The 80 Percent Solution

The WaPo has more details on the story Laura Rozen broke two weeks ago:

The Bush administration is deliberating whether to abandon U.S. reconciliation efforts with Sunni insurgents and instead give priority to Shiites and Kurds, who won elections and now dominate the government, according to U.S. officials.

The proposal, put forward by the State Department as part of a crash White House review of Iraq policy, follows an assessment that the ambitious U.S. outreach to Sunni dissidents has failed. U.S. officials are increasingly concerned that their reconciliation efforts may even have backfired, alienating the Shiite majority and leaving the United States vulnerable to having no allies in Iraq, according to sources familiar with the State Department proposal.

Some insiders call the proposal the "80 percent" solution, a term that makes other parties to the White House policy review cringe. Sunni Arabs make up about 20 percent of Iraq's 26 million people.

I stand by my post of two weeks back, and do see Doc Drezner from then (but not now; not yet, anyway).

Matt Yglesias merits a link just for advising us that "in this case more rubble would bring more trouble"; we should also include the stern warning from Nawaf Obaid (an adviser to the Saudi government) that ran in last Wednesday's WaPo:

Stepping Into Iraq
Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves

By Nawaf Obaid
Wednesday, November 29, 2006; A23

In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.

One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.

Well - they may protect the Sunnis after we leave, but who will protect them while we are there, hmm?

The scenario Mr. Obaid paints seems utterly plausible: with Iran aiding the Shia and Saudi Arabia aiding the Sunnis, we would have at least a war-by-proxy between those two states, and at worst, a full war:

As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene.

Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.

Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.

...

...remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region.

To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.

Gee, what happened to Bush and the Prince holding hands?

Comments

[hit and run]

Wow, that last sentence is most interesting...tell me more....anyone...

If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.

[danking70]

How about the Saudi's just help get the price of Oil back down to $30-$40.

Wasn't this the range that OPEC thought best for their economic interests?

[Bob from Ohio]

Let the Saudis intervene. What did Kissinger say about the Iraq/Iran war? Something like it was pity both sides couldn't lose?

About 5% of the Saudi population is Shia by the way. I believe they are concentrated in the east. Wonder how the Saudis will like Shia IED's exploding at home.

[bgates]

I agree with Bob. A Saudi/Iranian war would promise news stories as enjoyable to read as accounts of clashes between Hamas and Fatah.

[ghostcat]

How many Iranian-backed Shia attacked us on 9/11? How many have vowed to overthrow the Saudi government? How many ...

Never mind.

[Mark]

Maybe Mr Baker's realpolitik is not so bad after all (if maybe ruthless and bloodthirsty). Tying down Iran, Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites, and Saudi Arabia in a brutal, unresolvable conflict will certainly keep them from causing trouble elsewhere. Think of the jihadis that conflict would attract!

Thanks Dems and Realpolitickers for this truly ingenious and diabolical plan to put the Great Satan back on top.

[Extraneus]

Good ones, Bob and Mark. How bad could it be if these guys spent more of their energy and resources battling each other instead of weak-kneed infidels? Not very.

[Syl]

So, exactly which sunni in Iraq are we speaking of? The regular folk who are just normal citizens many of whom are actually married to shia. Or the baathist/sadaamist insurgents and al Qaeda types?

I have no problem with the latter being targetted, it's the targetting and killing of the former which is the big problem.

What I think we were trying to do was attempt to bring the sunni INSURGENTS into the politicall fold. If they won't comply..it's their problem.

Not all sunni in Iraq are insurgents.

[ajacksonian]

Lets see, while the OPM-SANG bombing in Saudi Arabia didn't get tied to anyone beyond 'veteran insurgents', the bombing the next year at the same vicinity at Khobar Towers was tied to Hezbollah, thus making it a Casus Belli on KSA for the violation of their territory for an act of War without declaring such, and for the US in the deaths of its military personnel there. Of course the multiple attacks by al Qaeda in KSA are just Saudi funds boomeranging back into the Nation. So it is fair to say that Hezbollah activity is not unknown in KSA, just overwhelmed by the al Qaeda activities there.

