Mindless In Iraq - What Next ?

August 21, 2006 11:49 AM

The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall... The consequences of an all-out civil war in Iraq could be dire. Considering the experiences of recent such conflicts, hundreds of thousands of people may die. Refugees and displaced people could number in the millions. And with Iraqi insurgents, militias and organized crime rings wreaking havoc on Iraq's oil infrastructure, a full-scale civil war could send global oil prices soaring even higher... Welcome to the new "new Middle East" -- a region where civil wars could follow one after another, like so many Cold War dominoes. And unlike communism, these dominoes may actually fall.

What Next?
See also Mindless in Iraq
And note that, as of tomorrow, Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006, the war in Iraq will have lasted one full week longer than US involvement in World War II.
posted by y2karl (49 comments total)

But not nearly as long as the wr against North Korea in South Korea...if there is no outward fighting in that war, then who makes a formal announcement that Iraq is now "officially" in a civil war? The Washington Post? I have long believed tyhat the country was falling into civil war, and I may thus be carping, but who proclaims these things?
posted by Postroad at 11:55 AM on August 21, 2006

Actually I think I'd wait for things to get a little worse before I actually call it a civil war. Not that it isn't bad already, or that things getting worse isn't inevitable.
posted by Artw at 12:01 PM on August 21, 2006

What a disaster. And so far, I haven't seen a single American official stand up and say anything close to an apology, admission of failure, etc. etc. If this was a normal country/administration/whatever, people would've been fired by now, no!?
posted by cell divide at 12:04 PM on August 21, 2006

It's amazing how much the US managed to ruin that country.
posted by chunking express at 12:07 PM on August 21, 2006

They had an election, and they voted against the civil war. Just like the US voted against the Civil War in 1860 when they voted for Abraham Lincoln.
posted by empath at 12:08 PM on August 21, 2006

I personally won't call it a civil war until things get 31.44% worse than they currently are.
posted by Zozo at 12:09 PM on August 21, 2006

.
posted by nickyskye at 12:14 PM on August 21, 2006

There was a commentary piece in last week's Economist laying out a set of criteria for "full blown" civil war. I don't agree with these (particularly with the idea that a unity government means there's not a civil war: if the government has no power on the ground, it's composition is irrelevant), but they might be an interesting counterpoint to the FPP:

For one thing, though it is heading that way, Iraq is not quite yet in a full-blown civil war. The central government embraces all the main political parties encompassing all the country's main sects and ethnic groups, and is holding together under a new prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki; an all-out civil war would mean its collapse. For another thing, the country is not yet cordoned off into distinct areas by barricades and barbed wire and crossing points, as in Lebanon's civil war in the 1970s and 1980s. Nor yet has Iraq's fledgling national army, the nearest thing to a national institution, broken apart. Nor have neighbouring countries, in particular Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran, weighed in overtly on one side or another, as would be likely if a full-scale civil war erupted.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:15 PM on August 21, 2006

And World War II ended not with a civil war in Germany, but with the country getting chopped in half and remaining that way for 45 years. Oh, and we had to nuke Japan. Twice. I think if we nuke Iraq twice, that war would pretty much be over too.

That, and the fact that US casualties in WWII are about 20x that of Iraq makes the analogy completely idiotic.

I note with some irony that tomorrow is also the UN deadline for Iran to drop its nuclear program.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:15 PM on August 21, 2006

The debate is over because I say it is! Woo.
posted by smackfu at 12:16 PM on August 21, 2006

Also it's not like America was in World War II for that long...
posted by Artw at 12:16 PM on August 21, 2006

Interesting how the WP printable pages don't include the "Opinion" header. That seems like an oversight.
posted by smackfu at 12:18 PM on August 21, 2006

We knew how to kick ass back them. What happened to us-- we used to be cool.

Oh, yeah. Russia went in and pre-kicked a lot of ass before we even got there. I forgot.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:19 PM on August 21, 2006

Small correction, I believe tomorrow is the deadline for Iran to respond to the proposal of incentives. The program drop date is later this month.
posted by edgeways at 12:20 PM on August 21, 2006

And so what if Iraq falls into a civil war? It's not like the national boundaries over there made any kind of cultural sense in the first place. It took a nut like Saddam to keep the country together for the last few decades, so no, I'm not surprised it's falling into a civil war.

