THE BIGGEST GANG IN IRAQ

US soldier on patrol in Mosul Iraq, "This is like a gang war, and we are the biggest gang."

The US has fully abdicated any attempt at winning in Iraq under any meaningful victory conditions. That route is forfeit, as operations wind down (particularly in Anbar), funding for reconstruction evaporates (Bechtel's departure from Iraq marked the end of the effort), and efforts to rebuild the Iraqi military continue to fail (due to a deficit of loyalty to the government). Despite this, withdrawal from Iraq doesn't appear to be an option. The reason for this is simple and doesn't include shame or a loss of power. It's more basic. It's OIL. Iraq is a core producer of oil for global markets. Control of this oil cannot be ceded to either the guerrillas or Iran under any meaningful current interpretation of US policy. Further, a full US withdrawal would put Saudi Arabia at risk -- the collapse of both of these oil producers in tandem would plunge the global economy into a depression. As a result, the US will inevitably decide to stay. The US political establishment seems to have already defaulted to this decision, as seen by the complete lack of any substantive political discussion about actually leaving Iraq. The most we will likely see is a substantial reduction in troops to take the stress off of the army and assuage critics.

However, a decision to stay isn't a strategy. Given the inability of the current leadership to generate an alternative, the likely default strategy that might be adopted is the the role of the spoiler. This strategy is dedicated to merely preventing any antagonistic regional powers (Iran and Syria) or internal factions from toppling the hollow shell of the Iraqi government. Actions necessary for this role include, an ability to pummel (typically with air power and rapid reaction forces) any groups engaged in open warfare, and an ability to defend the borders. At all other times, US forces will be tightly sealed within their bases to prevent casualties. The problems with this strategy are manifold:

• Moral damage. US moral cohesion will collapse if casualties continue to mount. At minimum, the US political establishment will suffer a substantial loss in legitimacy (both parties) -- particularly since neither will square with the American people on the real reason we continue to stay in Iraq: OIL. Also, the perception of the US globally will continue to slide.
• Operational risk. Both open source movements (Sunni and Shiite) may focus their violence on the US. This situation puts the US against all of the factions with only the shell of the Iraqi government to back it up. This scenario gets worse if these forces (with Iranian support) can cut the supply lines to US forces.
• Expansion of the conflict. The entire strategy collapses if the war spreads to Iran or Saudi Arabia. By perpetuating the status quo, the US may be inadvertently contributing to the spread. Also, given the demonstration of Iraq, it's very likely that both Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies would rather fall than ask the US in to help.

ED NOTE: In an unusual step, I have revised this brief several times since I published it. The original front section is now its own brief. Sorry for the confusion. I should be done now.

Comments

[Duncan Kinder]

Similar developments are also happening in Mexico, according to the Washington Post article, "Surge in Violence Shocks Even Weary Mexico":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801579.html

"Gomez's reaction and the audacity of Sauzo's murder -- one of 11 decapitations in the state of Guerrero this year and one of 2,000 killings in a nationwide war between rival drug cartels -- are symptomatic of the unraveling of the rule of law that has plagued Mexico for years.

"But in the past year, the number of spectacularly gruesome killings and the intensity of civil unrest have spiked to such alarming levels that even Mexicans who were once hardened by years of violence are shocked.

"In flash points across the country, criminals, political groups and the frustrated poor have challenged the authority of institutions, intimidating local officials and spreading fear with little or no worry of legal consequences.

"The bulk of the violence is the result of a barbaric, five-year war between Mexican drug cartels -- which are now approaching the strength and size of the notorious Colombian cartels of the 1980s. Drug killings have nearly doubled in the past year; in a single incident this month, six police officers were fatally shot in the troubled state of Michoacan.

"But other factors are also contributing to the unrest, including clashes between the rapidly growing class of 'micro-dealers,' the lower-level street dealers who control neighborhood distribution and feed Mexico's growing ranks of drug consumers.

"'We have a huge problem, a problem that exists throughout the country; it's difficult, complicated, dynamic,' said Juan Heriberto Salinas Alt?s, a retired army general who serves as Guerrero state's public security director. 'It's something we've never seen before.'"

[John Robb]

Duncan, I was tempted to mention Mexico too. It is on the edge of a similar process.

[totierne]

In Ireland for centuries there was a region called the pale centered around Dublin beyond which the rule of (English) law did not reach, though no major conventional Irish forces remained outside the pale.

If the capital is occupied and no major conventional force is allowed, does the situation in Iraq follow?

If the capital is reclaimed does it then provide a historical and de facto focus, that is otherwise absent?

[Fester 986]

Just thinking outloud for potential solution space from this segment:

Iraq still produces nearly 2 million barrels a day of oil) and the economic subsidies it provides will provide the backdrop necessary for Iraq's guerrillas to criminally fund their operations indefinitely. It also provides the funding necessary to perpetuate the shell of Iraq's hollow government.

