by Eric Martin
Michael Totten joins the chorus of Iraq war supporters gathering confetti for the impending victory parade. Says Totten:
The civil war between Sunni and Shia militias likewise is over. We know that now because we can look back in hindsight. Not one single person was killed in ethno-sectarian conflict in May or June of this year. That particular conflict had been winding down since December of 2006 when the monthly casualties began freefalling in an almost straight line from a high of more than 2,000 a month down to nothing. Nobody won that war. It’s just over.
Over? That is every bit as brash as "Mission Accomplished" was five years ago. While it is true that many former Sunni insurgents have ceased attacks on the Shiite-led Iraqi government and US forces (opting, instead, to collaborate with US forces in going after AQI and, in turn, establish local fiefdoms and receive money, arms and other support) that represents a temporary, contingent and highly precarious truce. Not an end but a pause (and not a complete pause either).
As recently as Friday, Sunni leaders reieterated their demands: either the Maliki government must integrate their cadres into the Iraq Security Forces (ISF), or they will resume the fighting (and they want more money to boot). The Maliki government has, thus far, made it clear that it will only allow a tiny fraction of the Sunni forces into the ISF, and so the stage is set for a future battle. Making matters worse, many of these Sunni elements have been quite brazen in stating their intention to lay low in anticipation of the right opportunity to launch operations to "retake" Baghdad from the Shiites - which explains, in part, Maliki's reluctance to welcome large numbers of these groups into the ISF.
Further, there has been little to no progress in dealing with Iraq's roughly five million internally and externally displaced citizens - many of them Sunnis expelled from their homes in and around Baghdad that might have expectations about returning and reclaiming what was taken. But trust us: two months of dubious data telling of zero deaths and it's time to declare the conflict "over" (some creative categorization of the hundreds of deaths still going on?). I mean, what could go wrong?
Totten doesn't even acknowledge the existence of other ethnic/sectarian flashpoints in his calculus of the various "wars" in Iraq. Flashpoints like, say, Kirkuk. From the indefatigable Brian Katulis:
The unsteady calm evident across much of Iraq after months of declining violence was shattered this morning by multiple bombs in Baghdad and Kirkuk.
The attacks killed nearly 50 people, with at least two dozen dead in each city. In Baghdad, female suicide bombers struck three times during a Shi’a religious procession in the Karrada neighborhood. But the attack was particularly ominous in Kirkuk, where a suicide bomber targeted Kurds protesting the recently vetoed provincial elections law. Angry Kurds then attacked the nearby headquarters of Turkoman parties, setting fire to and taking pot-shots at the buildings.
These attacks include incidents of the Sunni/Shiite violence that was supposedly over and done with, and the first signs of new ethno/sectarian fronts opening up in Kirkuk (Kurd v. Sunni and Kurd v. Turcoman). The underlying conflicts leading to these incidents of bloodshed, again, do not lend themselves to easy solutions:
Today’s bombing took place against this background of increased Arab-Kurd tension over delays on Kirkuk’s status and the elections law. What the Kirkuk dispute serves to illustrate is that Iraq’s problems are fundamentally political in nature. The challenge is not security, which has improved dramatically over the last year, but political accommodation and power-sharing between Iraqi factions.
Thus far, the U.S. strategy and political discourse has been narrowly focused on the security situation, arguing over whether the “surge” has worked or not. This debate is beside the point. Iraq’s conflicts will not solve themselves peacefully unless political compromises and deals are made. As long as they remain unresolved, Iraq’s security gains will remain fragile and open to violent destabilization.
Ah yes, "political accommodation and power-sharing between Iraqi factions" - you know, the primary goal of the Surge. The one that hasn't been achieved, but which it is poor form to point out - an unwillingness to let the good news wash over us. Totten goes on, undettered by reality:
Casualties from insurgent warfare haven’t slacked off as completely, but they have almost slacked off as completely. If all violent trends continue in their current downward directions, this war, too, will taper off to non-existence or relative insignificance. We’ll know in hindsight, too, when that war finally is over after no has been killed by insurgents for a few months.
What looks now like the last dying gasp of the various anti-Iraqi insurgencies is all that remains of these various wars in Iraq.
