JOURNAL: Creveld's Iraq

Martin van Creveld, a superior military thinker from The Hebrew University, divines the future of Iraq and the Middle East. His approach is based on his belief in the shrinking power of the state and the rise of non-state warriors (themes we follow on this site). It is also grounded in Israel's hard won experience. This is a very pointed analysis:

The impact of the US loss in the moral conflict:

What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon — and at what cost.

The difficulty of a withdrawal:

Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began. When Prime Minister Ehud Barak pulled Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, the military was able to carry out the operation in a single night without incurring any casualties. That, however, is not how things will happen in Iraq.

Not only are American forces perhaps 30 times larger, but so is the country they have to traverse. A withdrawal probably will require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge — if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable...

Iraq in turn destabilizes the region as global guerrillas spread out:

...a divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very likely to become a hornets' nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over the Middle East, conducting acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow governments in Allah's name.

Comments

[reluctantwarrior]

Creveld needs to re throw the bones and pull another vision from the ether he is full of excrement on this one.

The US isn't losing, I'll admit we aren't doing a perfect job in the counter insurgency but the outcome is hardly a forgone fact.

[Al]

Reluctant Warrior, what planet do you live on? We're not winning. There is no end in sight and bodies will just continue to slowly pile up.

[reluctantwarrior]

Dear Al,

After three years Iraq is under nominal civilian control, the insurgents control less than 20 percent of the territory and less than 20 percent of the population. This is not a popular insurgency it is a coercive and inter necine battle and we are not losing. If we leave we will lose if we reduce our troops to 50,000 and stiffen the resolve of the ICDC and IP and they will ultimately win their liberty. Creveld is a defeatist as are you.

[enigma_foundry]

Agree with some of Martin's conclusions, but the manner of the West's retreat from Iraq can still be managed either poorly or excellently. Speaking with those who do have ties in Iraq, the possibility, in fact probability, of Iraq becoming another failed state has to be recognized, and those in the region (e.g. Turkey) who have special interest in this not happening need to be engineered into fulfilling some roles.

Can the Bushies do it? Very doubtful.

[John Robb]

It's important to note that Creveld's approach is grounded in Israel's hard won experience. His thinking is behind much of what Sharon is doing today.

[Collin Baber]

Dr. Creveld is a military genius and his predictions are right on target. Perhaps it is time for all of us to reconsider the orwellian semantic equations used by the Bush Administration to describe "victory" and "winning" in Iraq.

Simply put, a group of Neoconservatives duped the American public into playing beehive baseball over there and now we are wondering why we're getting stung when we cover all the stolen bases.

[jon]

I don't know that we are making that much progress in Iraq. The Weimar Republic lasted from at least 1923 to 1932 without foreign ocupation. We all know what happened after that. This was in a situation in which we occupied a nation that had just finished a much more devastating war, and while not beaten quickly, had been thoroughly defeated.
It is not just haing these trappings of a modern democratic constitutional society, the people have to believe in it and most inportantly want it.

[Duncan Kinder]

If there is one potential bright spot concerning the MidEast's apparent shift away from the nation-state as its normal mode of political organization, it is with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

For two generations, we have been unable to resolve this issue along one-state or two-state lines. Apparently, the very existence of a Palestinian state has been a fundamental obstacle to the existence of an Israeli state, and vice versa.

However, as non-state, virtual state, transnational and other such forms of organization emerge, the time has come for thoughtful observers to consider a no-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

It could very well be possible, given the new non-state entities which appear to be emerging, for both the Israelis and the Palestinians simultaneously to organize themselves in meaningful forms the existence of one does not threaten the existence of the other.

This is by no means certain - but experience suggests that no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem exists within the framework of the nation-state.

[Marcello]

"If we leave we will lose if we reduce our troops to 50,000 and stiffen the resolve of the ICDC and IP and they will ultimately win their liberty."

The ICDC does not exist anymore.
It worked so well that it was disbanded and dumped in the ING.
That was in 2004.
The ING in turn was dumped in the NIA in january 2005.
It would appear that your informations are slighty out of date.

"Creveld is a defeatist as are you."

Very well, then you can go back to the bunker to order around armies which do not exist...

[vox]

I thought the analogy to Viet Nam was misplaced and overstretched. Neither the terrain, culture, orders of battle, or grand strategic context map in a meaningful way to Iraq.

The more apt analogy would be to Lebanon, where, surprisingly, after the departure of U.S. and Israeli forces, Baathist elements sponsored by Syria became strongly engaged in putting an end to a multi-party civil war.

[Adam]

"After three years Iraq is under nominal civilian control, the insurgents control less than 20 percent of the territory and less than 20 percent of the population."

Do you mean "nominal control" or "nominal civilians". I'm assuming "civilians", although given the complete chaos that Iraq is in, who knows?

So lets look at the civilians that the Iraqi government are dominated by:
1) Dawa (terrorist group best known for hitting schoolbuses and US embassies. They also helped set up Lebanese Hezbollah in the 1980s)
2) Moqtada Al-Sadr (defeated US troops in 2004; who remembers when US policy was to kill him?)
3) Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (ten thousand man Badr Corps and arguably Iranian backing).

Civilian? Flat no. They're military, and militarised, with records of successful violence against the US. They got into power via carefully targetted political violence, and did it successfully. Non violent parties in Iraq didn't do anywhere near as well in the elections.

20% of the territory? Garbage. 6 or 7 provinces out of 18 are in open rebellion (and another few in the South are distinctly shaky). But those provinces are the big ones - over 50% of the 25 million population live there. Mosul is 1.1 million, Baghdad is about 6 million, Kirkuk is about a million. This population includes pretty much all the middle class urban dwellers in Iraq, the people the US most wanted on side (most of whom are the Sunnis) Even the sheer numbers doesn't quite get the scale of the thing. Try this: Bagdhad is eight times larger than Berlin in 1945, its bigger than modern New York.

I suppose that the US could be seen as controlling the desert and that'd be quite a percentage of territory. To use a US example its like holding the Great Plains whilst the enemy hold the coastal and industrial cities and annoucing that you're in charge of the US. Sure you've lots of nothing, but so what? No one cares what goes on out there (golden corn waving in the sunshine, white picket fences, inbreeding...) its the cities that matter.

Even this idea of the US holding territory is in doubt with US pullouts of a number of cities recently including Najaf and Karbala. My personal favourite was the ceremony on the 23rd November handing over Sadaams birthplace, Tikrit, whilst under rocket/mortar fire, like a modern-day Carry On Up The Khyber. If it weren't fantastical, farcical Marx Brothers-quality comedy, I'd cry, and fortunately it is. Each one of these mini-evacuations represents a huge win for the insurgency. No-one believes that the US would have pulled out without them pushing.

At the moment the plan looks like a slow saunter towards the door by the US, followed by a sudden sprint. The aim being to avoid being the last in the bar before the real bar-room fight begins. Just like in the best comedies.

