If we want to succeed in Iraq, we should quit looking for military solutions, discard the naïve notion that time will transform the warring factions into democrats, accept the likely division of the country, and introduce its leaders to the dark side of American politics: gerrymandering.
What should be obvious by now is the simple fact that Iraqs violence is driven mainly by internal factors and long-held animosities. Thats why all the solutions the United States has tried to date have failedwhy last months new strategy, this months revised strategy, next months updated strategy, and the new strategy that will follow that, also will fail. We can press the Iraqis to do all the right things and Iraqi leaders can agree in principle to all such conditions, but at the end of the day the factional nature of Iraqi society will make it impossible to implement such compromises.
So what do we do? If we really hope to see a stable, peaceful Iraq, we need to eliminate the two main causes of the violence: the U.S. occupation and the fact that all three groups in Iraqthe Shia, Sunni and Kurds fear control of the central government by anybody else.
The U.S. military occupation is easy to fix: say were going, and go. The second is far more difficult, given Iraqs recent history, where one faction, the Sunnis, used the power of the central government to oppress the others.
While they certainly dont want a repeat of that, what the Kurds and Shia really would prefer is autonomy. Only the Sunnisnow out of powerwant to keep Iraq unified, primarily because most known oil reserves are in the Kurdish north and Shiite south. If the country fractures along ethnic lines, the Sunnis become the big losers.
Surge or no surge, if the United States continues current policies, all it does is delay the eventual chaos. If we hope to prevent this, we need to think creativelyto consider the trick former Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry taught us.
The Web site fairvote.org defines gerrymanderinga manipulative political art dating back to 1812, when Gerry oversaw the creation of a political district that looked like a salamander (thus the term gerrymander)as the deliberate rearrangement of the boundaries of political districts to affect the outcome of elections. In Iraq, that same creative arrangement of political boundaries might be the key to cobbling together a country thats not at war with itself. The United States should show the way, then step out of the way.
First, the United States should start preparing for the inevitable troop withdrawal. The leaders of Iraqs various factions need to know that judgment day is coming: They can either prepare for an all-out bloody civil war, or they can start putting the architecture together for a post-U.S. occupation government everybody can live with. The only type of government that would meet such a test would be a loose confederation of autonomous regions.
Iraq already is divided into such autonomous areas, with Sunni insurgents and Kurdish and Shiite militias governing them. What is now a de facto division of territory and power needs to be formalized.
The major obstacle to this is getting the Sunnis to agree. Thats where the fine art of gerrymandering comes in.
The Sunni position is understandable. In the past they controlled virtually everything. Today, because most of the oil wealth is in Kurdish and Shiite territory, they could end up with nothing. With creative map drawing, however, the Sunnis could be given oil fields in the northern and southern parts of the country, even if the Sunni-controlled region ends up looking like a salamander, or like Arizonas 2nd congressional Districta contorted and twisted example of gerrymandering at its creative best.
Merely agreeing to share oil revenues among the regions probably wont work because the Sunnis would be suspicious that the Kurdish and Shiite governments would someday cut them off from the proceeds. So dont promise them a share of oil revenues; give them oil fields.
A loose confederation of Iraqi mini-stateswith a central government that has clearly delineated, but limited powercould work.
In such a confederation, the weak central government might only have the power to conduct diplomatic affairs and trade negotiations with other nations, prohibit internal barriers to commerce within the confederation, and provide a judicial venue where disputes could be aired and resolved. The regional governments would provide security and most other government functions.
The Bush administration and its allies have no other viable choice than to try to help the Iraqis cobble together a new form of government that recognizes the deep divisionsand longstanding distrustamong the Iraqi factions. At this late date, even this solution may not work because the factions are splintering, may not be able to control their followers and may not be able to enforce agreements with the other groups.
Nevertheless, a decentralized solution may be Iraqs last best hope. And if it works, it will not be because the Iraqis adopted the best traditions of American politics, but because they utilized one of its worst.
|Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and Recarving Rushmore.|
RECARVING RUSHMORE (UPDATED EDITION): Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty
Taking a distinctly new approach, Ivan Eland profiles each U.S. president from Washington to Obama on the merits of his policies and whether those strategies contributed to peace, prosperity, and liberty. This ranking system is based on how effective each president was in fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution.