The Shi'ite Tilt Strategy

The always astute Laura Rozen outlines a strategy for Iraq that *MAY* be under consideration by the Bush Administration - throw in with the Shi'ites and quash the Sunnis:

AS SECTARIAN violence rises in Iraq and the White House comes under increasing pressure to revamp its strategy there, a debate is emerging inside the Bush administration: Should the U.S. abandon its efforts to act as a neutral referee in the ongoing civil war and, instead, throw its lot in with the Shiites?

A U.S. tilt toward the Shiites is a risky strategy, one that could further alienate Iraq's Sunni neighbors and that could backfire by driving its Sunni population into common cause with foreign jihadists and Al Qaeda cells. But elements of the administration, including some members of the intelligence community, believe that such a tilt could lead to stability more quickly than the current policy of trying to police the ongoing sectarian conflict evenhandedly, with little success and at great cost.

Doc Drezner provides some poli-sci:

The political science literature on civil wars would recommend backing the Shia.  Monica Duffy Toft summarized this logic in a Washington Post op-ed: 

The fighting can stop in a variety of ways -- by military victory or negotiated settlement. Historically speaking, military victories have been the most common and have most often led to lasting resolutions. So while a negotiated settlement may seem the most desirable end point, this resolution is frequently short-lived even with third-party support....

My man in a street fight view is this - wars end with a winner and a loser.  While the US is in Iraq as a referee, neither side will believe it can lose, so both sides will take risks and positions they might otherwise avoid.

If we pick a winner, move on, and move out, it might work.  As to the possibility that other Sunnis in the area will be enraged - hey, they have had plenty of time to help.  Even now, if Saudi Arabia or Joradan want to send troops to help pacify the Anbar province, I suspect we could find a role for them.

As to another possibility - could this leak be a risky trial balloon intended to scare some concessions out of the Sunnis?  Tricky, because it may simultaneously embolden the Shi'ites.

And yes, I fully endorse the Drum/Drezner caveat that we are looking for least bad alternatives.  Thanks for asking.

 

Comments

[rightnumberone]

If you ask a reporter what the difference is between a Shia and a Sunni, you will get nothing but stunned silence.

You are exactly right. There is only one way to WIN the war. Pick a side, and KILL the other side.

Who gives a rats ass what other Sunni's think. They ALL hate us unless we help them get rich. Even the Shiites will HATE us the moment we are gone.

But at least this way, we can declare victory, install who we want, take the rest of the oil, and get the f**k out.

[Crunchy Frog]

Or we could just wait it out while the ethnic cleansing continues. The pre-war Sunni population was around 20%; it is now closer to 10%. May Allah have mercy on their sad, pitiful souls.

[Terrye]

The Sunni have supported AlQaida far more than the Shia have. And among the Shia the majority do not want to be controlled by Iran. So that might help to make the choice.

[Barney Frank]

And yes, I fully endorse the Drum/Drezner caveat that we are looking for least bad alternatives.

Looking for the least bad alternative is the eternal, unavoidable nature of all wars. Many don't even seem to grasp what war is after the last fifty years of distant, limited stalemates fought by and involving increasingly smaller proportions of our population.
War is hell. Have there ever been good alternatives in hell?

[Semanticleo]

"I fully endorse the Drum/Drezner caveat that we are looking for least bad alternatives"

That's CTurner's take. Guess we'll have to make some undrinkable concoction from the lemons we've been handed by the Bush Plausible Denialists.

[Specter]

Hey Tic,

How come in the latest AP/Ipsos poll (oversampled with dems yet again) 57% of Americans feel the Dems have NO PLAN for Iraq? Riddle me that oh wizard.....

[Cecil Turner]

We took the Shia side when we deposed the Sunni ruling class, and ousted them from their choice position in favor of democratic reform (which disproportionately aids the majority Shia). The Sunnis know that, even if the Shias aren't entirely convinced we're on their side (because as allies, we frequently suck). The whole point of arming and training the majority was to give them the ability to defend themselves against Saddam's well-trained thugs. Our belated attempt to be all things to all sides is completely impractical, and a good way to get a bunch of our citizen soldiers shot up in the crossfire. My increasingly cynical take is that we ought to claim to be for "Democracy"; but for all practical purposes that means siding with the Shia (and Kurds) against the Sunni.

