In the Arena

Smart Comment

This, about my earlier Iraq post, from a very well informed reader

The conflict described in the Times is a much more of a civil war and therefore the mission to stop it is much more about peacekeeping (or actually peacemaking) and the Congo Crisis would be a good historic model.

There is of course a Sunni-lead insurgency going on at the same time in Iraq.

The point is that a simple COIN model applied to Iraq fails to describe what is actually happening. This is nothing like the Malayan Emergency (the classic COIN example) where you have a distinct group of insurgents trying to overthrow the established order. Iraq is far a more complicated and dangerous situation. In Baghdad you have at least two factions fighting it out for control of the capital in the post-US era which is bound to happen sooner rather than later.

War is actually a pretty good way to settle things. The Civil War in the States certainly put the slavery question to bed for good. Sometimes the best approach is just to let the two sides fight until either one side gains victory or until the two sides are exhausted and agree to compromise.

I agree with almost all of it and wrote a column about it last week.

A quibble, though: I’m tempted to agree with the “let ‘em fight it out” point in the last paragraph–I suspect that’s what Plan C will turn out to be–but we have to be aware of the probable consequences: a massacre of Sunnis by the dominant Shi’ites, and the possible armed intervention threatened by the Saudis.
As for the civil war putting the slavery issue to rest, I’d recommend that the reader try Redemption, an excellent book by Nicholas Lemann about the so-called “Reconstruction” period, when white Southern terrorists restored the anti-bellum racial balance of power through the use of violence.
As for Iraq, I know that the chances of success here are improbable, to say the least, but I’m hoping against hope that COIN tactics will calm things down, at least temporarily, and a regional diplomatic/security solution can be implemented. But, of course, that would require different Presidents of the United States and Iraq.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Why Romney Is Dodging the Press

    Joe, the Romney campaign’s control-freakery makes for bad democracy, but I suspect it’s a smart strategy. Consider the way Mitt’s personal approval rating has bounced back over the past several weeks. As the GOP primaries wrapped up, Romney was roughly as unpopular as late-era George W. Bush. Now he’s about even with Barack Obama.

    Since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Romney’s favorable-unfavorable rating has jumped to 50%-41%, his best ever and in the same neighborhood as Obama’s 52%-46% standing.

    What changed? Well, for one thing, other Republican rivals are no longer attacking Romney. That helps. But it’s not like he’s had a free ride: the Obama camp has picked up where Rick and Newt left off. An alternate explanation would be that Americans are simply seeing less of Romney, and that makes them like him better.

    For Obama, gay marriage stance born of a long evolutionHuffPost Politics

    Crossroads, Super PACs and the Incumbent Advertising Gap

    In a recent piece about the Obama-Romney ad wars, Michael Scherer made the smart point that this election is different from past ones in that the incumbent no longer gets a free hit on his rival during the period immediately following the primary. The reason: super PACs have the cash to cover that gap while the challenger collects enough general election funds to keep pace.

blog comments powered by Disqus