Almost slacked off as completely? Meaning, almost down to zero? Actually, roughly five hundred Iraqis died in the months of May and June - as documented using Totten's own sources (which don't track Iraqis killed by US forces - those don't count apparently). Matt Yglesias puts this "near complete" cessation of violence in context:
If you look back to the summer of 2005, you'll see that few people at the time regarded conditions in Iraq as "good" or even acceptable. And yet things got so much worse over the course of 2006 and early 2007, that improvement in 2008 to bring us back to the kind of level of violence we had three years ago -- except with more walled-off and ethnically cleansed neighborhoods in place -- is now represented as a great triumph. James Vega has a forceful post up at The Democratic Strategist reminding us of how perverse this is.
It's beyond perverse. Although to John McCain, it's the new normal:
We have succeeded. Sadr city is safe. Basra is safe. Mosul is safe. The people of Iraq are now leading normal lives.
Other than those people getting blown to bits. And their loved ones. And neighbors. And the people living in walled off, segregated neighborhoods from which they dare not venture far for fear of being murdered. Other than the ones that plan for, or live in fear of, the next rounds of civil wars, etc.
Doctor:
What is it he does now? Look how he rubs his hands.
Gentlewoman:
It is an accustom'd action with him, to seem thus washing his hands. I have known him continue in this a quarter of an hour.
Totten:
Yet here's a spot.
Doctor:
Hark, he speaks. I will set down what comes from him, to satisfy my remembrance the more strongly.
Totten:
Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then 'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, Bush , fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to accompt?—Yet who would have thought the Iraqis to have had so much blood in them?
Posted by: Ugh | July 29, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Well, it's very important to declare, "mission accomplished" between now and January 20, so that President Obama can be blamed when the house of cards falls apart.
Posted by: Equal Opportunity Cynic | July 29, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Am I losing my mind, or is Totten? Can someone tell me how no one "lost their life" in the recent spate of suicide bombings?
aimai
Posted by: aimai | July 29, 2008 at 12:45 PM
We have succeeded. Sadr city is safe. Basra is safe. Mosul is safe. The people of Iraq are now leading normal lives.
Indeed! Iraq is as safe as http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=91951>a market http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/middleeast/03mccain.html>in Indiana. It bears mentioning, though, that Mike Pence is from a really bad part of town.
Posted by: MeDrewNotYou | July 29, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Aimai,
In Totten's defense, the recent spate of bombings occurred after Totten's post. But the bombings reveal how shortsighted and misguided the post is.
Posted by: Eric Martin | July 29, 2008 at 01:00 PM
Eric:
Your posts about Iraq cover a lot of ground not many others do, but I'm not sure they have the right premise. Or I'm not sure what their premise *is*.
I think the Iraq War was over, and the US won, around about "Mission Accomplished" time. Ever since then it hasn't been a War, it's been an *occupation*. And I don't know that one can win an occupation.
So talking about the situation in Iraq as though it's a war seems to me ill-premised. Wars are between states, and that's not what's going on there. I'm not even sure it's a civil war, because that would involve at least 2 well-organized sides -- which I don't see -- one of which the US is backing -- which I also don't consistently see.
AFAIK, the US is *backing* the oil companies and other corporations, and whichever group of Iraqis seem most simpatico with those at the moment. Am I being too superficial? Is there any point to talking about this as a war, rather than an occupation?
Posted by: Doctor Science | July 29, 2008 at 01:38 PM
It's almost as if Eric is suggesting Michael Totten isn't a heroic citizen-blogger, but a propagandist.
Posted by: spartikus | July 29, 2008 at 01:48 PM
I have a few questions:
- Over 500 people were reported murdered in both May and June. Where did Totten get the idea that there were zero casualties?
- If AQ is on the run, and "not one single person was killed in ethno-sectarian conflict in May or June of this year", then who killed the 1,000+ murdered civilians? Was it aliens?
- Iraq is seeing about 45-50 attacks per day. Are they all unsuccessful? And if so, what about the 1,000+ people dead in May and June?
- Are all 1,000 dead in reality terrorists in disguise, and were they were all killed by U.S. and Iraqi troops?
- Is Michael Totten hitting the crack pipe a bit too often?
Posted by: LFC | July 29, 2008 at 02:00 PM
Spartikus,
D'ya think? :-)
Of course he is.
