An “Obominable” Plan
Austin Bay looks at the possible consequences of Barack Obama's call to begin withdrawing immediately from Iraq.
Barack Obama has kinda-sorta demanded withdrawal from Iraq. He wants US forces to leave Iraq by the end of 2008 — that isn’t an immediate withdrawal, but it is still a timetable for abandoning Iraq.
Accept Obama’s demand for what it is: a quick genuflection to MoveOn.org, the DailyKos, and the other nutroot groups which rhetorically ignite –and bully–today’s Democratic Party. Obama is trying to appeal to the Code Pink Stalinists and gray-haired profs with Vietnam-era ponytails who vote in Democratic Party primaries.
Obama’s call for defeat is reminiscent of his rhetorically botched recommendation that the US invade Pakistan. Alas, this year’s Mr. Excitement has a lot to learn. Shady characters and a re-play of Bill Clinton’s “Chinese financial culture of corruption” haunt Hillary’s campaign — it appears a basic lack of international savvy is Obama’s glaring defect.
The latest “obominable” grandstand is as foolish as it is myopic and dangerous. It amounts to a death sentence for tens of thousands of Iraqis; it would also reinvigorate Al Qaeda.
Four months ago thearena-us.com asked me to analyze the consequences of a quick withdrawal from Iraq. I sketched out seven “potential outcomes” (scenarios). Two months ago I included these scenarios in a newspaper column. These scenarios are not mutually exclusive. Bits and pieces in all seven might occur.
1) Three New Countries: Kurdistan in the north becomes an independent country — and immediately starts to wrestle with Turkey over the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which is waging a secessionist struggle in southeastern Turkey. Kurdistan has oil. Southern Iraq — a predominantly Shia area — becomes a Shia state, also with oil. Parts of Anbar province become a Sunni state (Iraqi Sunnistan) — which has few oil fields.
But what becomes of Baghdad? Does it divide like a desert Berlin into Shia and Sunni sectors? Baghdad remains a source of continuing conflict.
2) Regional Shia-Sunni War: Iran sees an opportunity to recover not only the Shaat al Arab region — the delta of the Tigris and Euphrates — but a chance to extend its border into the economically productive areas of southern Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait immediately react to Iran’s drive into southern Iraq. Iraq has served as a “buffer” between Sunni Arabs and Shia Iranians, and the buffer is dissolving. Jordan and Egypt prepare for action. The War Over Mesopotamia could last for weeks, or it could grind on for years.
3) Turkey Expands: Turkey takes control of northern Iraq to the city of Kirkuk. The Ottoman Empire once controlled Mesopotamia. Turkey has a lingering claim to areas of northern Iraq. For almost two decades, Turkey has fought with the Kurdistan Workers Party — a Kurdish secessionist group in Turkey that has bases in northern Iraq. Turkey could conclude the way to end the war with the PKK would be to absorb Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkey would pay a huge political price, however. It would lose all chance of joining the European Union. As ties with the West deteriorate, Turkey might become less secular and more Islamic in both identity and in political orientation.
4) Shia Dictatorship: Shia Arabs win the chaotic battle of neighborhoods, forcing Sunni Arabs to flee. Call it “de facto” ethnic cleansing, as the Sunnis flee to Sunni states, or move to the United States. Al-Qaida, however, retains a presence. A hard-line Shia regime takes power in Baghdad with the mission of eradicating al-Qaida. The Kurds retain a high degree of autonomy with just enough connection to Baghdad to keep the Turks away.
5) “Gang Up”: A calculated version of Scenario 4 — Rwanda in the desert. Shia Arabs and Kurds launch a coordinated campaign to eliminate Iraq’s Sunni Arab community. The threat of Iranian intervention prevents Sunni Arab nations from protecting Iraqi Sunnis.
6) Chaos: Iraq shatters into ethnic enclaves, with a few “new Mesopotamian city states” managing to control oil fields. Iran and Turkey exert “regional influence” over eastern and northern Iraq, respectively, but concerned about confrontation between themselves or provoking sanctions from Europe and the United States, neither sends its military forces in large numbers beyond current borders.
Terror attacks and intermittent fighting afflict neighborhoods throughout Iraq. Local warlords rule by fear and make money by either smuggling oil, drugs or arms. This tribal hell is a perfect disaster — the kind of disaster that allows al-Qaida to build training facilities and base camps for operations throughout the Middle East and Europe.
7) The Iraqi Center Holds: The democratic government proves to be resilient. The assumption behind this scenario is that Iraq’s government is just responsive enough and its security forces are just strong enough to withstand attacks by extremists and give Iran pause. After several months of brutal warfare, the Iraqi Army destroys insurgent groups.
