Reflections
on Redeployment from Iraq
By
OK,
ÒredeploymentÓ is the anti-war spin the same way Òcut-and-runÓ is the pro-war
spin. But there could be good case
for redeployment. At the first it
could involve shifting our attention to Afghanistan by moving troops there and
more properly targeting our efforts toward the resurgent Talibon and their
Al-Queda allies. Second it may
provide an opportunity to interfere with heroin production as a side
benefit. And if you believe that
military endeavors can provide solutions to political problems, it may
reestablish and extend control of the Karzi regime in a country where we have
some some success. But there also
could be a downside in Afghanistan.
Our presence could provide the polarity needed to attract more Muslim
radicals to Afghanistan and siphon off whatever Al-Quaeda efforts are within
the Iraq insurgency (that would be good) and move those efforts to Afghanistan
(that would be bad). So it may be
that if pulling out of Iraq is chosen as a policy, it should not take the form
of redeployment as just described.
But there could be other benefits to withdrawal from Iraq, if it is done
ÒcleanlyÓ and completely.
Our
absence from Iraq, it is argued by the pro-war crowd, will lead to a Òbloodbath.Ó Maybe, but a mindless bloodbath is
going on now. Consider the other
implications of our absence from Iraq.
If we believe that our presence in Iraq is a deterrent to the sectarian
civil war in Iraq, we might expect that civil war to escalate into intensified
sectarian violence. But consider
this. If that should be the case,
Syria, which is mostly Sunni, but supporting Hezbolla against Israel in
Lebanon, would find itself at odds with Iran, which is mostly Shiite and is the
principal sponsor of Hezbollah.
Syria is on IraqÕs western border and Iran is on IraqÕs eastern
border. Syria is run by a
quasi-secular, but tilting Sunni Bathist regime, like the old Iraqi regime of
Saddam Hussein, and Iran is a Shiite, pseudo-democratic theocracy in which
Muslim Shiite clerics have final sway.
Now
imagine that the sectarian war in Iraq and the fight for the control of Iraq by
Sunni or Shiite sects poisons the apparent cooperation between Syria (Sunni)
and Iran (Shiite) regarding the support of Hezbollah in Lebanon and toward
Israel. They would have their own
tensions in pursuing their own interests in Iraq, which surely would serve as a
distraction from Israel, and cooperation in Lebanon. President Bush likes to say that if we are ÒdefeatedÓ in
Iraq, the ÒterroristsÓ will follow us to our country. Maybe, but I doubt it. The formulation is far too simple
minded. For if Muslim
radicals are caught up in their own sectarian struggles in the region, where
the stakes for them are highest, and where the vision of success for each is
more proximate, they will have little time or resources available for overseas
adventurism. The solution to
distracting the attention of the competing variants of Muslim radicalism from
us and from others in the West may be in creating conditions which compels them
to focus upon themselves, each other, and their own immediate interests. And
this distraction could endure. In
the theory of political conflict issue displacement usually results in the complete eclipse of one
dominant issue by another for a foreseeable future. The sectarian violence
could completely displace the American intrusion as the burning issue of the
day. Let us arrange for Òthe chips
to fall where they mayÓ and Òlet the Devil take the hindmost.Ó AmericaÕs immediate
national interest in Iraq may be in getting out.
2/1/07