From a geopolitical/strategic standpoint, why is this a bad thing? Weren't people suggesting at the outset that Iraq should be broken into three parts?
posted by Pastabagel at 12:20 PM on August 21, 2006

World War 2 is the wrong mental model for our current war. The "War on Terror" will last about as long as the Cold War did.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:23 PM on August 21, 2006

World War 2 is the wrong mental model for our current war. The "War on Terror" will last about as long as the Cold War did.

...if propagandists can maintain belief in this bogus "clash of civilizations" line that long.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:35 PM on August 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

World War 2 is the wrong mental model for our current war. America didn't start WWII. Also, it was a just war.
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:37 PM on August 21, 2006

Think more along the lines of "The War On Drugs"...
posted by Artw at 12:44 PM on August 21, 2006

"The War on Over-Extended Metaphors"
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:47 PM on August 21, 2006

You know who else was involved in WWII? Hitler, that's who.


World War 2 is the wrong mental model for our current war. The "War on Terror" will last about as long as the Cold War did

i mostly agree with what Steven C. Den Beste said. There are more parallels to the Cold War than WWII. That said, it's a convenient yardstick for measuring the time of military involvement, if nothing else.

Probably the most realistic assessment is that the War on Terror will last as long as there are people who advocate violence against the US.
posted by dubold at 12:49 PM on August 21, 2006

That, and the fact that US casualties in WWII are about 20x that of Iraq makes the analogy completely idiotic. -Pastabagel

I find the comparison instructive, for this reason: The United States, in WWII, was able to achieve scores of horrendously difficult goals - including such goals as "build an army" and "build a navy" - in less time than it has taken for the Bush administration to articulate any goals for Iraq. Unless you count pointless bluster about victory as a goal. And that thing where Bush moves his mouth as "articulatizing".

The other thing is, 20x more casualties? If we're talking deaths, it's way more than a factor of 20. I think there were about 400,000 armed services personnel killed in WWII. I don't know how many wounded, so I can't say as to total casualties. This site lists 19,000+ wounded in Iraq thru end of July ,2006, but I don't know how reliable these figures are.
posted by Mister_A at 12:53 PM on August 21, 2006

Well the war in Iraq isn't a civil war because. . . the US is the occupying power. There is no legitamate government in Iraq except the US military. You may as well add Iraq as the 51st state considering how much resource has gone there. If you want a way to describe what Iraq is, I would suggest "imperial America f*cking up."
posted by j-urb at 12:56 PM on August 21, 2006

"The 12-year civil war [in el Salvador] claimed the lives of 75000 people"

12 years = 144 months.

75000 / 144 = approx. 520 deaths per month.

Civilian deaths due to violence in Iraq, in June: 3,149. In July: 3,438. Average over both months: 3294.


But Iraq has more people that El Salvador, right?

El Salvador's population at the end of the civil war (1992 census figure): 5,118,599.

Iraq's population in 2006, according to the CIA: 26,074,906.


Average deaths per one thousand people per month in June and July in Iraq: ( (3,149 + 3,438 ) / 2 ) / ( 26,074,906 / 1,000 )
= 0.13

Average deaths per one thousand people per month in El Salvador's civil war: ( 75,000 / 144 ) / ( 5,118,599 / 1,000 )
= 0.10


So clearly, as long as 0.10 is greater than 0.13, no civil war in Iraq!

El Salvador: civil war.

Iraq: last throes of dead-ender foreign terrorists.
posted by orthogonality at 1:00 PM on August 21, 2006

Probably the most realistic assessment is that the War on Terror will last as long as there are people who advocate violence against the US.

as long as there are fish in the sea and stars in the sky, as long as the war on terror shall last, so long, my darling, will last my love for you.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:02 PM on August 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

i really wish i could have final throes that lasted as long as this foreign-terror wave thats going on in iraq.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 1:06 PM on August 21, 2006

as of tomorrow, Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006 the war in Iraq will have lasted one full week longer than US involvement in World War II.

