What Happens When We Leave Iraq?

Now that the war is turning into a political liability for Republicans and conservatives, a new justification for our continued presence has popped up:

We cannot leave Iraq or else Iraq will be controlled by Al Qaeda in Iraq and remain a safe-haven for terrorism. They will follow us home etc... etc...

This view of likely post-withdrawal scenarios is - in my view - informed by sheer ignorance about how the various sectarian actors in Iraq will react to the withdrawal of US troops and by a general ignorance of foreign policy and terrorism.

Not only is al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) a relatively small group in Iraq, it also responsible for a very small percentage of total attacks in Iraq. The bulk of the violence is due to the Sunni insurgent groups, and to the Shia militias.

Let me fill you guys in on something. Apologies because I know I've said this before:

Nobody in Iraq likes Al-Qaeda

-Sunni Insurgents: Hate these foreign fighters (despite both of them being Sunni), distrust their motives. Many of the Sunni insurgent groups are ex-Baathists and Saddam loyalists. Islamic jihadists and Baathists hated each other in the pre-invasion era.

This fact explains why many of us doubters were simply baffled that Bush would claim that Saddam was harboring Islamic terrorists in his country. They were just as eager to kill Saddam as they were to kill Americans!!

Yet, up until now (in the post-invasion era) there has been toleration and cooperation between the Sunni insurgents and AQI. Why?

Because they have made a marriage of convenience to deal with the perceived 'greater evil' of the US occupation. But, make no mistake, there is no love lost between these two groups

As I noted in a June blog post (citing CNN):

U.S. forces have begun arming nationalist guerrillas and former Saddam Hussein loyalists -- and coordinating tactics -- in a marriage of convenience against al Qaeda radicals in one of Iraq's most violent provinces, senior U.S. commanders tell CNN.

This new alliance, a result of the deepening divisions among Iraqi insurgent factions, was on display earlier this week at a highway intersection in the town of Tahrir. There, a group of some 15 insurgents publicly chanted: "Death to al Qaeda."

"The al Qaeda organization has dominated and humiliated Sunnis, Shiites and jihadis. It has forced people from their homes. They can't get enough blood. They killed many honest scholars, preachers and loyal mujahedeen," one of the group's spokesmen read from a written manifesto.

It's a sharp turnaround from just two months ago when the same insurgent forces were focused on fighting U.S. troops and driving them out of Diyala province, about 40 miles north of Baghdad.

No love lost there, yet they cooperated for reasons of opposing the US...except, some insurgent groups are now working WITH the US against AQI for the very same reasons. Some of these groups get arms and support, and they will use it against AQI (and inevitably, I believe, against Shias).

But the same article gives us reason for caution in this ugly alliance:

But while the marriage of convenience may be successful for now, Abu Ali and his followers seem to have no intention of making a lasting commitment to the Americans.

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

In other words - once they weaken al-Qaeda they will attack our troops again until we withdraw from Iraq.

Here's the funny thing: This 'enemy of my enemy' relationship that is still significant between Sunni insurgent groups and AQI is only made possible because of US troop presence in Iraq. If the US where to withdraw its forces from Iraq, the Sunni insurgent groups would quickly eliminate the Al Qaeda elements in Iraq.

----
What about the Shia?

The Shia loath AQI. Unlike the Sunni insurgent groups, the Shia militias have no significant reason to even cooperate with AQI. AQI is a Sunni jihadist extremist group who loves to kill Shias as apostates and untrue Muslims.

There will be no tolerance - and indeed there is none now - for AQI among the Shia groups in Iraq.

The Kurds?

The Kurds similarly have no need or love for AQI. They have a slightly-more-stable enclave in the north of Iraq and have no need for the chaos that AQI is known to bring. They will find no shelter and no love among the Kurds.

Conclusions

Lets be clear, there will be no good options in Iraq. There will be no magical solution, no course of action, which will lead to anything but some levels of significant violence even civil war in Iraq. That outcome is unavoidable whether we stay in Iraq or leave; And indeed, such outcomes are the inevitable product of our own initial mistake of invading Iraq, and subsequent mistakes in managing the occupation. We are stuck in a scenario with very few options and none of them good; some just less bad.

If we withdraw from Iraq - and I think we should - there will be violence in Iraq but that is unavoidable. But the United States can take a bad outcome for the US and make it less bad by withdrawing.

As long as the US remains in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq will retain a safe-haven, a training ground, and a recruitment tool from Iraq. Every day that we remain in Iraq is a day that we allow al-Qaeda a base, a day we boost its recruiting, a day that we do precisely what it wants us to do.

In addition withdrawal will benefit the US by freeing up our military and giving it time to recover, by relieving some of the heavy strain on the budget from the billions we spend per month on the war, and freeing up the US to concentrate on international jihadist terrorism aimed at us. The Iraq War has been a heavy chain around our neck and a source of anger and resentment from the international community...only when we finally leave can we ever hope to begin repairing our standing and relationships with the globe. That, I fear, will take years or decades...

------

So what does the Pentagon itself believe will happen in case of a US withdrawal?

The Washington Post recently ran an article detailing the results of a recent Pentagon "war-gaming" of just such an outcome. It's important to note that they did not find that Al-Qaeda would control Iraq.