Out of seven “rapid withdrawal” scenarios only one — number seven — clearly benefits the majority of Iraqis.
Austin Bay is a military analyst and host of PJM’s Blog Week in Review. He blogs at austinbay.net
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
6 Comments
1. David Thomson:Barack Obama is a graduate of leftist dominated Harvard University and something of a disciple of the late political radical, Saul Alinsky. What more does one need to know? Obama, on a gut level is a self-hating American. Such a mindset is the minimal requirement if one wants to capture the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Many Democrats deceive themselves. They fail to consciously come to grips with their inner traitor. Folks like Obama who attended Harvard often learned to hate their own country. In their heart of hearts, they are convinced that America is responsible for much of the evil in the world.
Sep 13, 2007 - 11:32 am 2. Tom W.:I’ll never forget seeing some Harvard student-twerp on TV during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, accusing the U.S. of “firebombing” Baghdad.
It never occurs to these giant brains to study weaponry and ordnance so that they won’t be fooled by those with agendas.
No, to study military hardware is morally unacceptable, tantamount to endorsing the military, and that would make Gaia sad.
Sep 13, 2007 - 6:00 pm 3. Tom W.:I’ll never forget seeing some Harvard student-twerp on TV during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, accusing the U.S. of “firebombing” Baghdad.
It never occurs to these giant brains to study weaponry and ordnance so that they won’t be fooled by those with agendas.
No, to study military hardware is morally unacceptable, tantamount to endorsing the military, and that would make Gaia sad.
Sep 13, 2007 - 6:01 pm 4. Stout Republican:I’m stunned that more people don’t point out how important this timeline of 2008 is to them. They don’t want to deal with it when they’re in office. It’s about being able to put all consequences on the current administration. If Bush pulls the troops out by 2008, and things go to hell in a handbasket, the Democrats are in the clear, because they didn’t actually make any decisions. It puts them in the position of always being right, no matter what happens…but if they get into office, and pull the troops out, and Iraq collapses…that responsibility is on them. They don’t want that…
Sep 13, 2007 - 6:24 pm 5. william jonas:No one has apparently thought to ask Barack Obama what the benefit is to the US to abandon Iraq. Or perhaps no reporter has the courage to embarass the Senator.What a pity. They seem to have no reservation about posing difficult questions to Republicans.
Austin Bays great analysis leaves little doubt about the consequences of Obamas “plan”.
I’m an optimist so I see scenario #7 as the eventual outcome .
The President just concluded his address and my wife and I laughed at the Democrats who had to be squirming in their seats as he suggested a victorious effort in Iraq.
Sep 13, 2007 - 6:57 pm 6. MarkJ:Interesting piece. In the interest of brevity, pray allow me to focus on just Scenario 3. To wit:
Sure, Turkey may try to swallow Kurdistan, but it’ll be buying a whole lot of trouble. Turkey will face it’s own–dare I say it?–quagmire given that the Kurds will be united in their resistance and will, undoubtedly, mount a ferocious, and very effective, guerrilla campaign against any occupying force. I suspect every Turkish general who can read a map and knows his history already realizes an invasion of Kurdistan would be nothing short of insane. Indeed, even if the U.S. pulls out of Kurdistan, who’s to say we wouldn’t “accidentally” leave behind large quantities of AA, AT, and light artillery systems for the Peshmerga? Use of these alone would significantly slow down a Turkish invasion, if not stop it dead in its tracks.
A couple of other points: I don’t have precise figures handy, but the Turkish armed forces are heavily conscripted, which doesn’t augur well for keeping up either military or civilian morale for a lengthy guerrilla war. Furthermore, as we’ve learned repeatedly, wars of occupation are hideously expensive: an invasion of Kurdistan would undoubtedly raise havoc with the Turkish economy, especially in the tourism sector. All those Eurotrash tourists currently sunning themselves on Aegean and Black Sea beaches would disappear quicker than free chicken wings at a Friday night Happy Hour. And we should damn well count on the Kurds quickly opening a second front by attacking civilian and military targets within Turkey itself. If the Turks think they’ve got a terrorism problem now with the PKK, they haven’t seen anything yet. Once multiple car bombs start exploding in Ankara, Istanbul, and Izmir all bets will be off. In short, in my humble view, a Turkish invasion of Kurdistan would be a guaranteed recipe for political, economic, and military disaster…for the Turks.
Sep 13, 2007 - 10:20 pm