Our man Chirol gave us his Petraeus report pre-analysis, and next comes Robert D. Kaplan’s post-analysis in The Atlantic. Kaplan suspects that America will be in Iraq “with tens of thousands of troops for years to come” contributing to bottom-up progress, evident in the Petraeus report:
The editorial writers at The New York Times remind us that military progress is meaningless without political progress. By that logic, since there has been no tangible national reconciliation at the top levels of government in Baghdad, there has been no meaningful progress at all. But that may be too neat an equation. If the surge has helped fortify political progress on the ground at the tribal level in Anbar and other regions of the country—by solidifying the Sunni alliance against al-Qaeda—then perhaps we should not rush toward the exit gates. Just because we can’t engineer change at the top does not mean that we can’t engineer change at the bottom in a way that will gradually and organically affect the top. As Crocker said, “The current course is hard; the alternatives are far worse.”? Indeed, as Petraeus indicated, a rapid withdrawal would unleash centrifugal forces in Iraq that would tear the country further apart, whereas a slow and gradual withdrawal over time will improve the situation.
Saddam’s solution was top-down, using fear to keep the multiethnic hodgepodge of Iraq in line. In order to have a true democracy a certain level of trust between sub-national groups is necessary. Thinking that level of trust was already inherent was a big mistake for the pro-democracy planners of the war. But remember McCain: “We are where we are.” Signs that tribes are coming together is good, and will hopefully lead to a better exit by America. But remember the experience of T.E. Lawrence: the number one priority of a tribe is itself. Even if America makes a face-saving exit by sticking around long enough for a partially operating government, I doubt the survivability of such an organization in the long-run. Call me a pessimist.
Anyways, thanks to Lex for sending this in. This is for you Lex:
My blog wants to
Kaplan all the time,
Kaplan all the time,
Kaplan all the time!
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « End of “beautiful Japan”
- » Zero sum?
COMMENTS / 7 COMMENTS
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Cooking with what you have added these pithy words on Nov 24 07 at 6:29 am[...] Kaplan follows up his pre-Patraeus report analysis by widening his bottom-up tribalism theory to include Pakistan, Baluchistan and Afghanistan in his [...]
Mark added these pithy words on 13 Sep 07 at 2:54 pmPetraeus doesn’t look like a warrior but like a nerd. Admiral William Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” and added, “I hate people like that, “http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II14Ak02.html
Are the jihadis impressed with his academic credentials? The empire has become a parody.
Lexington Green added these pithy words on 13 Sep 07 at 4:08 pmPetraeus does not look like a nerd. He looks like an ascetic. There are intellectual generals and some of them are good ones, and sometimes a struggle is about brains more than brawn, and such a man is the man for the job at hand.
The jihadis have to be impressed by one thing: Petraeus’s troops kicking the door in and blowing their flippin’ heads off. So far, so good on that.
Lexington Green added these pithy words on 13 Sep 07 at 4:08 pmYH: Glad to help keep the CA blog groovin’ on Bob all nite long.
Chirol added these pithy words on 13 Sep 07 at 5:44 pmMark: In future, please limit yourself to relevant comments or at least humor. You’re often irrelevant and unsupported hit and run rants are becoming less appreciated.
subadei added these pithy words on 14 Sep 07 at 12:14 amI’m quite willing to cede Petraeus his success in Anbar via the Sunni tribes (despite todays assassination of Allawi al-Issawi) but I have to wonder if the diplomatic efforts in trying to unite the sectarian elements politically within Iraq’s government isn’t, to some extent, contradicted by the tribal efforts in Anbar. On the political front we’re tossing our lot in with Malaki’s Shia dominated government yet on the tactical front we’re pulling Sunni alliances to our side. At some point the two ideologies will meet and, save some miraculous sectarian koombaya, a choice will have to be made.
I understand that Petraeus’ strategy is both the division of the Sunni tribes from al qaeda and the realization of a stable Baghdad in order to further political cohesion and action. But I’m increasingly convinced that the further his goals are met in both strategic theaters the further away national unity drifts.
Jimm added these pithy words on 14 Sep 07 at 6:07 amMy god, I thought that read:
‘Kaplan suspects that America will be in Iraq “for tens of thousands of years to come”?’***
Could it be that leaving will be the cause of more grief and bloodshed than arriving was? I was fully against the invasion at the time, but I think it’s the wrong time to give up. Stay and finish the job, however costly and bloody. The Iraqi people deserve peace. It’s amazing how much time and money have been frittered away, and how little has been achieved. I even think partitioning Iraq may be the only way to save parts of it. I can’t see any future for the current parliamentary setup other than decades of shaky coalitions, deadlock and internecine feuds, with the threat of coups, secession and civil war hanging over it…
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