[SteveL]

It is important that, in a democracy, a discussion occur on what and how objectives to succeed in Iraq will be met. This public discussion has been long over due. Sadly for some, there are times in life when a beautiful theory will be destroyed by a gang of ruthless facts.

We need to limit our focus and resources upon key people (whoever wins the Iraqi elections), key cities (Basra and Kirkuk), and key services (public safety, electricity, and drinking water). Now is the time to concentrate on diplomacy with the Kurds and the Turks in order to develop support for and locate areas to base coalition operations out of. Coalition operations must then focus upon maximizing freedom of action for those in charge, organizing and assisting with round the clock security for the key cities, and organizing and assisting with restoring key services in the key cities. These things will not be accomplished to western standards, deal with it now.

A successful effort will require money, diplomacy, intelligence and special operations. The legions can start to move-out, this is not a conventional war to win. Key tactics/ideas will include counter insurgency, network warfare, humanitarian assistance, etc.

If we remain calm and stay focused upon a few simple objectives we can weather the political storm and do the right thing for the region as well as the interested parties. More people and ideas get killed in a retreat than in an assault.

Back in the ‘80’s I was a cadet in airborne school. Those of us who had a strategy and were willing to gut out the experience did not participate in the ‘duffel-bag drag’. This was an early morning walk of shame for those who failed; it started off from inside the ranks and ended at some administrative location far from the ranks where go-home-paperwork was processed. As I got older things got tougher. Ladies and gentlemen, it is gut check time...

[phil jones]

OK, everyone. It's over. Bush announced victory and you can all go home : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4483496.stm

[orangeducks]

"6 or 7 provinces out of 18 are in open rebellion...those provinces are the big ones...Mosul is 1.1 million, Baghdad is about 6 million, Kirkuk is about a million"

Nonsense.

Every house in this country has at least one AK47. If the populations of these provinces were in "open rebellion" (all 8.1 million people, as suggested), I think we'd all being seeing a significantly different picture coming through on CNN.

The fact is that there are terrorist, insurgent, and criminal elements at work. They are the farthest thing from "open". Their tactics rely on stealth and generally indiscriminant carnage. They are a very small, but sometimes spectacular, minority.

You, sir, have no idea what you are talking about.

orangeducks
Baghdad

[ali]

Maybe its time to get real. As Wilkerson said recently the fact is the US either needs to completely revise its economy or secure the oil production. As there is no sign of the former there is no exit strategy from the region.

Comparisons with Vietnam are deceptive. Unlike Vietnam Iraq is a grand strategic disaster and handling the aftermath will probably soak up US military resources for the next 20 years where ever they are based. At best the US is shifting into offshore balancing mode and it's very likely that US troops will be fighting another land war in the region with in the next 5 years.

Transnational terrorism will escalate as a result. We crossed that Rubicon on the road to Baghdad. Now it's time to get used to it.

[Barry]

SteveL: "Back in the ‘80’s I was a cadet in airborne school. Those of us who had a strategy and were willing to gut out the experience did not participate in the ‘duffel-bag drag’. This was an early morning walk of shame for those who failed; it started off from inside the ranks and ended at some administrative location far from the ranks where go-home-paperwork was processed. As I got older things got tougher. Ladies and gentlemen, it is gut check time..."

And that's why we're here - Bush & Co's strategy was to have a quick, easy and glorious victory, set up a puppet state, and reap political and monetary rewards galore.

Unfortunately, they forgot things like have a puppet with sufficient power, and to avoid pissing off so many people that they couldn't control things.

[SteveL]

A well thought out and clearly articulated American strategy statement has hit the internet. It's worth the read...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

[jon]

There are more than 25 mill people living in Iraq. It is estimated by the US goverment and various analysts/media outlets that there are around 10,000 insurgents blowing things up. That is roughly the equivilant of 100,000 Americans doing the same in the US.

If that happened here how long would it be until that vast majority started taking potshots and eliminating the terrorists/insurgents/ whatever you want to call them.
I realize that they are better organized, armed, and trained than the insurgents, but assuming, even 1/4th of the population is male and of a reasonable age to fight, 15-50, that is mopre than 6mill people against 10,000 insurgents.

[SteveL]

Melvin Laird presents a thoughtful analysis on using 'local talent' to get things done in Vietnam and the possible parallels in Iraq:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101faessay84604/melvin-r-laird/iraq-learning-the-lessons-of-vietnam.html

[TM Lutas]

Turkey didn't want us in Iraq and so they denied us transit rights. Turkey is now supposed to deny us exit transit based on what theory? This is not serious analysis on the part of Crevald.

Is there any doubt that Turkey would allow us transit to exit Iraq? I'd like to hear anybody's reasons why that's the case. And if Crevald can't even peg that bit of obviousness, what makes the rest of his analysis any more credible?

The model of Vietnam is called up because "no other model is in sight". Here's another model. Iraqi forces gain combat experience, gain troop numbers, and continue to squeeze anti-Iraq forces until they pop, disappear as organized forces (getting rid of the dead enders that can't be reintegrated because they've killed too many innocents to survive a democratic Iraq). Iraqi politicians hold elections, include Sunni interests at the table and prove with their actions that they're going to run an honest government for the benefit of all the people in the country. Reforms are introduced into the economy that increases labor demand and mops up the pool of idle labor that has served as mercenary recruits for "rent a strikes". All this combines to strip away every element except the Al Queda types that are a problem everywhere.

There, you can say that the model to victory is not going to happen or that it's going to happen but it's a real model that was readily visible to any fair-minded observer as a possibility to be addressed. Crevald pretends that this model doesn't even exist. That's lazy analysis at best.

The counter to Iran is also not very well thought out. Any serious analysis of Iran's influence in Iraq has to at least mention the fundamental fact that the Najaf clerics are highly respected throughout the Shia world and that they have declared that Iran's Khomeinism system is a Shia heresy. Sistani is a nonentity in Crevald's Iraq. In the real Iraq, he's possibly the biggest domestic player, period.

In Crevald's Iraq, Zarqawi continues in influence because his family, clan, and tribe haven't denounced him and cast him out in the most brutal way possible, shaming him publicly as a man and as a warrior. That sort of strike has no effect on his recruiting and ability to maintain his forces. No, we're still in Vietnam, but it's in the desert this time.

I'm sure a more professional analysis would find greater, more subtle points wrong with Crevald's analysis but why bother? The gross errors and omissions peg this piece for the low-value agitprop that it is.

Crevald likely has many merits. This piece does nothing to shine his star.

[wtofd]

TM Lutas, your point on the Sistani-Teheran split is noteworthy.

Still you don't address how a US-less Iraq could or would effectively deter Iran. As best as I can glean you're on board with the standard neo-con premise that Iraq will sprint to democracy and a democratic Iraq will be the panacea to solve the ME. Your 3rd paragraph is just fancy. If, if, if. It's not a model.