That needs a qualification: it's the US involvement against Germany during WWII -- December 11, 1941 to May 8, 1945 -- 1244 days. Poor lead sentence in the Nation.
posted by beagle at 1:18 PM on August 21, 2006

The "War on Terror" will last about as long as the Cold War did.

It ain't over 'till my fatwa de-clings. Which won't happen, because once I'm killed or captured, the War on Terror is officially over. Woot!
posted by Osama bin Laden at 1:35 PM on August 21, 2006

Hm. Decapitate multi-ethnic/multi-sectarian state with long history of internecine violence held together for decades by a military strongman at the point of a gun and, as if my magic, democracy will sprout.

Honestly, what did anyone think would happen by doing this?

The comparisons to Japan and Germany are not at all apt. You're talking about two fairly homogeneous societies that had a long history of hostility toward outsiders, and generally not torn by strife within its borders.
posted by Hypnic jerk at 1:42 PM on August 21, 2006

We've got the rubes, the sophists and the pedantic assholes - lets just toss a free radical in the pot and call it a day, huh?
posted by prostyle at 1:43 PM on August 21, 2006

"We're not leaving so long as I'm president."

He might as well as place a sign "Impeach Me" on his back.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:03 PM on August 21, 2006

During the Cold War, people did not walk around saying that "we are at war" for all of those years. It is completely different now. People claim and believe that the US is at war. They will say so if you ask them.
posted by flarbuse at 2:22 PM on August 21, 2006

1. The Iraqi Government Is Little More Than a Group of "Talking Heads"
A minimally viable central government is built on at least three foundations: the coercive capacity to maintain order, an administrative apparatus that can deliver government services and directives to society, and the resources to manage these functions. The Iraqi government has none of these attributes -- and no prospect of developing them...
2. There Is No Iraqi Army
The "Iraqi Army" is a misnomer. The government's military consists of Iraqi units integrated into the U.S.-commanded occupation army. These units rely on the Americans for intelligence, logistics, and -- lacking almost all heavy weaponry themselves -- artillery, tanks, and any kind of airpower. (The Iraqi "Air Force" typically consists of fewer then 10 planes with no combat capability.) The government has no real control over either personnel or strategy...
3. The Recent Decline in American Casualties Is Not a Result of Less Fighting (and Anyway, It's Probably Ending)
...The number of battles (large and small) between occupation troops and the Iraqi resistance has increased from about 70 a day to about 90 a day; and the number of resistance fighters estimated by U.S. officials has held steady at about 20,000. The number of IEDs placed -- the principle weapon targeted at occupation troops (including Iraqi units) -- has been rising steadily since the spring...
4. Most Iraqi Cities Have Active and Often Viable Local Governments
All these governments -- Kurdish, Shia and Sunni -- have shown themselves capable of maintaining (often fundamentalist) law and (often quite harsh) order, with little crime and little resistance from the local population...
5. Outside Baghdad, Violence Arrives with the Occupation Army
...(with the exception of the northern cities of Kirkuk and Mosul, where historic friction among Kurd, Sunni, and Turkman has created a different version of sectarian violence), Iraqi cities tend to be reasonably ethnically homogeneous and to have at least quasi-stable governments. The real violence often only arrives when the occupation military makes its periodic sweeps aimed at recapturing cities where it has lost all authority and even presence. This deadly pattern of escalating violence is regularly triggered by those dreaded sweeps, involving brutal, destructive, and sometimes lethal home invasions aimed at capturing or killing suspected insurgents or their supporters...
6. There Is a Growing Resistance Movement in the Shia Areas of Iraq
If the occupation decides to use military means to bring the Shia cities back into anything like an American orbit, full-scale battles may be looming in the near future that could begin to replicate the fighting in Sunni areas, including the use of IEDs, so far only sporadically employed in the south. If you think American (and British) troops are overextended now, dealing with internecine warfare and a minority Sunni insurgency, just imagine what a real Shiite insurgency would mean...
7. There Are Three Distinct Types of Terrorism in Iraq, All Directly or Indirectly Connected to the Occupation
...One might say that the war has converted one of President Bush's biggest lies into an unimaginably horrible truth: Iraq is now the epicenter of worldwide terrorism... With this terror triumvirate at the center of Iraqi society, we now enter the horrible era of ethnic cleansing, the logical extension of multidimensional terror...

