised when things don’t work out in the way you intended. I would have thought that planning for worst-case scenarios is standard operating procedure for military operations, but Rumsfeld and his underlings seemed to be simply stuck when things went wrong.
Deep into the mess, it’s still worth asking what is the worst-case scenario for Iraq, and I don’t see many people making the effort. I’m certainly no expert, but even I can see a clear path to much worse outcomes than most people seem to be contemplating. Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy has laid out a useful categorization of the possibilities, on which Ted Barlow at Crooked Timber offers useful commentary:
- The U.S. beats back the insurgency and democracy flowers in Iraq (call this the “optimistic stay” scenario),
- The U.S. digs in its heels, spends years fighting the insurgency, loses lots of troops, and years later withdraws, leading to a bloody and disastrous civil war (the “pessimistic stay” scenario);
- The U.S. decides that it’s no longer worth it to stay in Iraq, pulls out relatively soon, and things in Iraq are about as best as you could hope for, perhaps leading to a decent amount of democracy (optimistic leave), and
- The U.S. decides that it’s no longer worth it to stay in Iraq, pulls out soon, and plunges Iraq into a bloody and disastrous civil war with the bad guys assuming control eventually (pessimistic leave).
I can be more pessimistic than that! The hints are right there in the attempts by some Shia clerics to carve out some autonomy for Shiites in the oil-rich southern provinces of the country. The proposal, which would have isolated the Sunni minority in the relatively poor central regions between Kurdish and Shia territories, seems to have been defeated as far as the Iraqi constitution is concerned. But things are far from settled, and it raises the possibility that the civil war will ultimately result in partition of the country.
Iraq was one of those ethnically heterogeneous nations that were awkwardly pieced together in the process of colonialization and its aftermath. It’s very common for such states to dissolve when the bonds are loosened.
Iraq, forged by the British from the war-torn scrap of the collapsed Ottoman empire, survived as a single state only because of the iron fists of monarchs and, in more recent decades, former dictator Saddam Hussein.
Despite that, there is a fear that its disintegration could trigger unpredictable consequences for all of its uneasy neighbours — Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. Some critics now say that the policy pledge of trying to keep Iraq whole was always doomed. “Iraq is the last, multiethnic state, left over from the First World War,” said Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador with experience in both the Balkans and Iraq.
“Democracy killed the Soviet Union, it killed Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and it will kill Iraq,” he said in an interview from Baghdad.
“A managed breakup is not easy, but it will be less violent than a forced and unhappy union,” said Mr. Galbraith, now a senior diplomatic fellow at the Washington-based Center for Arms Control.
Maybe it will be less violent; but the opposite is certainly conceivable. Imagine that the Kurds and the Shiites really carve out separate countries for themselves. The Shia region will naturally ally with Iran, as has already been happening. The existence of a sovereign Kurdish state will be unacceptable to leaders in Turkey, who worry that their own Kurdish minority will push to secede. Meanwhile the small Sunni minority will be left without significant oil wealth, but with a memory of ruling the country for decades.
It’s not hard to imagine disaster: a conflict between one or the other of these remnant states spreading to their natural allies in the region. Iran and the former Iraq have a long history of bloody warfare; it’s not hard to envision a conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis, with Iran jumping in on the Shiite side. The Sunnis have allies throughout the Arab world, any one of which might come to their aid — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria. Turkey could easily see the chaos as a good excuse to subdue the Kurds, opening up a regional conflagration. Saddam already established the precedent of lobbying missiles at Israel when things look grim; various of the states involved could get a similar idea. Unlike the first Gulf War, in which the U.S. was trying to hold together a fragile coalition of regional allies, the Israelis would have little motivation for sitting quietly without retaliating (nor should they). It would be, to put it mildly, a mess.
To be clear, I don’t think such a scenario is at all likely; but I don’t think it’s inconceivable, either. And it should be our job to contemplate the worst possible outcomes of unstable situations like we find ourselves in right now. This is why, although I’ve always been anti-war, and certainly against the establishment of permanent U.S. bases (one of the many unspoken agendas of the war), I’ve never been in favor of setting a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops, an idea that seems to be gaining currency among Democrats. I’m of the Colin Powell “you break it, you bought it” school, and we have certainly broken it. Right now, how long we stay in Iraq should largely be up to the judgement of the Iraqis themselves, acting as a sovereign nation; so long as our troops are serving a useful purpose in helping the country stay together and move towards peace, it’s our obligation to stick it out.