Although I couldn't find where Van Creveld misspoke on Turkey, have you followed Ankara and iStanbul since 2000? Turkey is a Muslim democracy-ish. They do what they want to without regard for Washington. I suspect the Kurdish question along with who wins the battle for the Iraqi parliament, not American interests will dictate Ankara's decisions.

In any case, your broaching Turkey in this instance is distracting.

[jaimito]

Nonsense. American forces conquered Iraq rapidly, elegantly, bloodlessly. Now they are allowing the spontaneous development of a local coalition government. The fighting is not against American forces but among local ethnic groups. In a few years a workable modus vivendi will develope and the oil will be available for exploitation.

[Marcello]

"he fighting is not against American forces but among local ethnic groups."

I suspect that the relatives of the 90 or so
american soldiers killed this month might have a slighty different opinion.

[dan]

TM - would be really interested to see your source for the Sistani declaration regarding the heretical nature of Khomeinism. Arabic is no problem.

[dan]

Just as an addendum to my previous comment, Sistani reportedly issues a Fatwa in June 2003 urging a "civil" Jihad against the occupation - ie elections are the way forward.

[reluctantwarrior]

Marcello,

The British press and back benchers called for a better strategy in 1942, Churchill challenged them to a three day debate in the House of Commons with an up or down vote of confidence. He spoke for two hours and received a 484 to 1 vote of confidence. If you were Churchill you would leave Iraq to fight the global Gs without support much like Senator Church did to the South Viets in 1973. Despite this betrayal they fought for two years and held the north at bay until the congress removed all material aid and the restrictions from the CHurch amendment. You are a defeatist and the 90 soldeirs that died last month were volunteers that knew that they might die and decided to take your place in the defense of liberty. You are a effete snob that belittles the sacrifice of Iraqi's and only knows war from the glossy photos in a magazine. I spent 596 days deployed and have some experience and perspective on this situation, how about you?

RW

[Marcello]

"I spent 596 days deployed and have some experience and perspective on this situation, how about you?"

Yet for all your claims about direct knowledge you were not apparently even aware of substantial changes in the iraqi force structure that took place over a year ago.
So yes, I can only wonder about your vaunted "experience an perspective".
By the way, if you want to be taken seriously
you might start by stopping throwing around the term "defeatist".
Because you are speaking like the stereotyped Feldgendarme from a bad Sven Hassel novel.
And that makes me laugh like few others things.
Share with us what you have seen, your impressions and so on and then I might start to take into consideration what you have to say.

[Irish History]

Definitely not one of van Creveld's better articles, as he's one of the best historians of our time.

For a fairly complete library of his articles (not his 16+ books) go to the Defense & National Interest website.
www.d-n-i.net

The articles there, including MvC's, have proved more accurate than any other source I know -- including the big-name outfits like Stratfor and CSIS.

For another, and I think better, forecast for Iraq see:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/fabius_forecasts_nov_2005.htm

[Jack]

"First and foremost"... van Creveld is bogus.

[Adam]

Orangeducks,

Theres no realistic numbers for the resistance. Estimates range from 10,000 to 160k+. And thats the active, not the supporters (around 65-70% of the voting population voted for US-go-home parties). Your dream-world has it that unless everyones on the streets as in the last scenes in Gangs of New York its not an open rebellion. The IRA didn't need 10,000 people, in some periods they had less than a hundred. And the IRA won, in circumstances that were far more difficult for the IRA than the Iraqi insurgents face.

But, and this is important, the basis for calling a Civil War in the 1980's was 1,000 dead. We're so far past that point that its not even in the heat-haze.

As for CNN reporting anything, they cannot. All Western jouranlsits are trapped in their hotels. A Westerner on Bagdhads streets without armed bodyguards is a dead man. Even with armed guards they're an easy ambush target. Reporting on the streets? Forget it. Local informants, plus government press releases, plus the US five o'clock follies.

"They are the farthest thing from "open". Their tactics rely on stealth and generally indiscriminant carnage. They are a very small, but sometimes spectacular, minority."

Naughty old them. Imagine fighting in a way that doesn't suit you? OK Poole (2004) got there, along with (prior to the invasion) everyone else, and said that Iraq was going to have an active anti-US resistance. But just because everyone who knew anything about it said so doesn't mean that it can't be a complete surprise: "None so blind as them that just won't see".

Of course this doesn't apply if we like the people that are fighting in this way. Then they're heroes every one of them and the people that they kill are sacrifices on the way to a better tomorrow. Really. Would the government lie to you about that?

[Adam]

Normally I don't reply to actual lunatics, but this one made me laugh so hard that there's now coffee on my keyboard. I've asked some of the lads in the office over, some of the comments here are theirs. Edited heavily for swearing.

"Nonsense. American forces conquered Iraq rapidly, elegantly, bloodlessly."

Errr. We're sure that 20,000 Iraqis would agree with you. (I know... you meant bloodlessly for white-skinned Americans). And the US took longer than the British did in 1941. But we were at war with Hitler so you'll appreciate that bigger fish to fry meant that we were a lot slower than we'd otherwise have been.

"Now they are allowing the spontaneous development of a local coalition government. "

Yep. 'Terrorists, and Shi'ite Islamic extremists, and anti-US politicians. Oh my.'

"The fighting is not against American forces but among local ethnic groups."

Its just that the Americans keep getting blown up and shot. You seem to think its purely accidental. The Iraqis just happened to lay some explosives in the place the US troops are going to be, and these explosives just happened to go off. I mean, what are the odds of that? (Besides getting better all the time. I mean)?

The fighting is a) anti-US and b) positioning for the US-withdrawl aftermath.

"In a few years a workable modus vivendi will develope and the oil will be available for exploitation."

Sure. Iran gets effective control of Iraqs oil, and starts to look at Saudi and Kuwait... Thats the most likely "modus vivendi" (the 20 dollar word for theres no other realistic options) at this stage. The US talks a lot about the Iraqi government controlling the new military, but Iran controls the Iraqi government.

[TM Lutas]

wtofd - The Najaf and Karbala schools are going to push at Iran where it is most vulnerable, that is to say they're going to push at them from the point of view of being insufficiently islamic. The Iranian secret services are going to try to kill them, may in fact have already started the prep work. The US is working to make sure that a successful theological strike by Iraqi Shia is not returned by a physical strike by Iran, especially not an invasion over the border. In short, I think the Iraqis get a defense guarantee and at least as much air cover as they need. In short, Iraq won't deter Iran without the US because the US will guarantee Iraq's integrity and Iraq will peacefully and fatally assault the Iranian regime, collapsing its support among the one third of hard shell conservatives.

The point of Turkey was to illustrate that Crevald was unimaginatively closed minded and thus his other conclusions should be examined carefully for similar calcification. The poor thought is there elsewhere. It's just most obvious in the case of assuming that Turkey wouldn't let US forces leave via its territory.

dan - Try googling khomeinism and Sistani:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=khomeinism+sistani&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Personally, I believe it was Amir Taheri that first twigged me onto this dynamic but it's been awhile.