[ghostcat]

What Cecil sez. Beyond that: our original (implicit) policy was to not leave until the Shia were able to defend themselves. Now it will be to not leave until the Shia are able to annihilate the Sunnis, if they deem fit. The Sunnis have played their hand with vicious stupidity.

[Paul]

A couple of years back the Sunnis should have been told:

1) Not one more IED.
2) Al-Qaeda heads delivered to US forces on platters. I mean actual heads, the part above the neck, not leaders.

Or else we leave you to your fate with the Shia.

Wouldn't that have been far more effective that having another PC war?

[Paul]

Also, al-Sadr should have been arrested and shot immediately.

Fallujah should have been taken before the 2004 Presidential election, even if it meant leveling it in its entirety.

[ajacksonian]

Ah, yes, the non-plan from the non-players on the non-idea of the non-century. But, what do we expect from people so mired in the 20th century that they have forgotten that the Cold War is over?

The way forward to stabilize Iraq is forward. Could actually be done on the cheap with just a bit of nudging on the foreign policy side. But that takes recognizing that the actual path to Peace in the Middle East runs right through... Damascus.

The move after that is obvious... pick winners? Not for me, thanks... I prefer to have other folks solve their problems for me, and that, of course goes in one and only one direction which is why Iraq is the prime territory of the Middle East. You literally *can* get to anything important in the region from there pretty easily.

But then, that sort of solution is actually playing on the fears of the enemies and presenting them with unpalatable options. Absolutely underhanded and conniving and you can state it right up front and no one will believe you until it is done. Then they start to wonder how they got left holding the bag.

That place?

Shia? Sunni? Middle East? Iraq? Close to...?

Invite an Arab force in to help. That help?

No?

Blind, aren't we, after all these decades of PC think. Which is why we either need to drop most of the 20th century behind us and figure out how the young Republic survived in similar times. Because what we have now, will obviously NOT if this is the best the talking heads and political class can come up with.

Morally bankrupt.

Strategically inept.

Unable to play the Game of Nations.

But of course I am a Jacksonian. I like to get things *fixed* while all the parts are laying around where I can get to them. And they are all sitting right out in the open and NO politician or diplomat or general can even see it. Instead we get the duct tape and run concept from these so very wise nodding heads and pundits. What a wonderful way to let the enemy start an Empire. Pick a winner and lose in the long run.

Such a great way to be so PC and lose.

You can read what I have written elsewhere or not. But the assumption is that when enemies attack you in the battlefield you have the RIGHT to respond. And by supporting fighters going into Iraq, these Nations have justly deserved what can be done to them. And the US is in the right place with the right capabilities at the right time to do it.

If we DARE to let go of the 20th century and let that anchor head to the bottom without us.

[sbw]

TM: yes, I fully endorse the Drum/Drezner caveat that we are looking for least bad alternatives.

That doesn't require choosing sides with one goon or another, which would be so... so... Cold War. So realpolitik. So yesterday. No, it requires recognizing bad behavior, labeling it for what it is, and standing up against it despite the fickle winds (insert your local pseudoliberal here) that blow.

[sbw]

And speaking of fickle pseudoliberals that blow, let's point out that the mucking out of the stables ought to be the responsibility of the Eeeuuu! Nighted Nations!

And should they fail to understand that, then the new Congressional leadershiip can charge Ambassador Bolton to suggest since we have shouldered UN responsibilities, perhaps the almost 90 percent of the funds paid to the UN by the free nations should be withheld to pay for the work the UN has failed to do.

[Pete]

The idea is so dumb, it is no wonder that it is being considered by the Bush administration. Considering that bin laden's group was a very small disgruntled minority among muslims who bore a grudge against the US, the solution in the GWOT is what?

Lets beat up and create another disgruntled minority and give them a reason to hate us with passion.

Dumb (Iraq war) and dumber (Iraq war solutions).

[lurker]

Size is not an issue. All it takes is one nuclear bomb...or...two.

Typical Neville Chamberlain response.

[Gabriel]

Iran must think Bush is a gift from God.

[Syl]

Oh come on, people. This is just silly.

The problem in Iraq is that the shia militias are TAKING MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS when they should be sitting back and letting the professionsals do the job of whacking the insurgents and al Qaeda.

Not all sunni are actually fighting anybody at all, you know. Some are actually engaged in business, in teaching, in normal activities. The same with most shia. Going to market, to school, to work.

Do you all think this is a videogame or something?

