Decision ‘08

Is Partition The Answer?

There of those of us who still believe in the idea of a united, democratic Iraq, though our hopes have been dashed time and time again and the remnants are fading. I never thought the idea of a partitioned Iraq was worth fighting and dying over. You can understand, then, my disappointment that it has come to this:

American military commanders in Baghdad are trying a radical new strategy to quell the widening sectarian violence by building a 12-foot-high, three-mile-long wall separating a historic Sunni enclave from Shiite neighborhoods.

Soldiers in the Adhamiya district of northern Baghdad, a Sunni Arab stronghold, began construction of the wall last week and expect to finish it within a month. Iraqi Army soldiers would then control movement through a few checkpoints. The wall has already drawn intense criticism from residents of the neighborhood, who say that it will increase sectarian tensions and that it is part of a plan by the Shiite-led Iraqi government to box in the minority Sunnis.

A doctor in Adhamiya, Abu Hassan, said the wall would transform the residents into caged animals.

“It’s unbelievable that they treat us in such an inhumane manner,” he said in a telephone interview. “They’re trying to isolate us from other parts of Baghdad. The hatred will be much greater between the two sects.”

“The Native Americans were treated better than us,” he added.

The American military said in a written statement that “the wall is one of the centerpieces of a new strategy by coalition and Iraqi forces to break the cycle of sectarian violence.”

As soldiers pushed forward with the construction, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates insisted to the Iraqi government that it had to pass by late summer a series of measures long sought by the White House that were aimed at advancing reconciliation between the warring Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs.

Whether Parliament meets that benchmark could affect a decision that the Bush administration plans to make in late summer on extending the nearly 30,000 additional troops ordered to Iraq earlier this year, Mr. Gates said.

I’ve also been quite harsh in my criticism of the Democrats (is it okay to call them Defeatocrats now that ‘Dirty’ Harry Reid has come up for air from his full-time occupation of using the power of his public position to enrich himself, and has thrown in the towel publicly? Just checking). The Democrats and Republicans alike agree on one thing, however, and that is this: the military is not the solution, the political process is. And if there is not real, bold movement by the end of this summer, then we will indeed have to begin thinking about the best way to withdraw.

I haven’t given up - yet. But this wall is a symbol of failure - the failure of the Iraqis to move together in a spirit of compromise to build a national identity. When that idea completely dies - and it’s on the wane again - then it’s time to call it a day and move on. We’ll still have a troop presence of some kind for years to come, but we can’t sustain the surge without the help of the Iraqis. If nothing else, lack of progress will solidify the Democrats’ position and move more Republicans to their side.

Do I join Reid in his belief that the war is lost? No, I do not. Patience is a hard thing in the face of dying soldiers, but it’s always been patience that we need the most. When it comes to the Iraqi political process, however, patience is no longer a virtue…

22 Responses to “Is Partition The Answer?”

1 mikebdot Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“The Democrats and Republicans alike agree on one thing, however, and that is this: the military is not the solution, the political process is.” Isn’t going to war in the first place saying military is the solution?

The end of this summer? That sure sounds like a timetable. Not quite an F.U. but very close. 5/6 F.U. on the dot actually.
2 Mark Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Mike, the situation is not the same as it was in April, 2003. The military WAS the solution to deposing Saddam. It is not the solution to forming a truly national Iraqi government. Everyone agrees that there must be timetables for progress to put pressure on the Iraqis. What we don’t agree on is tipping our hand in advance on what the consequences of missing those deadlines are.

Anyway, late summer as a timetable for showing real progress is what I’m talking about, not for suddenly saying alright, that’s it, all combat troops out…
3 mikebdot Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
What happens if “progress” isn’t made? I’m genuinely curious.
4 Aaron Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Funny how those who are most vehement in their insistence that there were never any ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda are so quick to obfuscate the war against Saddam with the war against al-Qaeda in Iraq — or any of the other several conflicts that have occured in that country since 2003.