As for the "civil" jihad, with enemies like Sistani, who needs friends? I'm very happy with a "civil" jihad because it establishes the philosophical groundwork for a free society on islamic terms. This is incredibly good for us because it points to a sustainable modus vivendi between Islam and the US.

Marcello - Should we remove the word "defeatist" from the dictionary or just not toss it in your direction. Inquiring minds, you know.

Adam - Naughty indeed! Those "naughty" insurgents violate pretty much all the laws of war and thus imperil the lives of civilians on a regular basis when they're not directly killing them. Do you really wish to use "naughty" as a synonym for "war criminals"?

[Adam]

"Adam - Naughty indeed! Those "naughty" insurgents violate pretty much all the laws of war and thus imperil the lives of civilians on a regular basis when they're not directly killing them. Do you really wish to use "naughty" as a synonym for "war criminals"?"

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the mornings when Americans moan about civilians getting dead. Most (well over 70%) of the Iraqi dead, maimed and tortured are the US's fault. As for 'war criminals' Nuremberg held that:
a) fighting a guerilla campaign against an enemy invader isn't a war crime
b) the invasion itself is a war crime

a lets the Iraqis off the hook. b leaves the US in an interesting position.

As for Turkey like Creveld I have no idea why the US would choose to drive hundreds of miles across goatpaths through mountains when a perfectly good major highway exists between Kuwait and Bagdhad. Kuwait is a relativly safe location with a major port perfect for moving heavy machinery, like tanks. Turkey doesn't have a port near Iraq. Water transport is far cheaper and simpler than driving. Why do you think Creveld should have to discuss basic geography in every article?

[Marcello]

"Marcello - Should we remove the word "defeatist" from the dictionary or just not toss it in your direction. Inquiring minds, you know."

Since this whole adventure started I have seen far more than my fair share of people who like him:
1)are factually wrong,as I shown in my previous post;
2)have nothing to offer but yelling at anyone who fails to repeat the party line, parrot-like.
These people remind me one of those characters from a Sven Hassel novel that, while the whole group is running with the Red Army on their tracks, repeats the latest speech of his beloved Fuhrer about the inevitability of the "final victory".
Of course everyone laughs at him and so he starts to yell "defeatist, defeatist" to everyone, making a complete fool of himself.
That is meant as a comic relief but hey, if there is something I have learnt in the last years is that fantasy pales in comparison with reality.
If instead this guy has something of useful to contribute about his experience in Iraq, then I will be glad to hear.
If by chance you want to join him and make a complete fool of yourself too, instead of continuing to debate rationally as you are doing,then by any means go ahead.

[Adam]

I do apologise to everyone else. I missed this earlier and it needs commenting on.

TM said: (the) "US will guarantee Iraq's integrity"

To which I say... Did you read the Iraqi constitution? It guarantees nothing of the sort. Iraq, on any reading of the constitution, will dissolve because the powers are in the document.

Yes I know that the Iraqi constitution is something of a movable feast, and the wording depends on whether you're a Kurd or Iraqi (there are significant differences in the translation, starting with the opening words), and the Sunnis voted massively against it (but not quite massively enough), and there is an explicit promise that the constitution will be revised.... Even so, it remains a good solid suicide note for the country of Iraq.

The Kurds this week announced that a Norwegian oil company is getting a contract up in their area, and the government of Iraq gets nothing from it. Thats a fatal split right there, this week, happening today. This is a very quiet firing on Fort Sumter, but a firing nevertheless.

Now you argued, to Dan, that Sistani and Khomenini were enemies. This isn't particularly true, but its part of the US agenda that it be true.

Shi'ite clerical politics are very confused. In fact it makes the average soap opera seem simple. In Iraq from 1975 onwards loyalty to Iraq (and against Iran) was a key test for continued breathing. In 1979 Shi'ite clerics, including the Iranian Sistani, proved loyal to Iraq, and Sadaam, by being against Iran. This kept them alive. In 1988 Sistani was an ayatollah, his mentor Khoei dies and Sistani didn't get the job of Grand Ayatollah. It went to Sadiq al-Sadr (Moqtadr al-Sadrs dad) who ordered Friday prayers in mosques for Shia's against Sadaams wishes. Sadaam had Sadiq and two of his sons killed for this in Feb 1999. Sistani is then appointed as Grand Ayatollah by the Iraqi government. There are, from 1975-1999, very few reasons for Sistani to say anything good about Iran, unless he felt a lot more bulletproof. Even when he got the top job, his predecessor had been gunned down. Not exactly a happy precedent. I'd imagine Thomas a Beckets successor would have some sympathy with Sistani. Sistani is a quietist Shi'ite, which is that politics should be left to politicians, whilst Khomenini (being an interventionist) held that living Islam is not a spectator sport. Sistanis views were therefore quite acceptable to Sadaam.

During the 2003 invasion Khoei's son returned in triumph to regain his fathers mantle. In Iraq for around 5 days Khoei, a useful tool of the US, promptly gets stabbed to death in the Imam Ali shrine (actually the crowd dragged him and a number of others out of the shrine before gutting them). His crime was that he tried to shoot at an angry crowd of Moqtadr al-Sadrs supporters, inside the shrine (had he waited a few minutes first...). On his death the CIA discovered most of the $13 million they had given for the al-Khoei operation was missing. The book-keeper denies everything to this day. Well he would, wouldn't he?

Moqtadr a-Sadr, at the time of the invasion was a minor cleric with a run-down mosque in al-Kufa. On the 7th April he is made the number 2 man of Grand Ayatollah Hairi, based in Qom, Iran. al -Sadr is given full powers in Iraq. (The equivilent of the Pope popping down to your local parish for the new priest to make him the Popes local representative). Hairi is a firm member of the interventionist school (Sistanis a quietist another reason he's not big on Khomeini). His plan was to take as many government positions as possible to give the US a fait accompli. It worked. The second stage of the plan was "to abort the Great Satans plans" (Both parts of the plan can be found in the April 8 2003 fatwa by Hairi). This has, as we now see, worked too. In fact the US commanders were so out of their depth in Iraq that it took 2 full weeks after the capture of Bagdhad to even realise that the Shi'ite clerics had simply taken over every government position in Sadr City (only a one-million population area, not a big deal).

At this point then Sistani, having dominated the Iraqi Shi'ite religious area for nearly a decade found himself with two major problems at once. Khoei resolved itself quite bloodily. Moqtadr al-Sadr has not been resolved, and remains a major player in Iraqi politics. It is the presence of al-Sadr and Iranian religious thought (as exemplified by the arrival, surrounded by cheering crowds, of Ayatollah Hakim from Iran in May 11 2003 after 23 years in Iran. An estimated 10-15,000 plain clothes Badr Brigade troops came with him) that has forced Sistanis move into active politics. From this point on in Iraq either the mosque or the gun are the principal sources of political influence, and the basis for political power.