Here's what they did find:

If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

The ugliness really is unavoidable at this point.

What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.

For Bush, however, that is the primary risk of withdrawal. "It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda," he said in a news conference last week. "It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan."

This lack of concern for al-Qaeda creating some permanent sanctuary likely stems from the knowledge that they are a relatively small groups in Iraq, and that they are not likely to survive long after the Americans leave.

The United States needs to withdraw all its troops from Iraq. From a range of options that are all bad, it is the lesser evil and one that will harm the United States the least.

We must bring the troops home

------------

Roundup

Iraq

Turkey Threatens Iraq Incursion - Yet another complication for the US mission in Iraq. I've followed the rising tensions between Iraq and Turkey due to Kurdish rebel groups attacking Turkey and taking refuge in Northern Iraq.

Turkey has warned that it could send troops into northern Iraq after today's general elections if talks with Iraqi and US officials fail to produce effective measures against Kurdish rebels based there.

I'll update if anything happens...although if it did I'm sure it would be plastered on the TV all day.

Analysis: GOP Senators nervous about the war (Associated Press) - I'd be nervous too if I were them. It's a good read but there are several parts of this article that deserve special comment

Asked whether they believe that the war was mismanaged Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) replied:

"The strategy we had before was not the right strategy," he told reporters at midweek. "We should have had a counterinsurgency strategy."

By his remarks, Bond made it clear he meant the strategy was wrong from the time Saddam Hussein was deposed until this past January, when Gen. David Petraeus was installed as top military commander. That's a span of nearly four years.

Asked who bore responsibility for the error, Bond said, "Ultimately, obviously, the president."

Should any blame fall on Congress — under Republican control the entire time?

"Congress was not running the war," Bond replied.

He's right in that the war was indeed mismanaged and that the US should have focused more on counterinsurgency tactics from the get-go. [As an aside, I'll add that counterinsurgency tactics would not have assured success, and at this point it is too late and too chaotic for those tactics to change the situation]

What riles me up is that they seek to place all blame with the President for not changing tactics but the Republican Congress had 4 years to pressure for change...so why didn't it?

Quite simple: They didn't think they had the wrong strategy. Or, they were too cowardly or afraid to criticize the war strategy. In fact, they went out of their way to attack Democrats and others who argued that this war was being mismanaged. It's insulting for these Republicans to now try and skirt away from some of the blame for the disaster.

Here's another thing that got my interest:

"Today's mission is focused on al-Qaida," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., reflecting what other administration allies in Congress say privately.

In this view, the main U.S. military focus should be on preventing Iraq from falling under terrorist control. One Republican senator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the shift in talk of a military objective was a prelude to a change to a strategy that would pull U.S. troops back from a civil war between Sunni and Shiites.

But focusing attention on al-Qaida raises familiar questions: Were terrorists present in Iraq before the 2003 invasion and what would happen if U.S. forces departed?

According to several officials, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and McCain engaged in a brief, impromptu debate touching on that point recently at a private meeting of the rank and file.

Voinovich said the Sunni and Shiites in Iraq would together drive al-Qaida from their country if the U.S. were not there. McCain took the opposite view. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting that the meeting was private.

The Republicans are focusing now on keeping al-Qaeda from controlling Iraq. Yet it seems clear that it is our very presence in Iraq which is allowing al-Qaeda to retain Iraq as a base. You see the problem don't you.

-The invasion of Iraq introduced terrorism to Iraq that was not present before
- The presence of al-Qaeda that the Administration made possible is becoming the rationale for our continued presence in Iraq.
- Our continued presence ensures al-Qaeda retains its base in Iraq, thus ensuring our continued presence. Go back to step 2.

It's a goddamed vicious cycle of idiocy that feeds off of its own idiocy to create more idiocy that...well you get the point.

-----

What's is even more frustrating is that Republican Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) seems to understand that Iraqi's will eliminate al-Qaeda after a US withdrawal, and that is good.

But, why, Sen. Voinovich, if you do understand that do you refuse to vote for Senator Harry Reeds binding withdrawal timetable resolution? Why do you proclaim you want a change in Iraq policy yet opt to vote against an amendment which will do just that?

Cowardice

Senator Voinovich and other 'Waverers In Name Only' (WINO's) want the political cover of saying they split with the President and took a stand against the war by supporting bills and amendments by "moderates" in the Senate which would not force the President to change anything. That is cowardice, and that is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers. They want the credit for being anti-war, without doing anything substantive to ensure that the war come to an end.

And they are angry because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed is not giving them the chance to get that political cover: After those WINOs refused to help him beat the Republican Filibuster of his amendment mandating withdrawal (added to a Pentagon bill), he shelved the whole Pentagon bill (along with the other toothless "moderate" amendments) that those moderate Republicans and Democrats hoped would give them political cover.

So...now they get voted no on the Iraq withdrawal, and they are denied their political cover. So, if they really want to reduce the pressure on them from Americans they will just have to play ball with Reed and vote on his amendment next time he brings up the Pentagon bill...or else he'll do it to them again.

Let the cowards flail in the wind.....