- The Washington Times - Tuesday, September 14, 2004

An Iraqi journalist I know who supports President Bush’s policy told me that Iraq is in a race between solving the uprising problem and civil war. I share his concern. In some sense, this is obvious; although administration officials suggest that either the trend is not in that direction, or at least that we are not imminently at such a tipping point.

As a supporter of the president, and his Iraq policy, I nonetheless find it hard not to suspect that an aggressive military policy to put down particularly the Sunni insurgency is on hold until after the American election on Nov. 2. Of course, I can’t prove that, and no one in the administration has said such a thing to my knowledge.

But officials have conceded that playing out the current political negotiation/military-restraint strategy is not risk free. It is undoubtedly the case that each day the Sunni and Shia strongholds remain, at least some contagion spreads to currently peaceable communities and individuals.

On the other hand, it is argued, if a political — rather than a military — solution is possible, the heavy political price in Iraqi goodwill of crushing Fallujah and the other strongholds would not have to be paid. Moreover, no one can be certain that such a military solution might not itself so alienate Iraqis as to make a transition to an American-friendly Iraqi government impossible.

It needs to be understood, however, that Iraq is not yet in a state of civil war, as some long-time opponents of the president’s policy have recently started arguing. Currently, some unknowable number of Iraqis and foreign enemies are manifestly capable of committing major violence and mayhem almost at will and in most of the country (although the Kurdish provinces are much more difficult territory for these people to operate in.)

Whether these enemy fighters (and their supporters and active sympathizers) are as few as 10,000 or as many as a million, they do not yet constitute a sufficient percentage of the population to push Iraq into a condition of civil war. A state of civil war only exists when a substantial fraction of the population is committed to the overthrow of or secession from the existing order.

Moreover, the Shia leadership — which represents 60 percent of the population and reasonably hopes to govern an undivided representative country — is strongly motivated to not let Iraq slip into civil war. And, while some Kurds dream of sovereign autonomy, a very large percentage of their leadership remains committed to an undivided Iraq (albeit with substantial Kurdish autonomy short of sovereignty.)

And, while there is substantial disillusion with America’s ability to impose order and infrastructure rebuilding, it would appear that a high percentage of Iraqis (including many Sunnis) recognize that this is their one chance at gaining a normal, eventually peaceful and prosperous nation. It is a mistake to assume that most Iraqis primarily identify themselves by religion or tribe. In fact, there is a well-developed sense of nationalism (partially a result, ironically, of Saddam Hussein’s secular tyranny.) Nationalism tends to be a unifying, not a dividing, instinct.

How much time we have before the current insurrectionary activity infects a sufficient part of the population as to tip Iraq into civil war is not objectively knowable.

It is a certainty, though, that the current level of insurrection, wherein whole cities are “no-go” territory for even heavily armored American troops, is not compatible with a successful outcome in Iraq, and almost certainly will eventually tip Iraq into irredeemable chaos. We know also that every day the source of the infection is not cleaned out, it continues to spread at some rate.

So, I return to the question posed at the beginning of the column. Is our government letting the American election date affect its judgment about when (if at all) to take direct military action to end “no-go” areas and put down the insurrectionist strongholds?

I don’t know the answer, so I don’t presume to make such an allegation. But I do presume to earnestly advise our government’s war leaders to dismiss such a factor — if it exists — from their calculations.

Morally, they are obliged to fight this war in the most efficacious manner — irrespective of electoral consequences. And, at a practical — even cynical — level, it is not likely to adversely affect the election results.

The American people are poised to re-elect the president because they believe, as I do, that he will continue to prosecute this war with all the vigor he has so far demonstrated. Further evidence of that leadership will be all to the good.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide