PETRAEUS, ME AND IRAQ
General David Petraeus at a press briefing in 2007, at the height of the
Surge in Iraq.
Tempos Interessantes has been defending throughout 2014 up to now that the (mostly) American
intervention against the Islamic State is geopolitical mistake. The main point
I have made is that the Islamic State is mostly a threat to Syria and Iraq.
These states are, at best, Iran’s closest allies; at worst, they are Iran’s
proxies. They are surely dependent upon Iran.
In turn, Iran is the most serious threat in the Middle East, namely to
Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Gulf States and even Turkey. Conversely, being a
threat to American allies in the Middle East, Tehran is a threat to the United
States’ interests too.
This decision was preceded and compounded by another
serious mistake: condoning and suporting Maliki’s continuation in the
premiership after loosing the 2010 elections and after having already betrayed
autoritarian and sectarian tendencies. Maliki went deep down that path after 2011:
“Passa-se, finalmente, que o regime sectário, autoritário,
persecutório e corrupto de Maliki é a principal causa da guerra que assola o
Iraque. Neste momento, Nouri Al Maliki é o cancro que importa erradicar e os
seus dias estão contados. Vai com 4 anos de atraso, que representaram um enorme
malefício para o Iraque e os Iraquianos.” (Maliki Out, 20/06/2014 at http://tempos-interessantes.blogspot.pt/2014/06/maliki-out.html
David Petraeus denounces both mistakes. His indictment of the
US withdrawal is understandably mild but very perceptive. His indictment of
Nouri Al Maliki is clear cut and definitive – he was a catastrophe that befell
Iraq.
What
has happened in Iraq is a tragedy — for the Iraqi people, for the region and
for the entire world. It is tragic foremost because it didn't have to turn out
this way. The hard-earned progress of
the Surge was sustained for over three years. What transpired after that,
starting in late 2011, came about as a result of mistakes and misjudgements
whose consequences were predictable. And there is plenty of blame to go
around for that.
The proximate cause of Iraq’s
unravelling was the increasing authoritarian, sectarian and corrupt conduct of
the Iraqi government and its leader after the departure of the last U.S. combat
forces in 2011. The actions of the Iraqi prime minister undid the major accomplishment
of the Surge. [They] alienated the Iraqi Sunnis and once again created in the
Sunni areas fertile fields for the planting of the seeds of extremism,
essentially opening the door to the takeover of the Islamic State.
The tragedy is that political leaders failed so badly at delivering what
Iraqis clearly wanted — and for that, a great deal of responsibility lies with
Prime Minister Maliki.
As for the U.S. role, could all of
this have been averted if we had kept 10,000 troops here? (…) I certainly wish we could
have tested the proposition and kept a substantial force on the ground.
For that matter, should we have
pushed harder for an alternative to PM Maliki during government formation in
2010? (…) But certainly, a different
personality at the top might have made a big difference, depending, of course,
on who that individual might have been.
(…) our withdrawal from Iraq in late 2011 contributed to a perception that
the U.S. was pulling back from the Middle East. This perception has complicated
our ability to shape developments in the region and thus to further our
interests.
(…)
There was certainly a sense in Washington that Iraq should be put in our rear view
mirror, that whatever happened here was somewhat peripheral to our national
security
There
is a serious risk of deepening and perpetuating the sectarian hatred which will
result in an ever more divided Iraq, with the Islamic State wreaking havoc in
the North and the West, plus in neighbouring states, and the Shiite assuming
even more absolute control of the central state and increasing its dependence
on Iran.
The Middle East wars currently rage
to the beat of the Sunni-Shiite confrontation and the Saudi-Iranian rivalry.
The United States opted for the easy target (the IS) but she will in time find
out that fighting the Sunnis with the help of the Shiites in Iraq and fighting
the Shiites with the help of the Sunnis in Syria is an impossible balancing
act. Especially when the Bad Guys abound and there is a severe shortage of Good
Guys.