Would it be a potentially good idea to shut down the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi oil production capacity for a year or two, in order to remove all sources of sustenance and internal cash flow? Yeah the costs are massive (direct costs of $40-60 billion dollars of lost Iraqi revenue, indirect costs of oil going to $80/bbl due to supply/demand assuming no other disruption, prices likely to go higher as the economic incentive of further disruption increases) as well as the potentiality of Iraqi oil production never starting again.... Just thinking aloud here.

[chutay]

The comments on Mexico are timely for another reason. Oil. Mexico's main oil source, Cantarell - the world's second largest oil complex - is in the throes of a major decline. This field has supplied the bulk of Mexico's oil riches for the past 25 years. Cantarell's production peaked at 2.1 million barrels per day in 2004 and has fallen 15% since then to 1.7 million barrels per day in July 2005. Sea water is threatening to swamp the wells at Cantarell as the field's pressure drops. This is a symptom of old age that makes it hard to extract the remaining oil.

An internal document from Pemex, the Mexican oil company, was leaked to the press and showed a worst case scenerio of a 70% decline in Cantarell by 2008.

Mexico's economy runs on Oil revenues. This kind of decline will be a catastophe not just forMexico,but for the US. Mexico is the number two supplier of oil behind only Canada.

Couple this with the narco wars mentioned before and Mexico becomes a bigger and closer powder-keg than the ME.

[Anton Vereshchagin]

"Yes, a disaster, as opposed to what we have in Iraq now. Uh, what's it called when a hell-hole hits a cataclysm? A, uh... catastrofuck."

John Stewart

And who unleashed this cataclysm that hit the hell-hole? The United States Government.

[P-]

>>And who unleashed this cataclysm that hit the hell-hole? The United States Government.<<

... and what's more the USG wants the Iraqi people to step up... but step up to what?? A war and havoc that not of their undoing... geez if i was an outsider looking into the policies of the USG... IT IS PURE STUPIDITY VOID OF ANY RATIONAL OR LOGIC MUCH LESS COMMON SENSE. They can only do what they do because it is a superpower MORALITY of a higher ground is defined by them by their terms to benefit them.

2 c

[ParkerStevens]

Spoiler is right. Readers of this article do not have to follow the news about Iraq for the next few years.

But there is a problem with the US trying to move further into the role of spoiler, specifically of Shiite/Iranian plans to control Iraq's oil.

Sadr and the Iraqi parliament will not tolerate it.

For a long time I underestimated the Shiite position, but when they tell the US to leave, the US really has to leave - not only for domestic reasons at home, but because they are vulnerable and have not really fought against the Shiites yet.

If the US wants to stay in Iraq, it has to play the role of the Shiites' armed forces as unpalatable as that is. The alternative is to leave in a humiliating defeat.

[John Robb]

I'm going to work on that last paragraph. It's not quite right yet.

[londamium]

Fester:

There's no way that the US can shut down the Southern oil fields without coming into full-blown conflict with both the Central government ( who will simply tell the US to leave ) and the various local groups that are profiting from the trade. The direct costs would, of course, be far, far higher; 2 mpbd of oil production removed from the markets would send prices up from the current $60 per barrel level to somewhere in the region of $100 per barrel. I doubt that any US administration could "sell" $4 and upwards gasoline to US public, let alone China, Europe, Japan, India and the rest of the global oil importing economies.

JR

There is a limiting factor to the US gang strategy that you outline: how much longer can the US sustain its military/economic commitment in Iraq without wheels falling off somewhere, and how much longer will the US public tolerate the policy of never exiting? The strategy is also at the mercy of "events", and there are many things that can come out of left field to drown it in the bathtub.

I noted a long while back that the US would have to achieve a drawdown of forces this year, as the deployment levels are unsustainable; the Teheran approach of this spring, as reported by Channel 4 in the UK, with the request for assistance in reducing forces to 66k went nowhere, and the deployment is now back up to 150k with Afghanistan and reach-back consuming just about everything else. If the current trajectory continues, as seems likely, next year will bring the exhaustion factor into play in a significant way.

[adam]

John,

There is the question of how long politically and economically a "first among equals" strategy can survive in Iraq at the cost of a hundred billion dollars a year. The new congress-critters might actually ask some questions about this.

Certainly it looks embarrassing for the Pentagon that they cannot beat the Iraqis, merely stop the winners leading, a cost of billions.

[harrison]

>Parker Stevens

I too, underestimated the Shiites, but it has come to pass that al-Sadr is the powerbroker behind the scenes, while Maliki struggles with his somewhat figurehead position.

If we protect the Sunnis, the Shiites will go against us and force us to leave. If that happens, we would have lost any sort of support or semblance of leverage in Iraq. Whether such a position of untainted neutrality will benefit us (highly unlikely) or leave us at the mercy of al-Sadr's rampaging death squads performing ethnic cleansing is questionable.

It seems to me that we will have to recognise and respect al-Sadr's prominence and stature. He seems less of a repulsive figure to negotiate with compared to those dastardly mullahs. And his parochial objectives may not coincide that perfectly with Iranian attempts at turning Iraq into another proxy-puppet state ala Lebanon and Syria.