“It Could Potentially Be Like Rwanda”
by tristero
Salon has an interview with Evan Kohlmann, founder of globalterroralert.com. He says a bunch of interesting things which many of us agree with, namely that the upper-echelon involvement of Iran in US military deaths has been hyped and that Saudi Arabia probably plays more of a role in arming insurgents that have killed Americans than Iran has. Kohlmann agrees that the latest escalation has no chance of working, by which I think he means that it won’t reverse the slide into sheer chaos or prevent the citizens of Iraq from being the hapless victims of atrocities.
But I would like to focus on the following and would appreciate hearing your opinions in comments. After the quote, I’ll try to rephrase Kohlmann’s comments, breaking them down into the most urgent issues he raises. I’ll also give you my opinion which, I hasten to add, is not locked in stone. If you think I’m wrong, and you probably will, please don’t simply throw up your hands. I am more than happy to change my mind so let me know what you think.
Do you think the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq?
I’m afraid not. If we withdraw from Iraq right now, there’s no doubt what will happen. First there’s going to be a war for control of Baghdad and then once Baghdad is ripped to the ground, the battle is going to spread across Iraq. It could potentially be like Rwanda. Right now, hundreds of people are being killed each month, which is awful and horrifying in itself. Imagine if that figure was 100 times bigger. Also, if we withdraw, a widespread war is going to be entirely our responsibility. It’s easy to say it’s Iraqis killing Iraqis. But nobody else is going to see it that way. Everyone is going to affix blame to us. We will ultimately cause a situation that forces us to reinvade Iraq and create even more casualties. It’s an awful Catch 22.
Kohlmann’s comments break down into the following predictions and assertions about what will happen if American troops leave Iraq now:
1. There will be a “war” to control Baghdad, ie the most important city – economically, at least – in Iraq.
2. Once Baghdad has been secured -he doesn’t say by whom, or even if it will be a Shia or Sunni group – that war will spread all over Iraq leading to a 100-fold increase in killings.
3. This larger war, and the resulting human catastrophe, will be entirely the responsibility of the United States.
4. Regardless of whether Sunni or Shia groups commit atrocities (or both do), both the combatants and the world will blame the US.
5. Ultimately, the US will be forced to reinvade Iraq as the situation spirals down to the lowest depths of a Hobbesian state of nature.
My opinion is as follows, and as I said, you probably won’t like it.
The escalation has no chance to do any good. Any gains in stability are little more than pr stunts that will evaporate. However, there isn’t a chance in hell that US troops in Iraq will withdraw as long as Bush is president. Therefore, Kohlmann’s discussion above is essentially meaningless.
But let us assume, for the moment, that Bush actually did order a withdrawal. Okay… I’ve assumed it, but I simply cannot imagine it happening in the real world. Now, predicting what would happen if we lived in a different universe is an entirely pointless exercise, except to get us all angry at each other. It would be like arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin.
In short, the situation in Iraq will, and I say this with genuine dismay and dread, deteriorate further and further as long as the Bush administration remains in power. It will continue to worsen if Americans elect a president in 2008 who is committed in any way, shape, or form to the goals and/or ideology advocated by Bush.
Once Bush is back fulltime in Crawford, fishing in his well-stocked cement pond for bass (and Cheney has been safely committed to whatever psyciatric hospital would be nuts enough to accept him), serious discussions can begin about what the world can do to reverse the catastrophe Bush has perpetrated on the people in Iraq.
At that time, when Bush leaves office, there is no doubt in my mind that the situation in Iraq will be radically different than it is now. Undoubtedly, it will be worse, but specifically, how will it be worse? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. There are too many variables. To speculate now on what course of action in 2009 will be best for Iraq – and for the US – is more pinhead angel-counting.
True: In principle, the US in 2009 will have as much legitimate reason to remain in Iraq as it does now, ie none. But principles of that sort mean nothing when faced with a situation that could lead to a genocide. A genocide which, like it or not, will be blamed on every American, including those of us who opposed the war. And I think that it is entirely plausible that in 2009, Iraq will be on the verge of, if not in the middle of, a genocide.