Update: At Obsidian Wings, hilzoy has a discussion of Iraqi militias that won’t make anyone feel more optimistic.
Thank you Sean for opening this most serious line of discussion. It is unfortunate that so few of the politically oriented blogsphere sites are willing to tackle this core idea of “worst case scenario” planning. My concern is that there are factors that seem to be not so relevant, yet are inextricably linked to what happens in the future. Regardless of all the published reasons for invading Iraq and taking control of the region, our need to hold its oil reserves for our own use is paramount. To insure this outcome we need to build permanent bases throughout Iraq, and, indeed, i am sure some of the hawks are envisioning such bases in Iran at some point. The bases must be manned and retain their capacities to inflict massive carnage on whatever agency attempts to interfere with our control of the flow of oil to our national uses(i include corporate profitability as part of this). The flow of oil includes pipelines through former Soviet republics(sic) as well as maintaining Afghan and Turkish compliance with our policies.
China and India are now competing for the world’s oil supply. Venezuela has overtly threatened to cutoff 40% of our daily supply if our leaders use force to overthrown the Chavez regime. China has clearly threatened us over their desire to control Taiwan and the oil reserves that lay beneath the China and Yellow Seas. Japan threatens China hoping we get involved. Thus Iraq oil reserves are our current best hope as a steady supply source(oil shale development and coal refinement are technologies that are dawning as the price of oil skyrockets); we must work out some agreement with the new king of Saudi Arabia, who seems to be someone that likes our administration’s positions on many things repressive and oppressive.
Pulling troops out of Iraq as a function of claiming we have achieved some sort of victory will only be a facade of our maintaining permanent standing forces there and in the region. We cannot let go of the oil now that we have it. Greed seems to far outweigh sanity in these matters. So the worst case scenario from my perspective is the fifty to seventy years of time my children must live to endure the ever on-going struggle of US military involvement in the Middle East. The war appears to have no end.
One must consider the possibility that Iraqis don’t believe that they will ever be able to act as a sovereign nation, that a long-term US presence is planned for, and the US will always be pulling the strings behind the scenes. That may be why a small but deadly number of Iraqis is willing to blow themselves up. There will be no end to this, unless there are iron-clad guarantees that the US will leave.
Anyway, the worst-case scenario should include the possibility that long warfare in Iraq facilitates the radicalization of Muslim youth everywhere, resulting in a future apocalypse, such as a JDAM event (Jihadi Delivered Atomic Munition). See the fallout of the Afghan war of the 1980s here:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050820/asp/nation/story_5135305.asp
Also see:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/20/133443/242
The Afghan war resulted in the seeds of jihad being carried all over the world. The Iraq war is water, sunlight and fertilizer. We are on the edge of perpetual warfare.
Y’know, it’s kinda like if a date went really really badly and she just wants you to LEAVE. At that point there’s only one thing you can do to restore your credibility- leave.
And that’s what we should do, because things could get a LOT worse than an Iraqi civil war.
And it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to go cold turkey on the Iraqi oil. If you want to talk about justice, we’ve had more than our share of the world’s cheap oil, and it’s time to push ourselves back from the table, and figure out how to run our country with less oil.
There’s a lot of examples of countries that waged war for so long that they themselves collapsed. Let’s not be one of them.
Ah. Nothing I love more than having to choose between a series of really, really bad options.
SC – “…so long as our troops are serving a useful purpose…”
Now that’s the real question isn’t it? How the f*** do you propose to determine that? And are you willing to put your butt on the line for that “useful purpose?” The Army needs men, and last time I heard you were looking for employment.
Given that our leaders have so far proven utterly inept, what makes you think they are doing any better now. There is a pretty good case to make that the presence of our toops is the principal exacerbating factor in what is already a medium intensity civil war.