That aside, if the surge fails (as the Democrats in Congrss will do their best to ensure), I think partition is the best move. Our goal was to create a liberal democracy in the Middle East. Partition, at least, can give us that in the form of the de facto independent Republic of Kurdistan so long as we pledge to support “Iraqi” sovreignty against Turkey, much as we’ve done with Taiwan. It’s, of course, far from ideal to have a liberal democratic state in the north of Iraq and a civil war and/or Shia autocracy in the middle and south, but it’s better than nothing.
5 Scott Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
So Mark, what if the President tells you that “we’ve turned the corner,” or that “the insurgency is in it’s last throes” in four months? What if you disagree with them, will that make you a defeatist? THEN… at some point when you do decide that it’s time to go, what do you say to those who tell you that by advocating withdrawing you are making it so that over 3000 American soldiers have died in vain?

Hey Aaron, how about telling Mark that he wants the partitioning plan to fail? You should challenge his patriotism. How dare he question the plans of our military commanders in Baghdad. Is he trying to micro-manage the war?

It’s not that easy guys; you should stop with the name calling. We all love America and nobody want our boys and girls to die.
6 Mark Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Scott, I was pretty subdued, I think, in the face of a Senate Majority Leader who is running around proclaiming ‘the war is lost’ while we still have troops in harm’s way.

I don’t go so far as to say he’s aiding and comforting the enemy - you know I’m not an extremist. But it sure has to be a boost to the morale of the insurgency, doesn’t it? I’m asking in all sincerity…

Does that mean Reid doesn’t have a right to his opinion, or to voice that opinion in public? No…but he could be a little more cirumspect in his wording, and if he’s going to dish it out, he better be able to take it.

No offense, Scott, but nothing I’ve said here even comes close to comparing to the vitriol that’s thrown Bush’s way by the left…do you also take them to task for the name-calling? Just wondering…
7 Mark Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Mike, if progress isn’t made, then we have to declare the surge a failure, I think, and begin, at a minimum, to put an end to the insane pace of the troop rotations and let the military draw down and recover from the strain…but it’s too soon for that. End of summer is a good yardstick…
8 Scott Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 9:58 pm
First allow me to say that I think that Reid needs to watch his tone and his words. There are consequences to what American politicians say. I think that his statement was unhelpful, not unpatriotic. He basically said the same when he said that he mispoke and should have said that the war was lost if Bush maintains his approach. Our enemy’s will take comfort from any criticisms aimed at the US. Does that mean that we shouldn’t criticize. No, but you are right, elected leaders should be careful of what they say.

One of the problems is that you are justifying your statements RELATIVE to “the vitriol that’s thrown Bush’s way by the left”. Well that’s not what we’re talking about. I haven’t thown that virtriol, how can we get past that and have an honest conversation? By the way, I don’t think that you are an extremist and I appreciate being able to have this back and forth.

My point, is that you too are also criticizing the military when our troops while they are in harms way. There is no way around that if you want to express you 1st Amendment rights. At some point you will likely come to the conclusion (probably in August according to your own timetable) that it’s time to leave Iraq. Our troops will still be in harms way; they will always be in harms way as long as this president is in power. You will have the right and the obligation to state your position without being called names by people that don’t disagree with you.

Can’t you just see that your own yardsick is simply different than mine and Reids. You will end up coming to the same position in the end. I respect your right to have a different yard stick. You should respect mine and many of those in my party. When you do come to your conculsion, how do you expect me to understand the death of those soldiers that were killed in the interim? I’m not saying that you killed them, but I am saying that you should understand my position to try to save them.

A quick attempt to head off your response. Reid cannot vote to cut off funding right now because it would be a wasted vote. He’s better off trying influence policy than throwing his vote away. I assure you, when the Dems know that they can end the war, they will.

Last word. I’m just back from dinner and drinks, so excuse me if I am sounding inarticulate.
9 Mark Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 11:31 pm
No, not at all, I appreciate your position. It’s not my habit to engage in name-calling, as you put it, but Reid did indeed speak in a foolish and defeatist manner, and it was infuriating to me and to many.

Nevertheless, I do think the Iraqis must show progress. I don’t join those who say that if they don’t and we must begin drawing down, that the troops died in vain. The Butcher of Baghdad is no more, and eventually, Iraqis will come to live in relative peace, God willing. I just wish it would be sooner rather than later…
10 Scott Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 am
God willing is right. I have a family too and don’t want their lives in at risk. I’m no fan of Saddam Husein. We agree that Reid’s comment was over the top, but other than re-phrasing and watching what he says, what do you think he should do? Again, I remind you that voting to cut off funding is not a real option, because he doesn’t have the votes. It’ll be used against him and then eventually he will have no say at all.