Posted by: Randy Paul | July 29, 2008 at 02:00 PM
Am I being too superficial? Is there any point to talking about this as a war, rather than an occupation?
Well, it depends on your perspective. If you're an Iraqi, things might look a little different.
The way I usually describe the situation is a web of civil wars and insurgencies. I deliberately use the plural in each instance because there are multiple variations of each (I started using the plural form back in 2006 for insurgencies and civil wars.)
The last link on civil war gives a pretty good summation of why Iraq has many going on right now - although some have died down a little. I also recommend James Fearon on the subject (his Foreign Affairs pieces have been invaluable).
From the US perspective, is there a meaningful difference between calling it an occupation as opposed to a bunch of insurgencies? Perhaps. Or a war? Maybe so, but I don't usually call it a war, I just bristle when people claim that we are near to ending "the war," and I use their terminology to debunk the false claims of progress.
I tend to describe it as an occupation on more occasions than a war. But perhaps I'm not entirely consistent.
Posted by: Eric Martin | July 29, 2008 at 02:10 PM
Over 500 people were reported murdered in both May and June. Where did Totten get the idea that there were zero casualties
He actually says there were zero casualties from Sunni v. Shiite civil war related violence.
If AQ is on the run, and "not one single person was killed in ethno-sectarian conflict in May or June of this year", then who killed the 1,000+ murdered civilians? Was it aliens?
That is the far better question, and it exposes the deep flaw in his argument.
Posted by: Eric Martin | July 29, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Oh, I think. One day, someone will find or leak a smoking-gun document about these "independent" war bloggers equivalent to those that revealed the pernicious role of generals used as experts on television.
Unfortunately, maybe not today or tomorrow.
Posted by: spartikus | July 29, 2008 at 02:14 PM
"President Davis! It's February 1865, and combat deaths have gone down significantly since the battle of Nashville! The war is over!"
(In fairness to McCain, he may think of post-traumatic stress disorder as normal life.)
Posted by: Hogan | July 29, 2008 at 03:01 PM
is there a meaningful difference between calling it an occupation as opposed to a bunch of insurgencies
Yes, because "insurgency" sounds like something those wacky Iraqis took it into their heads to do. "Occupation" makes it clear that the US is the actor, that the Iraqis were there first, and that what the US (I refuse to say "we", Kimosabe) is doing is imperialism.
Posted by: Doctor Science | July 29, 2008 at 03:12 PM
OK. But keep in mind, the violence is not all occupation vs. anti-occupation. There are also wars between Iraqi groups that would rage on even if we all vanished from the scene in an instant - or over the course of 12-18 months.
Posted by: Eric Martin | July 29, 2008 at 03:39 PM
"Am I losing my mind, or is Totten? Can someone tell me how no one 'lost their life' in the recent spate of suicide bombings?"
"Michael J. Totten - 07.26.2008 - 8:28 AM"
It seems a touch unfair to expect him to look two days into the future, doesn't it?
Not as regards the general state of things, of course, which is hardly surprising, but regarding yesterday's bombings specifically.
"And I don't know that one can win an occupation."
Sure you can; Malaya; Phillipine-American War. Arguably the Second Boer War. The anti-Hukbalahap war. Northern Ireland is now relatively peaceful. Lots and lots of Roman conquests. The biggest one: America versus Native Americans.
It depends on specific circumstances, like most things. It's hard, but not impossible.
And one can diddle with definitions of "success" and "win," of course. In the end there's usually some level of political compromise; the question is how unbalanced and in which direction it is.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 29, 2008 at 03:46 PM
Doctor Science- This is OT, but I haven't seen anyone use kemosabe in a long time, and you gave me an excuse to link to http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_061.html>The Straight Dope.
Posted by: MeDrewNotYou | July 29, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Well, it seems all right-thinking people should agree with Mr Totten that the parrot is alive.
I read a book once by a very religious lady which talked about the difference between spiritual truth, which was the world view that would make us live best or happiest (e.g. the stars are the never-dying souls of the departed loved ones watching down on us) and objective truth, which was the closest approximation regarding physical phenomena (e.g. the stars are flaming balls of gas billions of miles away). She thought that humans should follow spiritual truth. In this case the objective truth is that by any reasonable cost-benefit calculus we lost (as did everyone else except maybe the Iranians and the Saudis). The spiritual truth is that the war is won, and that our ever-victorious soldiery should return home ASAP for a well-earned parade. Now. Today would be good. Before Totten and his nutty friends change their minds again.