I agree with all your likely grim scenarios, and have posted similar stuff myself, but your casual acceptance of “stay the course” as the least risky scenario seems neither well-motivated nor obvious – and it is the course that will for sure get more Americans and Iraqi’s killed.
(BTW: Why can’t I copy text from your blog? It’s very annoying – as is the funky little dance the comment window does as I type.)
i believe a “JDAM event”, as Arun describes it, some place in the West is sadly inevitable. rather than pretending we can somehow contain or prevent people moved to initiate such an event, i believe we should try to nullify the technology and mechanism of the event itself. recall that the advent of nuclear power and weaponry was a singularity in terms of human experience. i believe and expect that, with sufficient study necessarily accompanied by sufficient investment in high energy physics, a practical means of neutralizing nuclear weapons might be found.
of course, it is possible that American administrative authorities don’t want their precious nuclear weapons neutralized, no matter what the cost. such is the addiction of power.
An animal trainer told the story of a leopard in his act who passed a lion each show on his way back to his cage. Each time, he reached up and slashed the lions leg, causing the lion to develop a permanent festering sore. Until the day the lion lashed out, ripped the leopard’s head off, and knocked it across the cage.
I can’t assess the likelyhood of a JDAM, as Arun puts it, but if it occurs, I think it will result in Islam becoming a religion practiced mainly in Hell. Muslim nations will very likely be indiscriminately slaughtered, and the West will make sure that none develops technology again anytime soon. Islamic terrorists are undoubtedly a small minority of Muslims, but in case of catastrophe, all may held responsible.
CIP said:
I can’t assess the likelyhood of a JDAM, as Arun puts it, but if it occurs, I think it will result in Islam becoming a religion practiced mainly in Hell. Muslim nations will very likely be indiscriminately slaughtered, and the West will make sure that none develops technology again anytime soon.
Highly unlikely in reality, *but* a lot of Muslims believe it. And that belief is all that is protecting us. This is the real reason the US is in Iraq: you have to talk to them in the only language they understand.
There is a popular rumor in many Arab lands that the US has several 10-megaton warhead missiles trained on Mecca at all times. Nonsense of course, but highly useful nonsense.
CIP:
The JDAM is so unthinkable to any of us but it is no longer something unlikely and it could well be something we need to deal with in the near future, search for “Paul Williams” and “Nuclear”.
What I want to say is it is exactly the mentality of CIP alike, that provides very good reason, for any country of decent size to develop their nukes, if just for self-defense. Indian did it, Pakistain did not, Isreal did it, N.Korea did not, South Africa once had it, Iran etc are all secretly doing it.
Give me one good reason why countries like Saudi, Syria, Or even Eygypt should not develope their nuclear weapons, if knowing fully well that if the O Son of Bitch detonates a suitcase nuke in New York, and all of Muslin countries will be wiped out of existence, except for a few (like Pakistan) that has nukes that we dare not touch?
Quantoken
Well, when you are in the midst of creating your own reality it’s kinda hard to be doing worst-case scenarios and what not. Bush had military planners mapping out the routes of the Iraqi freedom parades, which his neocon brain trust had guaranteed. Who could worry about maintaining order or running water when we we had to plan those great shots of Iraqi’s greeting us as liberators with flowers and hugs?
Plus it gave George W a chance to show George HW a thing or two. He wasn’t gonna be a pussy like his dad and be all worried about getting involved in a struggle with no clear exit strategy once the parades fell through. So what if it’s cost us 1800+ lives, nearly 200 billion dollars and four years of freedom for Osama bin Laden? Those are problems only for people living the fact based world.
It’s hard work to maintain an alternate reality, hence the constant vacations.
Dr.Max – It’s hard work to maintain an alternate reality, hence the constant vacations.
Amen.
quantoken – Give me one good reason why countries like Saudi, Syria, Or even Eygypt should not develope their nuclear weapons, if knowing fully well that if the O Son of Bitch detonates a suitcase nuke in New York, and all of Muslin countries will be wiped out of existence, except for a few (like Pakistan) that has nukes that we dare not touch?
If a major US (or European) city gets nuked, the first targets are likely to be Pakistan and other countries that might have supplied the weapon. Iraq is partl a result of a “kill them all and let God sort them out” mentality. A nuclear attack would multiply this effect by a huge factor.