7 Facts You Might Not Know about the Iraq War
posted by y2karl at 2:26 PM on August 21, 2006

The US military doesn't need to protect the entire country from suffering the ill effects of a civil war. It just needs to protect the oil fields from being damaged. 135,000 troops should be sufficient.
posted by JJ86 at 2:29 PM on August 21, 2006

It's not a civil war until the insurgents start wearing gray uniforms and are led by Rabbat Ali.

According to Wikipedia, US casualties in World War II were 407,316 killed and 671,846 wounded, for a total of 1,079,162 casualties. ~37.7% of the casualties were fatalities.

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count currently lists 2,611 Americans killed in Iraq and 19,323 wounded, for a total of 21,934 casualties. Thanks to body armor, improvements in medevac capabilities, and medical technology, the ratio of killed to wounded is much lower; ~11.9% of the causalities so far in Iraq have been fatalities.

This site lists 19,000+ wounded in Iraq thru end of July, 2006, but I don't know how reliable these figures are.

Their figures are based on information from the Department of Defense. This page has links to the DOD press releases announcing the fatalities.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:55 PM on August 21, 2006

Not counting the actual Iraqis, of course.
posted by Artw at 4:15 PM on August 21, 2006

Wouldn't a comparison to the Spanish American War and the following Philippine American War/Insurrection be more apt?
posted by X4ster at 4:39 PM on August 21, 2006

i wish al gore was president.
posted by obeygiant at 4:45 PM on August 21, 2006

wearing gray uniforms and are led by Rabbat Ali

Thx for this, K., I needed the belly laugh! :o)
posted by pax digita at 4:49 PM on August 21, 2006

> I find the comparison instructive, for this reason: The United States, in WWII, was able to achieve scores of horrendously
> difficult goals - including such goals as "build an army" and "build a navy" - in less time than it has taken for the Bush
> administration to articulate any goals for Iraq. Unless you count pointless bluster about victory as a goal. And that thing
> where Bush moves his mouth as "articulatizing".

Bush vs. Roosevelt is part of the difference. The rest of the difference is that all military-age males were draftable during WWII, which is not now the case; and the pool of potential servicemen was not then composed of dodgeball-is-too-dangerous-for-school pussies, and it now is.
posted by jfuller at 4:56 PM on August 21, 2006

Wouldn't a comparison to the Spanish American War and the following Philippine American War/Insurrection be more apt?

Dunno, are Iraqis so hard to take down Americans need to invent a special new gun to do it? Those Philipino Islamic insurgents were hardcore.
posted by Artw at 5:09 PM on August 21, 2006

Hypnic jerk Hm. Decapitate multi-ethnic/multi-sectarian state with long history of internecine violence held together for decades by a military strongman at the point of a gun and, as if my magic, democracy will sprout.

Honestly, what did anyone think would happen by doing this?

Not to sound like a conspiracy-theory nutjob, but many people have gotten wealthy off of this war (Haliburton, Exxon/Mobil, etc.). It seems at least relatively plausible that if one's loyalties were to his corporate buddies that helped fund his election campaign, rather than the *gasp* US constitution... Well, let's just say that this kind of instability in the Middle East is an excellent business opportunity for oil companies and military contractors, so long as the need for military intervention can be sold to the American taxpayer.
posted by Nquire at 5:59 PM on August 21, 2006

Also by this author: The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq .

Perhaps that explains the line: How Iraq got to this point is now an issue for historians
posted by pompomtom at 6:24 PM on August 21, 2006

The ongoing problem Iraq represents for America, and maybe for the world, now, is that continuing civil violence isn't something the West can stop, as it did in Kosovo. In Iraq, the borders are too big, and too porous, for even a high technology operation with unopposed air space control to stop. If the U.S. can't stop the flow of Mexicans across it's own southern border for mere economic reasons, there is zero chance it can stop Iraq from being a dogfight pit for outsiders.

