An Alternate Witness

A local activist asked me this morning what I thought about the situation in Iraq. I was quite flattered by his interest in my opinion, since he has managed to essentially managed to make a living of activism, whereas I only dabble. In any case, this is essentially what I said, without hesitation:

We have to get out as soon as possible. A year ago, I would have told you that we made this mess, and we ought to stick it out till it's fixed. But the evidence now seems very much to the contrary. At a local showing of the documentary "The Ground Truth," one of the Iraq War veterans interviewed in the film took questions from the audience, and I was struck by one answer, in which he said that, upon analysis of where insurgent attacks are occuring, most happen in communities where American troops operate, and when the Americans move on, the attacks stop. This agrees with the comments of Newsweek Baghdad editor Michael Ware who told Frontline, for the documentary "The Insurgency," that the Iraqis cum insurgents whom Ware has been interviewing since before the invasion have told him that they only attack "the occupier," i.e. American troops and contractors and those who collaborate with them.

There are other insurgent groups that have come into Iraq from elsewhere to wage sectarian violence, but Shi'ites and Sunni lived very closely and comfortably together for many years. Some would give credit for this to the iron fist of Saddam Hussein and his Baathists on the Shi'ite majority, but Saddam did not force the hundreds of Sunni-Shi'ite intermarriages that are now being torn apart, or the mixed Sunni-Shi'ite-Christian neighborhoods that used to be a feature of communities all across Iraq. The truth is that Iraq has more reason to stay together than fall apart, and a 2005 study by Mansoor Moaddel, sociology professor at Eastern Michigan University, and two of his political science colleagues at the University of Michigan, showed that the majority of Iraqis, in all ethnic and religious categories, would prefer a unified Iraq. A division of Iraq would leave Sunnis without any oil wealth, leave the Shi'ites vulnerable to attack from Sunni Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, and Turkey has vowed that it would go to war with a free Kurdistan in Northern Iraq, and Syria and Iran would join. All three nations have struggled with Kurdish nationalist movements that are already strengthened by the increased autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan under the No Fly Zones before the fall of Saddam.

The United States has, since the 1991 Gulf War, openly supported the creation of an independent Kurdistan in Northern Iraq. This has not been without benefit to the current situation. The Northern No Fly Zone essentially protected the Kurds from Saddam Hussein and his army, allowing them to establish the institutions of free democratic government: free press, political parties, elections, social services and defense forces. It can be no coincidence that both President Jalal Talabani is ethnically and culturally Kurdish. With widespread distrust of former Baathists, whether they joined the party by choice or compulsion, the Kurds are the ones with respected experience in democratic self-government. The Bush administration does not, however, help the future of Iraq by supporting an independent Kurdistan. American supports national separatist movements because that is what America is, a state that seceded from the British Empire, but Americans also fought to prevent the secession of the Confederacy. Why? High school history books tend to tell us it was about high American ideals of independence and emancipation, but it is perhaps closer to the truth to say that the economies of the North and South were inextricably intertwined. The same is true of Iraq. But we cannot consider Iraq as an isolated entity.

Shibley Telhami is the holder of the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and he spoke on NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday today. He said unequivocably that the breaking Iraq apart into independent Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states would be wrong, not because of it looks like a loss for the Americans, but because of its effect on other nations of the region and world. I am very glad to know he is advising the Iraq Study Group. If America backs a fracturing of Iraq, it sets a precedent for other multi-cultural nations around the world. I do not mean to say that regions do not always deserve independence from their parent nations. The former Yugoslavia seems to have settled into a set of successful, self-satisfied nations. However, I fear that if America divvies up Iraq the way the British divvied up India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Israel, Palestine and Jordan, then not only is the Mesopotamian Valley in for a much longer period of violence, but I fear it sends a message to nations like Chad, Sudan or the Philipines that negotiation and compromise are passe and giving up is perfectly acceptable.

Not only is American support of an independent Kurdistan a problem, but the United States has deliberately and decisively shut down Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki's attempts at Sunni-Shi'ite reconciliation. The supposed experts are determined to use a European Cold War model to explain Iraq, but de-Baathification clearly is not working, it is only putting people out of the only work they know how to do and the only way they know to support their families. Many of these displaced former Baathists, like the Nazis to which de-Baathification proponents compare them, were forced into party membership to continue in their lines of work, but clearly what worked in Germany is not working here. I think President al-Maliki is absolutely right: What is needed in Iraq is more of a South African-style Truth and Reconciliation. If that means that the Iraqi administration does not prosecute resistance fighters who have killed Americans, then that is the price of war to which we, as the unprovoked aggressor and occupier, must also be reconciled.

Not only must there be internal reconciliation for Iraq, but they must reach similar understandings with their neighbors, especially with Iran. I say again, we must include Iraq's neighbors in talks concerning the cessation of violence there. If America will not speak directly with Iran and Syria, we should at least not impede President al-Maliki from developing a relationship with his neighbors. Perhaps we can afford to snub Syria and heckle Iran from our position of clear superiority half a world away, but President al-Maliki lives right next door to these nations, and is in no position to defend himself, should they be insulted to the point of belligerence. We would find ourselves with another Lebanon on our national conscience.

We are not helping Iraq. In point of fact, the United States is far too often working in direct opposition to Iraq's best interest, and to our own, in creating this quagmire of anti-American insurgency. It is time we get out, and the sooner the better!