If the U.S. is going to stay in Iraq, it needs a strategy for successfully fighting all the different wars we are involved in there. The secretary of defense has identified four wars:
- Conflicts between Shiite militias, mainly in the south.
- Sectarian violence, mainly in Baghdad.
- The Sunni insurgency.
- Al Qaeda in Iraq
- Involvement by Iran
- Potential conflicts with the Kurds.
- Potential involvement by Syria.
In addition, there is:
None of these are easy, but the most straightforward is probably No. 3, the Sunni insurgency. They are fighting us because we are there. If we weren’t there, they would not be fighting us. We should offer to leave any Sunni area that has the rule of law, and that works effectively to eliminate Al Qaeda.
The conflicts between the Shiite militias will take a tough stand. We should urge them to negotiate a cease-fire, telling them if they fail, we will give sufficient backing to one side so that it could eliminate the other. In picking a Shiite militia, we should consider backing one that holds the greatest prospect for reducing sectarian violence in Baghdad.
A tough stand on the Shia against Shia violence could cause the current Iraqi government to fall. The Iraqi government is not that great, and forming a new government is part of the parliamentary system.
The sectarian violence might be the most difficult to stop. We should encourage the Sunnis and Shia to negotiate. We may have to classify the neighborhoods as Sunni, Shia or mixed neighborhoods that we, and the Iraqi army, can protect. Faction fighters must be purged from the Iraqi army and police, and again, if that is hard on the parliamentary majority, then the parliamentary majority might fall.
We need to be in direct talks with Iran -- offering large carrots and big sticks. There are four pillars of power in Iran, and we need to engage all of them – the government, the theocracy, the Revolutionary Guard and the bonyad foundations that dole out the former Shah’s wealth to revolutionary purposes.
We need Iran to stop supplying explosive devices and soldiers to the conflicts in Iraq. If Iran is willing to play a positive role, they should have a large influence in Iraq, both now and after we leave, a chance to play the lead in jointly developing oil fields with Iraq, and a chance to have peaceful use of nuclear power. If they don’t play a positive role, they have to understand that we could deliver devastating attacks on all four pillars of their power, we could sponsor insurrections in their oil field regions, or charge a “security tax” on their oil, depressing its price on the world market. It would be very unfortunate if we would have to deliver on these negative commitments, so they should understand our resolve, and the carrots should be very large.
The Kurds have what they have wanted for generations, autonomy. We should help them understand that they can keep what they have through peace, and let any aggressors know they won’t be successful in attacking the Kurds.
We also need to directly negotiate with Syria. Though the stakes are not as great as they are with Iran, we should let Syria know what benefits they can obtain with good behavior, and what the cost of bad behavior will be.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is of course the toughest nut. We need all of the factions in Iraq committed to routing them out, including the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. Fortunately, they all hate Al Qaeda already. We need to free up our forces to gain intelligence and attack Al Qaeda continuously. One policy that could help, would be to more thoroughly investigate the foreign suicide bombers. If someone from Morocco triggers a suicide bomb in Iraq that kills five people and destroys government and private property, an action should be brought in Morocco against his estate. We should put pressure on Arab governments to make the actions broad enough to cover anything the bomber owned, any assets of his family if they are wealthy, and if poor, any contributions made to them by radical groups. This would deny the bombers any hope that their families would benefit from their criminal acts. We should also press all the religious authorities in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world to denounce the bombers as warriors against Islam and murderers of the faithful.
Always, we should talk about the killers in Iraq as Apostate Brigands, never wrapping them in the cloak of Islam in any way.
All of these steps are dangerous and costly. Powell was more right than wrong when he said, “If you break it, you own it.” It was a mistake to go into Iraq. It was a bigger mistake to go into Iraq without a plan to stabilize the situation and get out. And it was a still bigger mistake to fight the war for four years with no plan to win. Only if we have a plan for each of the wars we now find ourselves fighting, can we have success. The only bright spot is that a successful strategy for at least some of the wars would be getting our men and women out of harm’s way.
Once we have extricated ourselves from this terrible mess of Bush’s making, we can devote the proper resources to pursuing Al Qaeda internationally, and protecting our cities.