On 23 April 2003 in Karbala, another newly minted (elected as it happens, but the US soon got rid of it) relgious government declared the 40th day mourning of Imam Hussein (in 681), around 1.5 million people attended. Portrayed at the time as a benefit of US victory the American press allowed themselves to ignore both the awkwardness of Imam Husseins last words: "Death with dignity is better than a life of humiliation" and the basis of the ritual which is that of guilt over betrayal by his followers. At this march Sistani had sent a fatwa declaring "no one shall join a political party without a clerics consent". His deputy (Sistani rarely leaves his compound) then announced that Sistani believed "our celebration will be perfect only when the American occupier is gone". Equally disturbing was that signs had been prepared reading "Bush = Sadaam". At the side of the roads Khomeinis tracts, long banned in Iraq, were sold to the celebrants. The quietists were in full retreat, and the interventionists had taken the lead.

By the end of 2003, it was clear that Khomeini had won the war of ideas, and Sistani was forced into following them.

[reluctantwarrior]

Marcello,

OK you're not a defeatist I mistook your calls for withdrawal and capitulation as the clarion call of victory. How silly of me, so I guess you really want the insurgents to just kill Iraqi's, but they want to kill Italians and Spaniards and gringos like me. You are a pimp for the ANSWER surrender monkies. Whether they are ING or ICDC or NIA hell when it stated theywere the FIF or the ING I cant remember which so go get bent, when were you last in Iraq? When was the last time you defended liberty? When did you last put your ass on the line for anything?

RW

[Marcello]

RW can you actually remember something, for a start?
Any "on the ground" impression of Iraq will find me a good listener.I read military blogs when I can.If you can share something with us, I will appreciate.
Otherwise get yourself some freedom fries, cool down and relax before you get an heart attack.I am laughing my ass off at your rants but you seem a bit too much angered and that, unlike laughter, is not healthy.

[TM Lutas]

Adam - It's pretty easy to tell the difference between a shell that was 10 yards off and kills civilians by accident and explodadope who drives up to an iraqi day laborer site and blows up the identical number of civilians on purpose. The first is a regrettable fact of life in warfare and we'll try to make a smarter shell in future to reduce civilian casualties. The latter is a purposeful war crime and they'll try to increase the lethality of their next explodadope. There is no hypocrisy involved on the US side.

If the US logistical planners thought they could get an entire ID through Turkey in an invasion a few years ago, I suspect that there's a bit more than a goat path there. What makes you think that the roads have degraded so much in the past few years?

Marcello - I'm not so much interested in slinging names your way as hearing your pathway to victory. Defeatists sit down, give up, and don't even try to win. So what's your pathway to victory and why is it better than our present course?

No victory plan? That's defeatist. Let me be clear, "withdraw from Iraq" is a legitimate building block of a victory plan. Dunkirk was, after all, a necessary step to save the British army for the eventual victory against Hitler. I don't agree with the assessment that we're in that sort of trouble but I concede that an honest patriot might think that.

So what's the road to victory?

Adam - You're clearly taking my statement out of context. Any US defense guarantee would very likely be against foreign invasion, not internal dissolution by peaceful referendum. I don't imagine that any faction in Iraq will look down on the idea that US warplanes will be bombing Tehran if they invade. If you disagree, please name the faction and their reasons.

Now as to Qom being the Shia equivalent to Rome, if it is, then Najaf is Constantinople and Sistani is the Patriarch of same. Which will dominate is an open question, especially since there are senior clerics in Qom, most famously Ayatollah Ali Montazeri who consistently undermine the interventionist orthodoxy of Qom.

If the relevant players on the interventionist school are Grand Ayatollah Hairi in Iran and Moqtada al Sadr in Iraq, Montazeri and Sistani more than match them both for popular respect and influence drawing from the quietist school.

You claim that in 2003 the interventionists took the lead. The facts on the ground are that the Iraqi constitution is a fundamentally quietist document. The provisional elections did not bring a fire breather interventionist shia government to power. We'll see whether the interventionists win on December 15 but even granting that you're correct that the interventionists took the lead in 2003, they lost that lead some time later by objective observation of Iraqi events.

reluctantwarrior - Maybe you might consider refining your tactics. Your full-frontal assaults don't seem to be too effective.

[dan]

TM

I think you're missing something quite fundamental. The Iranians are not going to invade Iraq - they don't need to; it's never been a precondition that Iraq should replicate the Iranian model. The germane issue is what will the clerical response be should the Bush administration do something stupid, like bomb Iran. Now I've got no idea what the agreements that have been drawn up say, but don't imagine that agreements don't exist.

It's always worth keeping an eye on the diplomatic traffic that goes on. The Iranians have no problem getting their FM in to see Sistani when he's in the area. Contrast with Paul 'can we get a fatwa from another Mullah' Bremer's disappointment at being told he was not welcome.

Montazeri may well be influential, but he doesn't seem to have had any tangible effect on the course of Iranian politics; Sistani likewise. Quite why you think that the US can pull a divide and rule strategy over religious Shia escapes me - they haven't even done the basic diplomatic learning here. It will only be possible to take the US seriously in this respect when they recruit top-notch jurisprudents to represent them in Karbala, Najaf and Qom. It's really no different from having diplomatic representation at the Holy See.

And, as Adam has pointed out, you're making the classic mistake of thinking that Sistani's quietism makes him an American ally against Qom - I've seen this line regurgitated so many times that I just smile when I see it now. Grand school politics is so much more subtle and arcane than you imagine, and they generally don't go outside the family to mediate disputes.

[marcello]

"The first is a regrettable fact of life in warfare and we'll try to make a smarter shell in future to reduce civilian casualties."

Perhaps.But I suggest you read one of the two latest articles by Lind, which deals precisely with this issue.
Note that smarter shells is not necessarily the answer.Weapon accuracy is only one of the causes of civilian casualties.Correct target identification or the nature of the target itself to just to name a couple are others.

"If the US logistical planners thought they could get an entire ID through Turkey in an invasion a few years ago, I suspect that there's a bit more than a goat path there. What makes you think that the roads have degraded so much in the past few years?"

That some units can be withdrawn via Turkey seems a given to me.But you surely know that the main logistical axis and the main natural line of withdrawal is towards the south.

"Marcello - I'm not so much interested in slinging names your way as hearing your pathway to victory. Defeatists sit down, give up, and don't even try to win. So what's your pathway to victory and why is it better than our present course?
No victory plan? That's defeatist. Let me be clear, "withdraw from Iraq" is a legitimate building block of a victory plan. Dunkirk was, after all, a necessary step to save the British army for the eventual victory against Hitler. I don't agree with the assessment that we're in that sort of trouble but I concede that an honest patriot might think that.
So what's the road to victory?"