I take issue with your use of the terminolgy defeatocrats, and defeatist. (I understand that it’s your blog and you have that right, but I’m going to do what I can to respond.) We have repeatedly been attacked by those who use these terms and say that we are the reason that troops will have died in vain. Siding with the enemy, embolding the enemy. If this war ends up failing, your party’s spokespeople will blame it on mine. Mr. College Rebublican Aaron thinks that Democrats WANT the surge to fail and will do whatever they can to make it so. Sorry, it pisses me off. I wish you could understand, but I think eventually you’ll see. I do think that you’re a decent guy and are trying to think this thing out. At some point you will say that it’s time to go- then your own party will turn on you.
11 mikebdot Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 am
Mark, you are now on record as saying you will speak in a defeatist manner if things aren’t going well by late summer. When that happens you said you would call the surge a failure. If you do that at that time, you would be using the same language as Harry Reid. Perhaps his “yardstick” is different than yours. I don’t agree with him 100% or anything but I’m not going to scold him for having beliefs. I suppose, though, that when someone has an axe to grind with someone as you clearly do with him, it’s easy to scold at any opportunity, but it’s clear that it is amounts to nothing more than smearing the messenger.

Or maybe I’m obfuscating the difference between calling the surge a failure and calling Iraq in total a failure. The language though could certainly make the terrorists feel good about successfully holding back the surge! All those feelings the terrorists have only matter when you are smearing the Dems.

Aaron, the Dems position is that there were no ties but that George Bush is such an idiot that he believed there were ties and thus thought we should go into Iraq. So, the “reason” for the war did not exist and thus we never should have been there. Since this is the case I find no point whatsoever in your first paragraph.

Also, Mark, if deposing Saddam was the end goal and a democratic Iraq wasn’t in the cards at all, I somehow find myself having even less respect for this administration.

How will we know if Iraq is getting better by that time? What are the deliverables? “getting better” is such a vague phrase and it’s the same as “turn the corner” and “making progress” and any other vague notion. Give me the deliverables. That’s what I expect from the president. You can’t claim victory when you never had deliverables.
12 Mark Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 am
All right, you want a deliverable? Pass a final version of the oil-sharing deal, which is a HUGE, huge obstacle to Sunni-Shia peace, for starters…

Second, al-Sadr must not be allowed into the country again on penalty of immediate arrest (not really a goal, but a policy).

Third, the security situation in Baghdad must continue to improve. The death toll still remains far, far too high…
13 Peter Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
1) “if the surge fails (as the Democrats in Congrss will do their best to ensure):” Uh, no. If the surge fails — and it has certainly been a failure thus far — it is because Bush chose to thumb his nose at the ISG, the electorate, the Congress, and world opinion, all of which is keenly aware that the war is a lost cause. The success or failure of this escalation is on his shoulders alone. The Democrats were united against an escalation: why should they be blamed for its failure? And why is it that the administration’s copious failures are always blamed by its apologists on someone or something else?

2) Harry Reid is not a “defeatist” for pointing out the obvious. As usual, the GOP attacked the messenger and ignored the message. It was interesting to note that while his remarks stirred up a firestorm from the Bush apologists, I have yet to see anyone actually argue that he is wrong and we are, in fact, winning. Nor has anyone even made the case that the war is winnable, because that would require defining what victory would be, which the adminsitration has studiously avoided. The administration is loathe to admit that the current definition of victory seems to be preventing things from spiralling out of control even more than they have already done so. More American soldiers have died in the last six months than in any previous six month period. Do you really expect the administration to make the argument that we ought to send more soldiers to die to prevent even greater catastrophe?

We won the war — but we lost the peace, and regardless of how many more soldiers are sent to die, this is not going to change.
14 Aaron Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I don’t have the issue handy at the moment, but I recall an article in The Economist(hardly a far-right and/or Bush administration-controlled/echoing publication) from a couple of weeks ago state that the surge may be a success, but that the Democrats in Congress may succeed in ending the war before the surge can take full effect. And after the ISG came out, their cover story was opposing it.

If the surge fails because Congress refuses to pay for it, then it is congress’s fault. The chairman of the ISG advised Congress to give the surge a chance. If American politics occured in a bubble, I’d be more than happy for the Democrats not to take his advise, force an American loss in Iraq and thus serve as a scapegoat, but unlike the Democrats in congress (most of them, at least), I don’t put political expediency ahead of the country’s best interests.