This very week, Human Rights Watch has accused Shiite militias and Iraqi
security forces of committing atrocities, including the erasure of 30 villages
and the killing, abducting and expelling of numerous Sunni inhabitants.
And here is General Petraeus stating and stressing that the Shiite
militias constitute a much more dangerous threat for Iraq and the US than the
Islamic State itself:
(…) I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability
and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is
Shiite militias, many backed by — and some guided by — Iran.
(…) they have, to
a degree, been both part of Iraq's salvation but also the most serious threat
to the all-important effort of once again getting the Sunni Arab population in
Iraq to feel that it has a stake in the success of Iraq rather than a stake in
its failure. Longer term, Iranian-backed
Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is
outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran.
(…) we need to recognize that the #1 long term threat to Iraq’s
equilibrium — and the broader regional balance — is not the Islamic State (…)
The most significant long term threat is that posed by the Iranian-backed
Shiite militias. If Daesh is driven from Iraq and the consequence is that Iranian-backed militias emerge as the most
powerful force in the country — eclipsing the Iraqi Security Forces, much as
Hezbollah does in Lebanon — that would be a very harmful outcome for Iraqi
stability and sovereignty, not to mention our own national interests in the
region.
It is quite obvious that the USA has been playing Iran’s
game in the Middle East, actively helping her to consolidate her hegemony over
Iran with the pretext of fighting the Islamic State. General Petraeus in this
interview, very explicitly underscores how he views Iran’s role in the Middle
East:
The current Iranian regime is not
our ally in the Middle East. It is ultimately part of the problem, not the
solution.
The more the Iranians are seen to be dominating the region, the more it is
going to inflame Sunni radicalism and fuel the rise of groups like the Islamic
State. While the U.S. and Iran may have convergent interests in the defeat of
Daesh, our interests generally diverge. The Iranian response to the open hand
offered by the U.S. has not been encouraging.
Iranian power
in the Middle East is thus a double problem. It is foremost problematic because
it is deeply hostile to us and our friends. But it is also dangerous because,
the more it is felt, the more it sets off reactions that are also harmful to
our interests — Sunni radicalism and, if we aren't careful, the prospect of
nuclear proliferation as well.
It
is frankly surprising to me that this is not recognised by most analysts. Iran is playing with a
vulnerable hand and is, nonetheless scoring points in multiple chessboards:
Iraq, nuclear programme, sanctions, Syria, Yemen and the Middle East balance of
power.
General
Petraeus sees and understands what is happening in Iraq. Even I can see and
understand what is happening in Iraq. The Israelis, the Saudis, the Egyptians,
the Emiratis see it too. Not the Obama administration, blindfolded as it is in
its quest to get a signature on a dubious piece of paper.
This
(unsurprising) description of this savage behaviour by the Shiite militias begs
the question? What is the Coalition doing? What does it expect to accomplish?
It
is clear that, if continued, this pattern will only aggravate the sectarian
nature of the fight, making the Shiite forces the Islamic State’s best
recruiter. And a deeply entrenched sectarian conflict will be relished by the IS,
because sectarian strife is embedded at the core of its ideology and beliefs.
It is time for the United States government and its Western allies to
acknowledge they are dealing with two rattlesnakes and leveraging one to strike
at the other will likely bring a strong backlash in the near future.
There is a serious risk of deepening and perpetuating the sectarian
hatred which will result in an ever more divided Iraq, with the Islamic State
wreaking havoc in the North and the West, plus in neighbouring states, and the
Shiite assuming even more absolute control of the central state and increasing
its dependence on Iran.
The Middle East wars currently rage to
the beat of the Sunni-Shiite confrontation and the Saudi-Iranian rivalry. The
United States opted for the easy target (the IS) but she will in time find out
that fighting the Sunnis with the help of the Shiites in Iraq and fighting the
Shiites with the help of the Sunnis in Syria is an impossible balancing act.
Especially when the Bad Guys abound and there is a severe shortage of Good Guys.
