Another Sobre Assessment On Iraq

Commander of the 46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Attack Squadron Lt. Col. Geoffrey Barnes performs a pre-flight inspection of an MQ-1B Predator unmanned aircraft at Ali Base, Iraq, on Sept. 3, 2008. The Predator is a medium-altitude, long-endurance, remotely piloted aircraft. DoD photo by Airman 1st Class Christopher Griffin, U.S. Air Force. (Released)

Tom Ricks's Inbox -- Washington Post

Some very senior Bush administration officials are rushing to claim credit for backing the "surge" of U.S. troops to Iraq, calling it the turning point in the war. But before they spike the ball into the end zone, they might want to listen to John McCreary, a retired analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency, who now puts out a daily e-mail report called "NightWatch." He brings the savvy of a career intelligence official to bear on the day's events -- a function similar to the one he used to perform for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Here, in part of his Sept. 11, 2008, bulletin, McCreary explains why he expects violence to increase in Iraq:

Iraq: Comment on power sharing. Today [the] press covered extensively US General Petraeus' comments about the fragility of security gains achieved during the period of the "surge" in Iraq. The theory of instability suggests Petraeus is well advised to warn.

[Over the past year,] . . . the US, as the most powerful faction, imposed power sharing on the Kurds, the Arab Sunnis and the Arab Shiites . . . . Power sharing is deceptive because it always features reduced violence. It looks like victory, but is not. It always requires participants to compromise their end state goals in order to survive and to continue to struggle.

Read more ....

My Comment: There is a part of me that believes that because it is in everyone's interest to compromise and to reach an accommodation, that some compromise will be reached. I always forget that I am thinking like a Canadian who is living in Quebec, where compromise and accommodation has always been our history. The Iraqis do not have this history.

When I put on my hat as a historian, I have every reason to believe that Iraq will fracture into its distinct sectarian regions. There is too much bitterness and a bad history between all the factions. There is no George Washington or some great Arab unifier who has the standing, respect, and credibility to bring everyone together. They are all dead.

Will Iraq spiral back into a cycle of violence and retribution has yet to be seen. But there definitely needs to be some Iraqi Congress that must meet together and iron out what will Iraq's future .... and then present this concept to the Iraqi people for them to vote on it. There will probably be a lot of people who will not agree to this new reality .... and violence will be the outcome .... but this has to be the first step to eventually resolve this long history of violence in this region.