If the issue is the war in Iraq, I stress the war in Iraq, then our withdrawal is not a building block towards any sort of victory in said war.
It will be the final block in the defeat of the coalition which launched it.
We lose and we bail out.Simple as that.
That being said there are many ways of losing.
One might get out with an army still relatively intact and a relatively limited amount of casualties.
Or one might wait too much and get out with an army in bad conditions, heavier casualties and all the others consequences that this entails without anything to show in exchange.
Who knows,maybe I am wrong and so Creveld, Lind,Robb et all.Maybe the insurgents are shooting their last rounds of ammo as we speak and victory is at hand.
Maybe.
But as far as I can see I can only see the trends of an incoming defeat.From public opinion fatigue to high casualties to our inability to rebuild the country in an effective manner and so on.
Success stories like x schools being rebuilt or x "insurgents" killed are, compared to the above, nothing more than the equivalent of successful local counterattacks, like the ones the germans kept launching until nearly the end of the war.
You know, if one was really willing to pay any price one might raise a conscription and swamp Iraq with american infantry.
It will not be easy to organize, it will take time, standards will have to be lowered and so on.But if there is a will there is a way.
But as we know there is not the will to do something like that.
Ergo we are pretty much done for, insofar the war in Iraq is concerned.
This commie style idea of remaking societies at gunpoint was doomed from the start anyway.
The struggle against islamic terrorism is an other matter.I will note that these people rely on our blunders more than anything else, so avoiding to commit them is a good beginning.

[TM Lutas]

dan - It's absurd to think that Sistani being anti-Khomeinism makes him a US ally. It's also absurd to think that Sistani being Shia makes him an enemy. His anti-Khomeinism makes him an opponent of the ruling system of Iran and that's something that, from a US perspective, should be encouraged. Sistani will act against Khomeinism for his own reasons, not ours but he will act against Khomeinism. Iraqi critics who think that the Shia in Iraq are destined to be Iranian puppets seem to ignore Sistani's anti-Khomeinism. That's a mistake.

I'm sure that there are all sorts of agreements going on in all directions. It is the middle east, after all. That's par for the course. What I'm predicting is that Sistani's anti-Khomeinism is ultimately unanswerable without violence on the Iranian part because clerical rule is an aberration in the Shia tradition. As long as Najaf was suppressed by Sunni Baathists, Qom was free to spin whatever tales it felt like without Najaf being able to answer properly. Any protest by Najaf could have been argued to be a political statement by Baathist Sunnis and thus invalid.

The Iranians can argue that Najaf is now a puppet of the US but with Iraq electing its own government and the Iraqi army standing up, that argument isn't going to hold for long. As US forces stand down, the danger to Iran from Najaf religious criticism only grows because it cannot be explained away. A free, anti-khomeinist Najaf is simply intolerable for Iran. Iran must either ultimately abandon khomeinism or use violence to suppress the anti-khomeinist scholars of Najaf.

Montazeri's been under house arrest and under significant pressure for many years. He has as little influence on Khameni as Nelson Mandela had on Pik Botha. That doesn't mean that you ignore Montazeri or Mandela. It's just a different dynamic than if he was in Khameni's seat.

Najaf isn't like the Holy See. The Holy See is unique because it is sovereign. Do we have diplomatic representation to the patriarch of Constantinople or at Mt. Athos?

marcello - The fundamental point on differentiating our killing of civilians from theirs is that it is purposeful killing of civilians that is a war crime. We do not commit those sorts of war crimes as policy and prosecute when we find any of our military doing it on a freelance basis. The Anti-Iraqi Forces do it as a matter of policy and do not punish anyone for doing it when they freelance such killings. My point stands your modifiers, so I grant you all of them on that subject.

On Turkey, I think Crevald wasn't so hard up on word count limits that he couldn't have made a brief mention of NATO member Turkey. I simply think it slipped his mind, much as a great deal of other information. It's not self-evident to everybody that Turkey would be used in a national bug-out from Iraq, thus the "goat path" commentary.

No matter what happens, eventually Iraq has to develop a state that is both anti-terrorist and strong and stable enough to impose that preference over 100% of Iraqi territory. Saddam was neither. A withdrawal from Iraq means a return to Iraq to fix it right later. So how would that return work in the marcello plan of victory? Would it be diplomatic, economic, political, military, or is there some other category?

There has to be an end point in your plan for victory in Iraq or you are a defeatist, practically by definition. So learn to love the label or fill out a realistic scenario that you're in favor of that has a pathway to victory.

Finally, you're assuming that Iraqis don't want to be free. That's the only conclusion I can draw with your crack about "commie style" ideas. When Iraqis have had the opportunity, they have voted in large numbers. As long as they demand that they continue to have the franchise, they will drift, over time, to more and more liberal style arrangements.

[Marcello]

"The fundamental point on differentiating our killing of civilians from theirs is that it is purposeful killing of civilians that is a war crime. We do not commit those sorts of war crimes as policy and prosecute when we find any of our military doing it on a freelance basis."

Again,I may agree with what you are saying but read what Lind has written on the matter lately.It will not take much of your time and it is quite insightful.

"No matter what happens, eventually Iraq has to develop a state that is both anti-terrorist and strong and stable enough to impose that preference over 100% of Iraqi territory."

Yeah, that would be quite nice.So it would be
ending world poverty or stopping AIDS spread.Just because you say that it has to happen that does not mean that it is feasible or likely to actually happen.
The nation state is on a worldwide downhill path insofar effectiviness goes (that is the reason this blog exists,after all).
Why a dirty poor, ethnically divided country whose borders were drawn in some office in London should become the world premiere exception escapes me.

"Finally, you're assuming that Iraqis don't want to be free. That's the only conclusion I can draw with your crack about "commie style" ideas. When Iraqis have had the opportunity, they have voted in large numbers. As long as they demand that they continue to have the franchise, they will drift, over time, to more and more liberal style arrangements."

Just the fact that some dumb neocon says so, that does not make it true.This is a country
where, outside perhaps some urban èlites, shooting a cheating woman is not only socially acceptable but pretty much mandatory (I am taking an extreme example but I wanted to make a point).
These people are not like us, they have a different set of values.It should not be that difficult to understand.
Elections a liberal democracy do not make.
A liberal democracy requires a lot of others conditions.
When something vaguely resembling free elections have been hold, like in Algeria, the results have been usually in massive favor of islamic parties.I will have to check the numbers but frankly I do not recall really prowestern (as opposed to tactical allies) secular parties winning huge numbers in the iraqi elections.
The pendulum might swing a bit in the opposite direction of course but at the end of the day these are islamic countries with islamic values.
When we get down to it what the neocons (and apparently you too)would want are nice, strong,secular,"democratic" (Washington èlites definition) governments who will slavishly follow our diktats about who is a terrorist and who is not (think to palestinian suidide bombers), who will not make a fuss when we drop bombs on their correligionist and so on.
That is quite simply impossible.You can try to change this at gunpoint,until you will run short of people to man those guns (how is recruitment going lately?).But it will not happen.
If saying this makes me a defeatist in your worldview, so be it.
It is of course possible that in due time (decades, likely) some of the worst and most incompatible with modernity aspects of the islamic civilization might get curbed a little, most likely due to a combination of economic pressure, social factors and so on.
Not due us bombing them, that is for sure.
We might even get governments that could be defined democratic,to a point.Not in the western liberal sense.
What those governments will say and do will not necessarily be something we want them saying and doing.