Terrorism by the weak against the strong is only effective when the strong are inhibited by moral constraints. Once those are lost, the weak get annihilated.
One of the many ways we have paid for our leaders alternate reality is that the near triump in Afghanistan, marred mainly by the folly which let bin Laden escape, was followed by making ourselves a perfect target in Iraq. The best reason to get out is to stop being a perfect target. The best reason not to get out is that getting out will be a victory for bin Laden which may further embolden him and his followers.
Sean said: “Right now, how long we stay in Iraq should largely be up to the judgement of the Iraqis themselves, acting as a sovereign nation; so long as our troops are serving a useful purpose in helping the country stay together and move towards peace, it’s our obligation to stick it out.”
Many a colonial empire justified its dominion over a colony by just this logic: “If we leave there will be hell to pay”. And of course they did their best to create condititions that ensured just that. Not just ‘divide & rule’ but also ‘yoke enemies together & rule’.
The world is paying for the sins of the colonial powers (including Turkey) of yesteryear. W’s misadventure has made that payment due all at once and made US lives a big part of the payment. Like Yugoslavia after Tito, after Saddam the Kurds, Shias & Sunnis would have battled it out to a fragmented “Iraq”, just as Galbraith said; with or without US soldiers being in the crossfire.
Also, in addition to the JDAM scenario we need to consider the Revengeful Israeli Pilot scenario. If an Israeli air force pilot’s family is killed by “Islamic terrorists” s/he just flies a fully armed (not necessarily nuclear) F-16 to Mecca and obliterates the Kaaba with one or more 2000 pound munitions. Then swings to Medina and destroys the mosque there in a Kamikaze dive. The global result is too scary to contemplate.
The Iraq war is a product of stupidity – not “use force, it is the only language they understand” and not “kill them all and let God sort it out”.
Saddam was the force keeping the various factions in Iraq in check. Surely the Iraqis understood Saddam and didn’t need an American lesson. Saddam didn’t have WMD, didn’t support al Qaeda and didn’t have anything to do with 9/11. His was a secular government, keeping the Islamists in check.
The net result of the Iraq war (apart from American and Iraqi deaths and upto $2 trillion in eventual liabilities (taking care of around 10,000 maimed soldiers for instance)) is that people who have never had contact with the global jihad before the Iraq war are now volunteering as suicide bombers (there is both an Israeli and a Saudi study on this).
Anyway, when British or French second generation Muslims or a John Walker Lindh delivers the next terrorist blow – be it nuclear or otherwise, whom are you going to invade or turn into glass? Paris? San Franscisco?
(via pharyngula.org)
http://billmon.org/archives/002090.html
Arun – Anyway, when British or French second generation Muslims or a John Walker Lindh delivers the next terrorist blow – be it nuclear or otherwise, whom are you going to invade
Except for murdering an innocent Brazilian, the British have responded in a very measured way. But if Islamic terrorist attacks continue, Muslims will be rounded up like the Japanese Americans were in World War II. That’s one reason why every European and American Muslim needs to take a good hard look at potentially disaffected co-religionists. Civil liberties are one of the first casualties in war.
I believe that an announced plan for withdrawal is essential, because one of the main forces supporting the insurgency and its recruiting is foreign occupation (i.e, our presence.) You can either be a petulant tough guy and say we can’t say we’re getting out because then the “bad guys” win, or you can live in the real world and understand that while a portion of the violence is factional, a lot of it is driven by our presence, and there isn’t anything we can do militarily to stop it. If the presence of our troops is producing support for it, and military action can’t stop it, then to me that argues for getting them out of there.
People worldwide are going to live with the consequences of this massive screwup for a long time, just as we’re living with the unintended consequences of our training and support of Islamic militants against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Iraq has produced a lot of radicalized Muslims, but we can at least stop producing more.
Not that I think any of this is going to happen, because having a permanent base for troops in the Middle East has always been the Bush Administration’s goal. They’ve never had any intention of withdrawing the troops, which is why they’ve never been willing to make a declaration (which in itself would have been somewhat helpful) that they have no intention of staying permanently. But that doesn’t change the fact that it would be the right thing.