The other day Senator John McCain mocked Senator Barack Obama for doubting that the so-called “surge” (er, escalation) of U.S. troops deployed in Iraq would stabilize the country — a doubt that was nearly conventional wisdom last year, but conventional wisdom has pretty much changed its fickle mind lately, not only giving McCain license to ridicule his rival’s “lack of judgment,” but even prompting the Obama campaign to scrub its website of Obama’s criticism of the surge strategy.

All of which would be risible were so many lives not destroyed by this oil-grubbing, empire-addled “misadventure.”

Or if, say, the conventional wisdom not so simple-minded. As the Crisis Group report released a few months ago noted, whatever successes the “surge” advocates can claim are tenuous at best.

But on their own, without an overarching strategy for Iraq and the region, these tactical victories cannot turn into lasting success. The mood among Sunnis could alter. The turn against al-Qaeda in Iraq is not necessarily the end of the story. While some tribal chiefs, left in the cold after Saddam’s fall, found in the U.S. a new patron ready and able to provide resources, this hardly equates with a genuine, durable trend toward Sunni Arab acceptance of the political process. For these chiefs, as for the former insurgents, it mainly is a tactical alliance, forged to confront an immediate enemy (al-Qaeda in Iraq) or the central one (Iran). Any accommodation has been with the U.S., not between them and their government. It risks unravelling if the ruling parties do not agree to greater power sharing and if Sunni Arabs become convinced the U.S. is not prepared to side with them against Iran or its perceived proxies; at that point, confronting the greater foe (Shiite militias or the Shiite-dominated government) once again will take precedence.

Forces combating the U.S. have been weakened but not vanquished. The insurgency has been cut down to more manageable size and, after believing victory was within reach, now appears eager for negotiations with the U.S. Still, what remains is an enduring source of violence and instability that could be revived should political progress lag or the Sons of Iraq experiment falter. Even al-Qaeda in Iraq cannot be decisively defeated through U.S. military means alone. While the organisation has been significantly weakened and its operational capacity severely degraded, its deep pockets, fluid structure and ideological appeal to many young Iraqis mean it will not be irrevocably vanquished. The only lasting solution is a state that extends its intelligence and coercive apparatus throughout its territory, while offering credible alternatives and socio-economic opportunities to younger generations.

The U.S. approach suffers from another drawback. It is bolstering a set of local actors operating beyond the state’s realm or the rule of law and who impose their authority by force of arms. The sahwat in particular has generated new divisions in an already divided society and new potential sources of violence in an already multilayered conflict. Some tribes have benefited heavily from U.S. assistance, others less so. This redistribution of power almost certainly will engender instability and rivalry, which in turn could trigger intense feuds – an outcome on which still-active insurgent groups are banking. None of this constitutes progress toward consolidation of the central government or institutions; all of it could amount to little more than the U.S. boosting specific actors in an increasingly fragmented civil war and unbridled scramble for power and resources. Short-term achievement could threaten long-term stability.

But, hey, fuck that. Back to Afghanistan!

Tags: Afghanistan, barack obama, iraq, john mccain, the surge

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 17th, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under In Contempt. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.