Absent unexpected developments Iraq is toast.
We will not fix it, because we can't, as we have demonstrated.We will be forced to get out,for the reasons I have already explained on this blog.
After that it depends on what happens, really.
We might do things like throwing some arms at one faction, involve the neighbouring countries in peace efforts, stuff like that.Time will tell.

[jaimito]

"Normally I don't reply to actual lunatics, but this one made me laugh so hard that there's now coffee on my keyboard. I've asked some of the lads in the office over, some of the comments here are theirs. Edited heavily for swearing."

Dear Adam, I am glad to have improved your spirit. Sorry for the coffee, you are welcome to share a cup of kahwa bala hel anytime you happen to be in Ariel.

"Nonsense. American forces conquered Iraq rapidly, elegantly, bloodlessly."

Errr. We're sure that 20,000 Iraqis would agree with you. (I know... you meant bloodlessly for white-skinned Americans).

Adam, if you understood what I meant, why the "Errr"? But I see you understand only what you want, because American forces in Iraq are hardly white skinned. Or do you exclude non-albino Americans in Iraq from your conciousness? Many Americans do. I don't.

"And the US took longer than the British did in 1941. But we were at war with Hitler so you'll appreciate that bigger fish to fry meant that we were a lot slower than we'd otherwise have been."

I do appreciate it and resent the insinuation that I do not appreciate it. What, Adam, do you have an inferiority trauma?

"Now they are allowing the spontaneous development of a local coalition government. "

Yep. 'Terrorists, and Shi'ite Islamic extremists, and anti-US politicians. Oh my.'
Whatever. Let the best win. It is called democracy. You may have heard about the system.

"The fighting is not against American forces but among local ethnic groups."

Its just that the Americans keep getting blown up and shot. You seem to think its purely accidental. The Iraqis just happened to lay some explosives in the place the US troops are going to be, and these explosives just happened to go off. I mean, what are the odds of that? (Besides getting better all the time. I mean)?

Adam, I see you get all your information from American journalists, who will write a front page note about a 78 year old farmer killed in SouTh Rhodesia but ignore 3 million natives disemboweled and stewed. Believe me, for every American hurt in Iraq, mostly for being where should not be at teh wrong time, there are untold number of Iraquis killed.

The fighting is a) anti-US and b) positioning for the US-withdrawl aftermath.

Mostly the second. As it should be.

"In a few years a workable modus vivendi will develope and the oil will be available for exploitation."

Sure. Iran gets effective control of Iraqs oil, and starts to look at Saudi and Kuwait... Thats the most likely "modus vivendi" (the 20 dollar word for theres no other realistic options) at this stage. The US talks a lot about the Iraqi government controlling the new military, but Iran controls the Iraqi government.

"Sure" means YES in my dictionary. Shooting wars dont go on forever and a modus vivendi tends to evolve. I am glad you agree with me in almost everything. I most happy that you agree that Iran presents quite a big challenge.

I have a question: the "20 dollar word" you mention, does it refer to the price of a barrel of oil after Iraki oil is put into production?

[Marcello]

Turkey being an interesting case.
Decades of kemalism and what you get is moderate islamic government forced by popular pressure to show the finger to the US at a critical moment.
America popularity is not exactly at its highest point either or so I have heard.
But of course none of our esteemed ideologues saw it coming.
They are a democracy (sort of), so they must like us and do what we want, how could it be different from that?
I seem to recall some on the "global democratic revolution" (when the american president starts to speak like a bolshevik you know you are living in interesting times) bandwagon complaining along the lines that "the military should step in".
Maybe I did not hear well.

That is democracy in the islamic world for you.

[steve laudig]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/magazine/04coach.html?pagewanted=all

Reads of this site might find this interesting. I did, and I'm not a fan of football or texax tech. Coach Leach Goes Deep, Very Deep
By MICHAEL LEWIS
Published: December 4, 2005 in the N.Y. Times.

[TM Lutas]

marcello - Be a pal and give me a link if you want me to follow Lind.

I completely disagree with you about a strong anti-terrorist Iraqi government being "quite nice". It's a basic requirement for victory. Afghanistan is nothing compared to Iraq's potential to cause trouble. And letting Afghanistan go feral under the Taliban cost us the WTC and a big chunk of the Pentagon.

If you think that an anti-terrorist Iraq is on a par with "would you like a pony too", then long-term or short term, you're a defeatist. There are two paths to victory and we need to be walking both:
1. rolling back and transforming the governments most likely to house and otherwise support terrorists
2. Discredit and replace all theological and ideological justifications for terrorism.

States that are anti-terrorist are not going to tolerate preachers who foment and incite terrorism and will support the development of an anti-terrorist theology. Theologians who successfully promulgate an anti-terrorist theology to the people will turn the government to an anti-terrorist bent. In other words, the two paths reinforce each other.

By saying that Iraq will never walk path 1, you're saying that defeat is a foregone conclusion and all we can do is mark time and hold back the night for as long as possible. That's defeatism, unless I've misunderstood you.

It is true that Americans have different values from Iraqis. We also have common values. We both value bravery, competence, honesty, and a whole host of virtues. In other words, if you diagrammed the universe of values, the Venn diagram would show Iraqi and US values with both significant differences and overlaps.

What you haven't established is that the values that are necessary for an anti-terrorist government/society are not in the overlap zone but in the difference zone and that they are irreconcilably not in the Iraqi zone (ie the Iraqis won't or can't adopt them if they don't already have them). Here's a thought for you. Maybe some of the values for a sustainably anti-terrorist government/society are missing from the US, too.

You don't have to be a great state to be an effective anti-terrorist state. What you can't be is a failed state. I think that it's possible for Iraq to rise to the level of competent governance. I think the arabs are capable of that. The kurds have already demonstrated that they're capable of it. This isn't easy but it's certainly not a revolution for a competent state to emerge. It just hasn't happened in the arab world in quite a long time.

Now regarding islamists and Iraq, the examples of Turkey and Algeria are interesting. In Turkey, the Islamists were the quiet guys who got in as mayor, local council legislators, etc and were generally more honest and focused on competence in getting the job done. They fought uphill and now control the government. In Algeria, the Islamists forced the French out (or could credibly claim to do so) and that provided a deep well of gratitude that was expressed at the polls.

In Iraq, the Islamists are the guys blowing up things and killing most of the innocent Iraqis who are dying violently these days after the dictator was overthrown. They're hated by the majority.

The islamists have zero credit for removing Saddam, the US gets that. If the US leaves Iraq entirely on its own terms or even withdraws to a desert base or two and does training and preps logistics for regional operations, the islamists are not going to get credit for expelling the invaders. The Iraqi government will properly manage the relationship to ensure that islamist fables will be discredited.