Likewise, I think it is entirely plausible that the situation in 2009 – complicated by the continued incompetence of Bush as well as the unpredictable actions of, say, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, and others – will make it clear that the US can best address the situation by leaving, and fast.
In short, we have no way of knowing what Iraq will be like in 2009, except that it will be disastrous. And that is not enough to advocate a specific policy. That is a horrible thing to contemplate – there is no hope until (maybe) 2009 – but I see no other realistic way to look at it. Please contradict me.
In a perfect world, George Bush and his government would resign today, an interim US government would schedule elections six months hence (with unrigged voting machines) and we could all discuss the nuances and complications of imminent withdrawal with confidence. The potential for a sizeable bloodbath would certainly have to figure prominently in such discussions as would, somehow, finding a way to involve the entire international community in stabiliizing a region we all have a stake in.
But the world is not perfect. Barring the publications of photos of Bush and Cheney in a 3-way with Jeff Gannon/Guckert (eeeeuw!), Bush is going nowhere, and neither are American soldiers, until 2009. While the rest of the interview makes interesting reading Kohlmann’s position on withdrawal, therefore, is pointless. Inadvertently, simply by engaging the subject, I think Kohlmann is diverting energy from the main problem facing Iraq and the US which is Bush’s occupation of the White House.
Now, the likelihood of the following happening is small, but if you want to know what I think actually could be helpful now, here it is (admittedly, it’s not much):
1. We need a serious, organized, and sober movement to impeach the Bush administration and remove it from office. Given the current politics, I don’t think it will succeed, but I think it is important to do anyway. It is important to show the rest of the world that not only does the Bush government not represent the American people, but that a substantial number of Americans are quite serious about opposing them.
2. Bush must be prevented at all costs from attacking Iran (or any other country)*. There are good reasons to worry that such an attack will entail nuclear strikes. But even conventional attacks will simply hasten the region’s slide into sheer anarchy far worse than what we are already seeing.
3. Congress must do everything within its power to oppose the Bush/Iraq war, both financially and philosophically. And Congress should make every effort to separate itself, and the rest of the country, from the unavoidable actions of the Bush administration which are beyond its control.
4. Congress should explore all options to “internationalize” the problem of Iraq – eg, via recourse to the UN and other organizations – even if the Bush administration is reluctant to do so itself.
Some of these steps are exceedingly dangerous, given Bush’s desire to play chicken with the Constitution. But in short, it must be made perfectly clear that as long as he is in office, Bush will no longer be permitted to exceed his legitimate powers. If he does, Congress must be prepared and willing to confront him, even if it means that Bush precipates a serious Constitutional crisis.
I’ve gone on far longer than I expected to. Your thoughts. And please, don’t attach too much importance to the forceful way I’ve asserted my opinion. I’m eager to hear what you think and I’m very eager to have my mind changed. It’s a terrible thing to believe the Iraq situation is utterly hopeless and I’d be happy to adopt a more optimistic attitude if I thought such optimism reasonable.
I won’t be able to respond to your comments until later tonight, but I will read them all as soon as I can.
*Note to rightwing nuts: Yes, that’s right. Bush should be prevented from attacking any other country. Even if they attack us first? Put it this way:
1. The Bush administration has demonstrated over and over again that it will lie about anything. I have no reason to believe any assertions by the Bush administration regarding a first strike.
2. The Bush administration has demonstrated over and over again that even though they have available the most powerful military force ever, their ability to respond militarily is utterly inept. I have zero confidence that even if the US was attacked without provocation, Bush could respond in a genuinely effective manner by ordering a military response. Exhibit A: Afghanistan today.
(As for the conquest of Baghdad, I remind you that Saddam didn’t attack the US. And furthermore, the battle for Baghdad never ended. Bush merely prevailed, partially, during its earliest days.