In Iraq one of the largest contributors to violent death is revenge killings which is non-sectarian as the Kurds and Arab Shia take out their 30 year grievances against the Ba'athist Sunni population. The Arab Sunnis are really in a bind caught between al Qaeda/Wahabbists, Ba'athists, and those tribes wanting *neither* of those. Thus they get targeted by al Qaeda, Ba'athist insurgents wanting places to hide, Sunni Kurds looking to get revenge, Shia Arabs looking for revenge, Iranian backed Shia Arabs and foreigners looking to incite violence, and the underlying problem of criminal gangs and kidnappers across the Arab part of the Nation. No wonders so many Arab Sunni's want to leave! In some cases the revenge motives go back *centuries* as cross-tribal problems ALSO play a leading part in things.

But that points out that the violence in Iraq is NOT just sectarian and has a deeper underlying basis which the unreal 'Realists' don't want to even address... because it is way too complex for their 'realistic' notions of the world, even though the underlying driving forces are very simple to understand. And if you have to address *those* problems then one really must rework their entire post-Warism concepts and look at what has and has not worked in such deals and where the startling failures are that, yes, remain unaddressed by the media, political & military 'Elites' and, from what I can see, just about everyone.

I am more deeply disturbed by that *lack* of analysis than by the problem itself... and the problem is horrendously disturbing as it points out a century or more of Western failings in diplomacy, State conception, trade, warfare, religion, tribalism or localism based on families, and politics. Each of which has a separate overlay and those often are non-coincidental. So trying to break down today's problem in Iraq to simplistic Sunni/Shia is the exact same problem that was seen elsewhere and addressed in similarly simplistic fashion and has come to NO good ends to this very day.

I mean if the MSM and 'Elites' cannot even figure out what is going on to create the New Iraqi Army, then why, praytell, should I trust them on anything else?

If those wise heads of punditry actually can't take time to discern a strategy in Iraq based on over a century of counter-insurgency fighting, then why should I trust them on what the actual state of that fight *is*?

Even something so simple as differentiating between a mere civil crime and an act of war upon the State seems to have escaped these so-very-wise-talking-heads-of-frivolity.

If they can't figure out the basics and be able to simply report the facts... then the rest of the 'story' has no basis nor footing in 'reality', but is supposition based on speculation.

But then, I refuse to take spoon-fed, pre-digested pap from any media or pundit. Unless they learn to show their work and be accountable.

And that goes for 'news' I agree with as well as disagree with.

[sylvia]

I heard the new policy by Bush may be to forget about the Sunnis - or the 80% policy. I agre with that. I don't get what all this handwringing about Sadr and the Shia's in Iraq is about. Seems to me the vast majority of IEDs killing our soldiers are still in Anbar and the vast majority of marketplace bombings are targeted against Shias. So it seems that the Sunni's are causing most of the trouble. So why are we talking about the Shia and Iran when it seems most of the problems are caused by the Sunni and Syria?

[windansea]

I like 2 eggs sunni side down

[richard mcenroe]

The Sunni's spent the better part of half a century providing Saddam with his legbreakers, torturers and house rapists.

Their one chance of avoiding massive payback for this from their former victims would have been early and enthusiastic cooperation with the US and the new Iraqi government. Like the Palestinians, they seem never to have missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

How much of our own interest can we be expected to compromise to shield them from the consequences of their own misjudgments?

[maryrose]

Sunnis need to get with the program or get out. I'm sure they can find refuge someplace else if they cannot accept the current elected government.

[sylvia]

I'm agree with the above comments. I have thought for a long time now we were overly-coddling the Sunnis. After all they are the ones with the dry oil spigot and they should learn to play nice if they expect to get any at all.

Let's just build a large fence around Baghdad's Shia and mixed areas, and another one around the Sunni areas. Check ID's to get in and out and put up cameras everywhere. Everytime there is another bombing in the Shia area by the insurgents, do a massive sweep of suspected insurgents still left in the Shia area and kick them over to the Sunni side. If we do this consistently everytime there is a disturbance, eventually we should make a dent in the number of agitators left with access to the Shias, and the Shis'a should be able to shop in peace in their marketplaces without getting 50 of them bombed daily.

There's my suggestion.

[Jeff Z]

Saudis protect the Sunnis? They can't even protect themselves. Who is going to take to the battlefield to die for the royal house of Saud?

The biggest victory for the West would be for the Saudis to have to pull all their corrupting dollars out of the West and use it to pay someone else to protect them.