NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF: Delaying the Inevitable

[kevinmc]

As we struggle to extricate ourselves from Iraq, it’s useful to look at how the Soviet Union handled a similar position in the 1980s. Then we should do the opposite.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 based partly on an intelligence failure analogous to our own in Iraq: they believed that their poorly behaved puppet in Kabul was poised to switch loyalties to the United States.

By 1986, the Soviets wanted to end the Afghan war, and tried some of the same approaches that we have tried or talked about: a new constitution, a new leader, a policy of “national reconciliation.”

These worked as well for them as they have for us.

Many Soviets just wanted to cut their losses and pull out. But other officials raised counterarguments that may sound familiar:

If we simply pull out, we’ll destroy our influence around the world for a generation. And if we leave, the country will fall apart, and there’ll be a bloodbath focusing on our friends. Muslim extremists will come to power, and it’s better to fight them over there than on our side of the border.

These were serious arguments, and there was truth to them. After the Soviets finally pulled out after nine years, ending what Izvestia called “the wound that would not heal,” Afghanistan did eventually collapse into a civil war that was worse than ever.......

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/08/nicholas-d-kristof-delaying-inevitable.html

[billyoc]

1. The Russians are laughing their asses off at us. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

2. Great article. Interesting to note that Kristof thinks that if we embrace

the partitioning of Iraq--the Biden plan--it would be a disaster. It would have to happen on its own, according to him.

[necso]

3. Iraq is (apparently) well on its

way to de-facto partition (ie, the civil war is fairly advanced).

However, (more or less) stable partitions (battle-lines) will involve the various (geographical) communities being able to bring in and send out what they need to. Specifically, (more or less) internally-stable enclaves can be subjected to outside pressures, which may make these enclaves unsustainable in the long-term -- or cause the inhabitants to push out of their enclaves (/call in allies) to secure surrounding areas.

For example, Baghdad is (apparently) under a form of siege*, and until its "supply lines" (taken broadly, to include things like electric production/transmission) are secured, the situation cannot be considered stable, even if all non-Shia are driven out.

And greater, more-violent battles within the Shia for dominance appear probable... sooner or later.

It's a question of trying to steer what emerges, as opposed to militarily bringing about anything resembling previous (/US-dictated) war-objectives.

*: Which, it seems, our military isn't exactly breaking. (In detail, there appear to be smaller sieges within this siege.)

Generally, the presence of our military there seems to be causing the civil war to take on somewhat strange forms.

[necso]

4. Dupe.

My bad.