Posted by: John | July 29, 2008 at 05:54 PM
I don't think we should allow the rightwing to get us into a discussion of whether or not we are winning.
It's the wrong framework for thinking about Iraq.
When someone gets all triumphant about how we are winning in Iraq I think that a better response is to say,"Ok, so since the the Iraq government wants us out in 20 months and you say we are winning, then it is time to support the new governmment by leaving, right?" Force them to either support Obama's plan or start backpedalling on how we haven't really won yet after all.;
Or "It's up to the Iraqis to decide if the war is won or lost and that includes the opinions of the millions of exiles and the opinions of the relatives of the hundreds of thousands of dead." Force the war triumphantalist to face up to who has paid the cost, who is actually doing the winning and losing.
or "WE won? This is all about us?"
Posted by: wonkie | July 29, 2008 at 07:51 PM
"And I don't know that one can win an occupation."
Sure you can; Malaya; Phillipine-American War. Arguably the Second Boer War. The anti-Hukbalahap war. Northern Ireland is now relatively peaceful. Lots and lots of Roman conquests. The biggest one: America versus Native Americans.
And my personal favorite, because of its direct relevance to Anglo-American political traditions: The Norman Conquest.
The way you can tell an occupation was really successful is when hardly anyone remembers that it was, in fact, an occupation.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | July 30, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Sadr City.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 30, 2008 at 02:59 AM
It seems a touch unfair to expect him to look two days into the future, doesn't it?
Well, if you're making bold predictions, you're asking for it. Totten in this case shares the fate of Michael Fish: prediction vs. reality.
Posted by: novakant | July 30, 2008 at 05:28 AM
I don't disagree with the general thrust of this post, but I find it remarkable that July will most likely be the month with the lowest Iraq Coalition casualties since the beginning of the invasion.
I don't want to guess how exactly that will influence the debate in America, but if this trend continues, it seem's unlikely to me that it will not have any impact.
I sometimes get the impression that Intra-Iraqi violence plays more of a ...minor role. So McCain claiming now that all those areas are safe now, and getting away with it apparently, doesn't seem surprising. Recall his visit to that market in Baghdad over a year ago, and his talk about being able to move "freely".
Posted by: Christian G. | July 30, 2008 at 08:55 AM
I sometimes get the impression that Intra-Iraqi violence plays more of a ...minor role.
This is absolutely true. I wasn't making an argument about optics in a political race or otherwise, just about reality on the ground.
But yes, if US casualties continue to drop, that will have a bigger impact on many Americans even if Iraqis continue to die at horrific rates.
One thing, though: even with reduced US casualty levels, the cost of the war remains at about $2 billion a week. That has the potential to keep people interested.
Posted by: Eric Martin | July 30, 2008 at 10:00 AM
John: Good catch. Glad to see someone's paying attention...
Posted by: Eric Martin | July 30, 2008 at 10:01 AM
The United States has not benefitted at all from the invasion of Iraq. All the evidence supports this. It has not prevented a single terrorist attack and it hasn’t led to any tangable reforms in the Arab world and only seems to have but Iran in a stronger position. In the southern shiite region of Iraq, women are being forced to wear veils under penalty of death by religious fanatics.
There was even some speculation that the invasion would lead to lower oil prices. It’s only gone up to astronomical heights.
There are many indications that the continuing occupation of Iraq has put this nation’s military close to the breaking point. And, worse yet, our military is much less prepared to deal with future threats.
This is not to say that some haven’t benefitted from the invasion. Defense contractors, such as Haliburton, KBR and Blackwater have all made out like bandits on no-bid government contracts. And no accountability at all. Another benifituary has been the Mullahs of Iran who can now, with Saddam out of the way, influence the Shiite faction of Iraq. Also benefitting from our invasion is the Taliban and their Al Queda allies, which, due to our misplaced use of resources, now have a safe haven in Pakistan.
So, this is what we’ve got to show for spending hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of four thousand soldiers. So that America’s enemies get stronger, private contractors can bilk the taxpayers and the price of oil goes through the stratosphere. Mission Accomplished indeed!
Posted by: George Arndt | July 30, 2008 at 06:55 PM