This is an individual post from E Pluribus Unum
There's more on the main page.


Our Iraq Exit Strategy: The Once and Future Strongman?

Is it possible that Iraq may again, sooner rather than later, be ruled by a secular "strongman," someone who establishes national stability (and personal power) via a coup that topples an existing weak democratic government?

Furthermore, if/when that happens, is it possible that the Iraqis, demanding a respite from anarchy, would view the event with relief? Is it possible that powerful interests in the US, eyeing the untapped oil reserves that lie underneath the upheaval in Iraq, would turn a blind eye to this coup? In fact, might these interests even encourage and hasten its occurance?

In short, isn't this as likely an exit strategy as anything else being discussed? You might think it's pretty far-fetched. But before you dismiss it, hear me out.

I started thinking about this while watching Meet the Press Sunday morning. The guests were the outgoing and incoming Chairmen of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter and Ike Skelton; the former commander in chief, U.S. Special Operations, retired General Wayne Downing; and the former commander in chief, U.S. Southern Command, retired General Barry McCaffrey.

Hunter, who apparently still believes in "stay the course," said something that caught my interest:

Across this globe, we have had a three-step process to bring freedom to parts of the world. We stand up a free government, you stand up a military that’s capable of protecting it. Last thing you do is the Americans leave.
Really. Where has that ever worked? Korea? No. We haven't left yet. Vietnam? The South Vietnamese government is long gone. Japan? Germany? We've still got bases in both of those countries as well. It is, to say the least, a flawed analysis. But at least Hunter was coherent, unlike Skelton who was underwhelming to say the least.

Hunter continued:

...[O]f the 114 Iraqi battalions that we, the Americans, have trained and equipped, a lot of them are in peaceful areas of Iraq and they’re not being deployed. So let’s move them into the tough areas, make them saddle up, get them into battle, get them into operations. I think you’re going to see military leaders rise to the top who are efficient, who are competent, and who do respond to the civilian government, which is a key link here. [emphasis added]
Efficient. Competent. Military leader. Rise to the top. Protect Iraq. Hmmm.

Next up was Gen. Downing:

I was [in Iraq] for my seventh trip back in September, they’ve made tremendous gains in the last year. There are leaders emerging in the Iraqi army which are outstanding men who really are, are, are patriots. They’ll not describe themselves as a Shia or a Sunni, and in fact, one brigade commander became very insulted when a member of my party asked him what religion he, he was from. He said, “I’m an Iraqi army officer. My job is, is to defend this country.”
Is this the kind of guy that Hunter is referring to when he talks about "saddling up" and taking charge?

Earlier in the show Hunter had said this:

[W]hen the ministry of defense picks up the phone and orders an Iraqi colonel to saddle up his battalion and move into the fight, if that colonel refuses to do it or to delay, you need to know that and you reach into the fighting battalions where they are having successes and you pull field-grade officers out of those places and you move them into that battalion and you move them into the fight.
A non-secular Iraqi colonel "saddles up" and rises to the challenge to defend his country.

But defend it from what? I recalled an article in which Gary Kamiya quoted what he said was an old Arab proverb: "Better a thousand days of tyranny than one day of anarchy." At the time I cringed, but maybe this idealized Iraqi colonel would be seen as defending his country from sliding into anarchy. After all, what's a little bit of tyrrany when the very fabric of daily life is at stake?

Sure, Bush likes to say that the Iraqi people yearn for freedom and have voted against tyrrany. But Bush has said a lot of things about Iraq; take your pick. Would it be so unusual for him to do a 180 and begin touting a strongman (someone like Gen. Musharref) if he could bring stability to Iraq? And aren't there plenty of people who would gladly wipe the slate clean if it meant they could finally drill for all that Iraqi oil and gas?

After Meet The Press was over I came across an op-ed in the LA Times from Jonathan Chait with this title: "Bring back Saddam Hussein." Clearly it's a ridiculous idea. One way or another, Saddam is at the end of his life. But a cursory reading of the details of Saddam's life might be food for thought, especially if you were looking for an historical precedent for the rise of another strongman in Iraq:

  • Saddam was a CIA tool during crucial periods of his career when he was seen as an anti-Communist counterweight. And as one coup led to another, Saddam rose through the ranks.
  • Saddam consolidated power in a nation riddled with profound social, ethnic, religious, and economic tensions that were nearly as bad as they are today: Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arab versus Kurd, tribal chief versus urban merchant, nomad versus peasant.
  • Saddam brought stability to Iraq through the improvement of living standards in the early 70's. He did this by nationalizing the country's oil production in the early 70s.
  • Saddam was considered an enemy of radical Islamism (translation: Iran) as well as a counterweight to Soviet Communism. Don't you remember that picture of him shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld?
Who's to say there aren't those in positions of power (inside the government and elsewhere) who wouldn't like to replicate this history with the hope of avoiding the pitfalls?

You might think this would never happen because the US leadership will not let the dream of democracy die so easily in Iraq. But I think that boat has long ago left the dock. In fact, it seems a pretty good bet that (at best) Bush's adventure will go down in history as leading to the birth of the Islamic Republic of Iraq.

To those in a position to make it happen, wouldn't a non-secular, order-restoring, military strongman look pretty good right about now?


Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Full Feed RSS

Creative Commons LicenseThis weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2