But yes, how dare people defend sabotaged efforts by blaming the saboteurs for the efforts’ failure! That’s as silly as blaming the collapse of the WTC on al-Qaeda instead of those stupid structural engineers who didn’t build the skyscrapers to be airliner-proof.
15 Aaron Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Also, perhaps if the Democratic leadership had not been describing the war as a failure since the first day, people might be more prone to listen to them now. Surely you won’t deny that when someone was ready to declare defeat and go home as soon as US fighters entered Iraqi airspace that such an individual is a defeatist.
16 Mark Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Peter, Peter, again with the ISG, the document that recommended we tie success or failure in Iraq to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict…and before you say yes, but other recommendations were sound, I might remind you that the ISG authors themselves said it was not a menu to pick and choose from, but rather an all-or-nothing proposition…
17 Peter Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
1) Suggesting that Democrats are somehow sabotaging the surge is absurd. The surge is a fait accompli: the troops are either in Iraq or on their way. The Senate appropriations bill — which Pelosi has said she would accept — funds troops through March 2008. The surge was sold as an escalation through late summer — there is enough money to go well past that.

If there is tangible progess by the end of the summer, then the Democrats will have been wrong, but there would be plenty of time to fix that if necessary. However, if — as all experience thus far has shown — by August or September things are more or less the same, then the mechanism will be in place to start ending our involvement in this fiasco and start bringing troops home.

However, let’s suppose that Labor Day arrives and things are still as bad as they are now. What will we hear then from the administration? That we have to stay longer and escalate further to “get the job done”? Or that we need to show “resolve” to find an elusive “victory?” Bush has not defined victory or articulated a plan to get there, yet he is asking Congress to rubber stamp his policies in perpetuity. (What is Bush’s plan to end the war? We don’t know.)

It is likely that there will be an even greater bloodbath in Iraq when our troops leave. However, this will occur whether we leave in one year, five years, or ten years — there is no reason to believe that our continued presence here can or will prevent this. It is clearly evident that the administration has no plan except to muddle along and run out the clock, so the endgame occurs on someone else’s watch. Why should the Democrats allow this?

2) Re the ISG Group: their report started with the statement that the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. Six months later, the situation is more grave and has deteriorated further. Their suggestion to spend time and effort on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — which this adminstration has never really done — is relevant, as it is part of the overall solution to the Middle East. I’m not sure what your point is here.
18 Peter Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:02 pm
“You won’t deny that when someone was ready to declare defeat and go home as soon as US fighters entered Iraqi airspace that such an individual is a defeatist. ”

Actually, I would. I would call it prescient.

Many people — among them Al Gore, Barack Obama, and (gasp!) Jacques Chirac — predicted that the war would be a disaster before it started. They were, in fact, correct.

Is your suggestion that it is better to be wrong (but gung-ho) than correct (because you are able to accurately predict catastrophe)?
19 Mark Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 pm
My point is a simple one - the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will not be resolved until the Palestinians accept the plain fact of the state of Israel. To tie a hot war where our troops are dying to the resolution of this intractable bullheaded conflict is the height of absurdity…
20 Peter Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I agree with your first sentence. I think any understanding of the Isreali-Arab conflict starts with this premise: if Israel’s neighbors lay down their arms, there will be peace. If Israel lays down its arms, they will all be dead. However, I think you misread the ISG report and take the section regarding Israel out of context to dismiss its main argument: that the situation in Iraq is “grave and deteriorating” and the solution is to start drawing down our troops.

To quote James Baker: “Given the central importance of the Arab-Israeli conflict to many countries both in and out of the region, the United States must again initiate active negotiations to achieve a stable Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts.” I think that is nothing more than stating the obvious.

It is not saying that we can’t solve Iraq until the Israeli-Palestinian issue is resolved — only that a comprehensive and lasting solution to the problems in Iraq and the Middle East will not be found until some accomodation is reached between Israel and Palestine, and the lack of active diplomacy on the part of the Bush administration is a hindrance to achieving that goal.
21 Mark Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 am
What lack of diplomacy? Condi Rice just got back from meeting with the parties, and it’s far from her first trip, and George W. Bush is the first president to call for a Palestinian state…
22 Peter Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 am
I should have added “until recently” — for the first five years of the administration, the Isreali-Palestinian conflict has been a back burner issue –