In that atmosphere, I don't see the Iraqi islamists gaining power. I just don't. I see muslims in power. I can even see some very religious muslims wielding significant power all the way up to the top. They won't be islamists because they have no credibility for governance. They're just a bunch of explodadopes.

Finally, about Turkey's giving us the finger during the Iraqi campaign. France does this on a regular basis. France also has a pretty serious counter-terrorism and counterintelligence infrastructure. So does Turkey. It's a livable arrangement when you have uncomfortable friends and neighbors who occasionally say no to you, even at inconvenient times, but they are active in the neighborhood watch and take care of their fair share of suspicious types in the neighborhood.

[Marcello]

Sure, I just assumed thought that you were already following Lind's columns.
Check the archive as well.

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_11_30_05.htm

"In Algeria, the Islamists forced the French out (or could credibly claim to do so) and that provided a deep well of gratitude that was expressed at the polls."

I have to say that my alarm bells went off at this.Mind you, I will not claim to have lofty academic credentials about arab history, but that is not exactly what happened.The struggle against France was carried out by the FLN, your typical decolonization era socialist and nationalist outfit (back then secular ideas had some traction, at least among the èlites).
When the war ended these guys installed themselves into power and they liked it so much that they are still holding it to this day.
However as they say goes power corrupts.
By the late 80's the socioeconomical situation of the country had become explosive.
It was decided that maybe free & fair elections would have been a good way to defuse the situation.
The elections were hold in 1991.
The FIS,the main islamist party (it was a broad cartel that included a lot of people that you would not hesitate to call moderates),got nearly the 50% of the popular vote and 188 out of 232 parliamentary seats.
This is not exactly what the guys in charge had in mind when they had organized the election, so naturally the military stepped in and kicked the FIS out.
What followed in the next decade was an orgy of horror that reached unimaginable heights.
Approximatively 100.000 people died in the multiple sides civil war.The number may not be that great in absolute terms but it is how a lot of them were killed that turns your stomach out.And trust me, it takes quite a lot to make that effect on me.
Fortunately the government in the end managed to prevail.The current president is a military backed FLN guy who was elected with the 75% of the valid votes.
There were no others candidates running for the election, of course.

And this story, my friends, is one of the main reasons I am not terribly enthusiastic about this whole "global democratic revolution" business.
Do not believe for an instant that I have not racked my brains about the whole issue, but the situation is this.
Broadly speaking in the majority of the arab states there are two main political forces at work.
The first are corrupt governments: typically leftovers of the decolonization era (Baath,FNL etc) or monarchies (the Saudi for example).These survive by leveraging the power of the declining nation state (repression, control of economic resources and so on).The usually are at least nominally pro western, out of convenience.
The second force is the opposition.And the opposition that matters is almost always islamic in nature.That because Islam is the only thing that is left and pro western liberal democrats,if they exist, would not have traction.And more than that but let's cut it short.
Now, are they all like Al Zarqawi?
No of course.But the running theme is always "let's go back to our islam roots".
Islam, Islam, always Islam.
That is.
Now feel free to believe to "quiet Ayatollah" and similar things.Some maybe are really nice guys.But what they want is a society informed by islamic principles.They may differ about means and interpretations.But the end is always a society which is not liberal in the western sense.
And that has consequences.
Will you have a problem with a democratically elected arab government supporting palestinian (or some other muslim) terrorists because that is what sells votes at home?
Flipping the finger on that division was indeed relatively harmless.But some others things might not be.

Finally some more considerations before this post is gets really too long.
You have not seen any competent state emerging in the arab world, because:
1)with a few exception the state is on a worldwide decline;
2)The arab world has some peculiarities (sociological,loyalty system etc ) that ensure that the nation state,independently from the above trends,rests on weak foundations.

You might well get some competent governance.But a competent nation state in these times, pretty damn unlikely to use an euphemism.
Incidentally should our beloved kurds get a bit too much confident, that is a guarantee to get our beloved turks pissed off.
Just in case.

[Marcello]

"In Iraq, the Islamists are the guys blowing up things and killing most of the innocent Iraqis who are dying violently these days after the dictator was overthrown. They're hated by the majority."

A few problems with that.The first is that the guys shooting at us are a quite broad group.Writing them off in bloc as a bunch of explodadopes bent on killing as many civilians as they can, if that is what you have in mind, is certainly very convenient for us but not very useful.
You think that the islamist are doing the only objectionable things.From your point of view it might well be true.
If an iraqi who got his home and family flattened by an artillery bombardment or who was waken up by a bunch of foreign soldiers going on a rampage in his home or humiliated at a checkpoint and so on is of the same opinion it's an other question.
I am not so sure if the talks about unwanted collateral damage and such which may fly with me will fly with him.
Finally,I have a few problems with the idea that people hated by everyone can sustain the amount of activity that they do.
I mean,clandestine organizations hated by their own people with the military forces of the world last superpower on their tracks should not have long lifespans.
There is something wrong with this picture.

"If the US leaves Iraq entirely on its own terms or even withdraws to a desert base or two and does training and preps logistics for regional operations, the islamists are not going to get credit for expelling the invaders."

Sure, it is just an amazing coincidence that we will have bailed out after american losses have made the political situation on the home front untenable.
I mean, really...

[Adam]

Marcello,

Good posts, but when you said:

"Shooting a cheating woman is not only socially acceptable but pretty much mandatory (I am taking an extreme example but I wanted to make a point)."

it reminded me that some of the women held in Abu Ghraib prison, following repeated rapes and the usual general torture by the Americans, managed to smuggle letters to their families begging to be killed on their release (Source Hersh: 2004). I'd have to say that your position isn't that extreme.

[Death From Above]

Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney and the "Hawks" will never abandon the oil fields in Iraq no matter what the cost, including military lives and the Congress in '06. Retreat is not an option..."Don't mess with Texas" will play his next Texas hold'em hand and all will be "Shocked and awed" again because his bet will be "All-in"! I predict his hand will be a "Royal flush" that includes a massive secret deployment of 200 thousand or more military forces to plus up our current deployed forces in Iraq to end the insurgency's (Sunni) guerrilla warfare where he'll even topple the clerics like Sadr who are driving/funding the insurgency covertly. After the killing fields are mopped up, he'll have the forces in the region to attack Iran/Syria and end their nuclear/terrorists ambitions/programs once and for all. Sound far-fetched? Remember weapons of mass destruction? Bush and team are committed to the global war on terror that is currently 99% classified. Iraq is only a media distraction for this administration...if you knew what they knew (classified), you would do the same. The ragheads almost killed Bush/Cheney (If he were in the WH on 9/11 and the target plane didn't crash in PA...Rumsfeld's office was on the other side of the Pentagon...B/L, this war on terror is personal) The Democrats/media will do everything they can to win the congress next year (It's all about money) and it's a foregone conclusion that they will win which is why "W", Cheney, and Rumsfeld will not exit the White House until they've played their "Last" poker hand. Ante up! DEATH FROM ABOVE