Nightmares and End States

Austin Bay is a Colonel in the Army Reserve and a syndicated columnist with a feature article in the current Weekly Standard. Beyond that he holds a title I look forward to claiming myself: veteran of service in Iraq.

An excerpt from his Standard story:

What are the acceptable End States in Iraq? In an essay he wrote for the Wall Street Journal in August, Iraq's interim prime minister Iyad Allawi identified three keys to success in Iraq: (1) security and the rule of law, (2) a prosperous economy, and (3) an "inclusive, collaborative" political system. To achieve it will take years of low-level warfare and continuing security assistance from the United States even after the New Iraq begins to manage its own domestic security. No administration of whatever political stripe should think otherwise.

Another acceptable End State would be what a friend called "a too strong, bulldog Iraq." Don't dismiss the notion out of hand. Here are the attributes: "New Iraq" decides to rearm for offensive capability--and the French or Russians sell it weapons. Angry at perceived Syrian, Iranian, or Saudi interference, a brave new Iraqi government turns to regional assertiveness as a way of solidifying domestic support. The United States could live with this End State, but it would seriously frustrate attempts to spur political evolution in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

A far less acceptable End State would be a "gentle" dictatorship in Iraq, an authoritarian regime that did not threaten the region but held Iraq together by force and smashed civil opposition in the name of domestic security. This would be an ideological defeat for the United States, the defeat salved if this New Iraq were an effective counterterror partner in the region. Early Coalition withdrawal, whatever the reason, would make this End State more likely.

The last acceptable End State, but one that further frustrates long-term American goals, is the oft-debated tripartite Iraq, with Kurdistan in the north, Shia-stan in the south, and Baath-istan in the Sunni Triangle and Al Anbar Province. This would be a dangerous mosaic, but for the sake of oil revenues the Baathists would have to police al Qaeda. Kurds and Shia areas would also destroy al Qaedaites.

Defeatists and cynics will argue it's too late for the United States to wage the Millennium War on ideological grounds. This ignores the fact that this war is ideological in its deepest origins.

Afghanistan is the guide. Afghanistan's October 9 presidential election was the most significant election in 2004. Obviously, it was significant for the people of Afghanistan, but it was significant too for the forgotten, trampled, robbed, and oppressed people suffering in Earth's various tyrannies--those who do long for freedom's fairer shake. The successful election was also a major step toward victory for the civilized world. This Millennium War is as much a war against fear, poverty, and anarchy as it is a war against the petty tyrants who harbor and sustain terrorists. The 8 million Afghans who voted, despite terror threats from al Qaeda and Taliban holdouts, rejected fear. The Afghan people acted, ignoring death threats made by religious fascists, the destruction wrought by 30 years of war, and the lack of "a modern transportation and communication infrastructure" (i.e., roads and telephones).

While reading it two thoughts occurred to me.

One, this may be the first post-election (and thus free of that questionable motive) item I've read approaching serious discussion of "end state" in Iraq. Of course, that ultimate "end state" is up to the people of Iraq, but certainly now that the American elections are passed and we no longer need pay lip service to talk of "exit strategy" and other code phrases for failure the debate among those whose opinions have been shown to matter would be worthwhile.

Two, actually I have seen a purportedly serious discussion of "end sate" in Iraq before, but it was from the left, before the war even started. From Alternet, under the headline "Bush Wins: The Left's Nightmare Scenario" Mark Levine, ("assistant professor in the History Department at the University of California at Irvine") writes of his thoughts on various "end states" for Iraq, and their palatability to leftist tastes:

The first is an optimistic "We Win" scenario, which would result from massive protests and diplomatic pressure forcing President Bush to postpone an invasion indefinitely. (What has yet to be addressed is what exactly we win if Hussein remains indefinitely in power and the sanctions go on killing Iraqis.) With war seemingly imminent, the movement is being forced to fall back on a second scenario, "Everyone Loses," in which the warnings of a protracted and bloody war that destabilizes the Middle East and increases terrorism bear their bitter fruit.

However unpalatable in terms of destroyed lives and infrastructure, this latter scenario would at least quash the Administration's imperial dreams and force the kind of soul searching of United States' policies that is a major goal of the movement. But this outcome is less likely than many assume, and the antiwar movement would be well advised to plan for a third scenario: "Bush Wins."

In this third scenario, the war is over quickly with relatively low U.S. casualties, some sort of mechanism for transitional rule is put in place, and President Bush and his policies gain unprecedented power and prestige. From my recent conversations with organizers and their latest pronouncements, it is clear that this possibility has yet to be addressed. Waiting much longer could spell disaster for the antiwar movement.

You see, what he's saying is, they didn't have a plan to win the peace. Those seeking insight as to why the left continues to insist that the "Everyone Loses" option described above is in fact what is happening in Iraq today should familiarize themselves with this genesis piece on that sort of thinking. The "We win" option went out early, and the peaceful and prosperous Iraq is beyond their ability to accept for the reasons the author makes clear. All of Colonel Bay's "End States" are, to one degree or another, their nightmare; Allawi's vision made reality might be more than they could bear. Every time a bomb goes off in Baghdad, every time another Iraqi election worker is murdered in the streets, the Mark Levines of America can nod thoughtfully over their copy of the NY Times or add comments at The Daily Kos. Fortunately last month American voters ensured they can do little more.

An interesting contrast between the vision of possible futures from two perspectives, a telling juxtaposition of priorities, and a fine illustration of what I meant in stating that "the debate among those whose opinions have been shown to matter would be worthwhile.