[crosspatch]

After what happened in the last Gulf war, if we are going to pick a side, we HAVE to pick the Shiites. They feel we abandoned them last time after leading them to believe we would stand behind them in an effort to overthrow Saddam.

They were skeptical when we came in this time and apparently with good reason, we didn't appear to back them this time either.

Backing the Shiites might go a long way in a strategic sense to defuse the hold Iran has on the global Shiite community. Getting on the good side of the Shiites could deflate the tensions with Hezbollah in Lebanon over time too.

Most of the holiest sites in Shia Islam are in Iraq and the Iraqi religious schools are beginning to exert influence in that community. By being the protector of the Shiites we end up swinging the center of the Shiite universe from Tehran to Iraq and from a center hostile to the US to a center more friendly to the US.

In a strategic sense, it is how you beat Iran over the long run.

If we DON'T do something like that, there is only one way things are going to turn out ... Iran and Syria are going to divide the Shiite and Sunni regions of Iraq. Then agree to allow the Kurds to have their independent Kurdestan in exchange for staying out of the fight and stopping Kurdish agitation in Syria and Iran.

[Pete]

The Shiites are in the drivers seat in Iraq right now, yet they are pretty cozy with the Iranians. The Iraqi PM (Shia BTW and strongly backed by the US) even backed Hizbullah and condemned Israel for invading Lebanon.

It is wishful thinking that we can prevent the alignment of the Shiites in Iraq and Iran.

[Syl]

Pete

There's a big difference between shia followers of Sadr being aligned with some Iranian shia and being aligned with the mullahs in charge of Iran.

The shia are not one monolithic block.

[stan]

I have seen stupid played out many times on this blog but this is the pinnacle of stupid.

Amongst the religions of arabs, Sunnis are in the minority in Iraq but they are the majority in the region. If BushCo was to throw in with the Shiites and start an ethnic cleansing not only would the rest of the world kick our asses but the plan would not even come close to ending the bloodshed in Iraq. Such a lame brained move would ignite the entire region.

You righties are as f___ing dumb as they come.

[davod]

I think everyone is investing to much emotion into this. After all it only a situaltion to be managed.

[MayBee]

You righties are as f___ing dumb as they come.

It is heartwarming to see the bond we Americans have with each other, especially when compared to the bond Stan says Sunnis around the globe have.

[sbw]

stan: dumb as they come.

1) Never underestimate your opposition.

2) Racism can be defined as ignorant overgeneralization. Thanks for your example.

[Pete]

Syl - I agree with you that the Shia are not one monolithic bloc.

But the example I gave was that the Iraqi PM (head of the state) was aligned with the Iranian Mullahs and with Hezbullah. And his position was completely opposite to the US position. Infact on the Lebanon war, Iraq and Iran were aligned.

I repeat that it is wishful thinking that we can prevent the alignment of the Shiites in Iraq and Iran.

[Pofarmer]

I repeat that it is wishful thinking that we can prevent the alignment of the Shiites in Iraq and Iran.

You can repeat it all you want, that still won't make it so. The Iranians probably haven't curried much favor by blowing up civilians, both shia and sunni, BTW in markets and other places across Iraq. Iran and Iraq fought a pretty vicious war not too long ago. I'd imagine a lot of people haven't forgotten that, either.

[Cecil Turner]

Amongst the religions of arabs, Sunnis are in the minority in Iraq but they are the majority in the region.

More to the point, Sunnis make up practically the entire membership of Al Qaeda (including the "in Iraq" variant), the insurgent groups in Iraq, and the Taliban.

For much of the past five years, the battle between radical Islam and the West has been dominated by al Qaeda, whose leaders -- including Osama bin Laden -- are members of strict Sunni sects, including Wahhabism. Afghanistan's Taliban, too, are Sunni. So are many of the Iraqi insurgent groups, most notably al Qaeda in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before his death. Al-Zarqawi, in fact, was so enthusiastic about killing Shiites that al Qaeda's leaders publicly urged him to tone down.

Not that there aren't some bad actors amongst the Shia (notably the Mahdi Army . . . apparently "to be engaged at every opportunity"), but the push toward civil war is almost entirely due to efforts by the Sunnis (and particularly, Al Qaeda):

The Feb. 22 bombing of the golden mosque in Samarra - considered one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines - triggered the unprecedented levels of sectarian violence currently under way in Iraq. The hand behind this strike at the Shiite majority in all probability points to Al Qaeda, intent on fomenting the low-level civil strife that has churned for months into something far greater.