Moreover, in terms of simple domestic U.S. politics, I doubt we've come to a point where the American public will vote in any new administration that makes immediate disengagement our policy. "Peace with honor," in Nixonian terms maybe, but "cut and run," even after all the bullshit we've seen that got us there, is still not going to be something that the majority of Americans see as a positive move. So, that would be the trick for any politician opposed to further American involvement in Iraq, that wanted to succeed Bushie: make "cut and run" look and sound like a positive, courageous move for the good of the Iraqi people, and for America.

But I don't think any American politician possesses that amount of charisma. "Peace with honor" probably won't work in Iraq either, since there is no one to "negotiate" any kind of "peace" with. Iraq is an even more confusing place now than is southern Lebanon, and that's saying something. But I can't imagine any scenario when people with actual leadership influence in the Iraqi "insurgent" world would conduct negotiations with American leadership. We've defined ourselves as an implacable enemy of terrorists, and by now, they take us at our word. We've burned our own ships on the beaches to which we've voyaged, as if doing so would heighten our resolve. Maybe, or maybe not, but it does make adapting to changing circumstance nearly impossible.

I think the Bush Administration will finish our super-embassy compound in Baghdad, finish some huge FOB's out in the Iraqi boonies, complete with airstrips, mega-PXs, and air-conditioned USO show stages, and we'll be there for the next 20 years, with a tolerable 100 American casualties a year cost, in a pattern that will come to be gradually endorsed by each successive American administration.

Baghdad will come to look like Beirut, but without as much occasional interest in rebuilding, and Iraq's oil will be sitting in the ground under rusting oil field equipment, as we make permanent bases for American Air Force units in Iraq. Every couple of years, we'll kick shit with some ascendent group in the region, and maybe, on occasion, with bordering nation states, but we'll keep the whole region from developing effective Air Forces that can oppose ours, and we'll prevent any kind of real pan-Arab unity from developing.

In the long run, if we can keep the bullets flying in the Middle East, such that they don't fly in New York, Chicago and L.A., the American people will continue to think that that is an acceptable, and maybe even a desirable trade-off. And in 5 or 8 more years, I bet we figure out how to make a buck for KBR on having the House of Saud pay for much of it. Color me cynical/jaded.
posted by paulsc at 6:31 PM on August 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

"If you can't find enough people to volunteer to fight your war, maybe you shouldn't be fighting that war in the first place."

While I personally agree with your statement, it should probably be noted that the US has never fought any major war with an all-volunteer army. There's always been the draft, in times of war, as far as I'm aware.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:17 PM on August 21, 2006

"Gulf War I and the Big Fucking Lie were and continue to be fought with an all-volunteer army

Thanks for the clarification, I should've been more clear: I was talking about through Vietnam.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:35 PM on August 21, 2006

"It's amazing how much the US managed to ruin that country."

In all fairness it was pretty fucked up before we got hold of it, but yeah, amazing as it may seem, we have somehow managed to make it worse than when Hussein was ruining the lives of the people there. I mean at least back then they just had Hussein fucking with them. Now they have each other. And us. And people sneaking in from other countries to fuck with us and them. From quagmire to clusterfuck in like three years time. Pretty damned impressive.

Seven Facts You Might Know about the Iraq War:

1. It's fucked up.
2. It's fucked up.
3. It's fucked up.
4. It's fucked up.
5. It's fucked up.
6. It's fucked up.
7. It's fucked up.

What more needs be known, really?
posted by ZachsMind at 9:38 PM on August 21, 2006

posted by ZachsMind: It's fucked up. What more needs be known, really?

Nothing, you've summed it up completely for us, and so eloquently, too! No need for further discussion. Brilliant.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:51 PM on August 21, 2006

“What’s happened [in Iraq] is nothing short of a miracle.”
posted by homunculus at 3:19 PM on August 22, 2006