It ought not take an abacus to figure out which side we want to win.

[Don]

Haven't you seen the speculation that Samarra was an inside job?

Backing the Shiites is stupid. There's a reason the minority Sunnis were in charge in the first place!

If anything we ought to just say-look, "we came to make sure there are no wmds-there ain't-bye," put Saddam back in power and gtfo.

[Don]

IOW-figure out what the hell Iran wants-and do the opposite.

Have you seen the latest Iranian hints that continued American involvement in Iran is not such a bad thing!?

[Don]

excuse me-continued involvement in Iraq.

[Cecil Turner]

excuse me-continued involvement in Iraq.

Maybe it's just me, but it didn't get much smarter with the typo fixed. And personally, I have absolutely no problem with doing exactly what the Iranians don't want . . . I just don't see why we ought to pick a fight with the Iraqi majority at the same time.

[Barney Frank]

I repeat that it is wishful thinking that we can prevent the alignment of the Shiites in Iraq and Iran.

Perhaps to a point, however you seem to be ignoring the rather more important point that the Shia in Iraq are Arabs, while the Shia in Iran are Persians, and Arabs and Persians do not play well together, regardless of their religion.
Ethnicity often counts more than sect in the ME, which is why the Sunni Arabs and the Sunni Kurds are not exactly kissing cousins.

[Don]

Not smart eh? Well don't blame me if I don't have a genius plan to piece back together the oriental vase you broke.

I told you numbnuts not to pick it up in the first place.

[lurker]

Then why did John Quincy Adams picked it up in the first place?

Why did the people at the Gates of Vienna pick it up in the first place?

If they had not, then today's world would be entirely different.

[Cecil Turner]

Not smart eh? Well don't blame me if I don't have a genius plan to piece back together the oriental vase you broke.

"Oriental vase"? Excuse me if I don't cry over the long-overdue breaking of Saddam's regime pottery. Though I would like to see your genius plan and how it managed to reconcile the "they're probably bombing themselves" theory, with Zarqawi statements like:

The Shiites "in our opinion are the key to change," he said in a the letter, which was found in Iraq and released by the Pentagon. "I mean that targeting and hitting them ... in (their) religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies."

[Don]

How many people died in that bombing of the mosque?

[Don]

From the NYT Feb 22 story:

The bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, left its famous golden dome in ruins but injured no one, and only a handful of people appear to have been killed in the widespread street protests and violence that ensued.

But the shrine has enormous significance for Shiites, and its destruction — coming after two days of bloody attacks that left dozens of Shiite civilians dead — ignited a nationwide outpouring of rage and panic that sharply underscored Iraq's sectarian divide.

Shiite militia members flooded the streets of Baghdad, firing rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns at Sunni mosques as Iraqi Army soldiers — called out to stop the violence — stood helpless nearby. By the day's end, mobs had struck 27 Sunni mosques in the capital, killing three imams and kidnapping a fourth, Interior Ministry officials said."

[lurker]

That non-existent Saddam threat

Motive Behind Ba’athist/Shiite Detente Becomes Clearer [Dan Collins]

Don, why do you want to know how many people died in that bombing of the mosque?

[Don]

It should be renamed the Dome of Tonkin.

[crosspatch]

"Amongst the religions of arabs, Sunnis are in the minority in Iraq but they are the majority in the region."

Depends on what you consider to be "the region". If you go from Iraq toward the West, yeah. If you go from Iraq toward the East, no. Despite the Taliban's efforts to slaughter them, there is a considerable Afghan polulation of Shiites in the region close to the Iranian border, Iran is mostly Shiite, and so is Iraq. Shiism was BORN in Iraq. Iraq is basically the cradle of Shia Islam.

Now that Saddam is gone the Shia religious schools are cranking back up and many of them have historical prestige that goes back centuries. Iran is scared to death that Iraq and Iraqi Ayatollahs are going to take their place as the major influence in Shiism. So Iran is going to attempt to control the Iraqi Shiias and anything we can do to show them (the Iraqi Shiias) that their interests are better served being on our side than siding with the Iranians is going to serve us well.

Problem is the Iranians can promise them a Shiite controlled nuke, something we are never going to promise them.

[Martin]

IF we support the Shiites-which Shiites? Once the Sunnis are gone-the Shiite factions are going to turn on each other-worse than they already have.