Four Wars in Iraq?

Posted on July 22nd, 2007 in Iraq, Middle East by Will

I think there have really been four overlapping wars going on in Iraq in the past four years.

  1. The US Army vs the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard, March-April 2003. Obviously a clear US victory.
  2. The US vs Ba’athist hardliner guerillas, March 2003-sometime in 2004. It seems to me this war was quietly won–I doubt any Iraqi insurgents are loyal to Saddam anymore.
  3. The US and new Iraqi government vs al Qaeda in Iraq, late 2003-present. I think the US is actually winning this one, as indicated in this article, and by the killings of many al Qaeda leaders. There just aren’t many people in Iraq willing to fight for a new caliphate, or willing to endure the perpetual war al Qaeda demands. I also wonder if, as it looks more and more likely the US will leave soon, those Iraqis who just wanted the US gone are less motivated to help al Qaeda.
  4. Sunni and Shi’a groups vs each other, and vs. the US and Iraqi government, 2005-present. The start date on this one is obviously vague, and maybe you could push it up to 04 or back to early 06. Al Qaeda helped kick off the sectarian squabbles, but they clearly have a life of their own. Once another group has crystallized and is trying to squeeze out your interests, you have to fight back.

So the sad irony, I think, is that al Qaeda is being beaten in Iraq–partly because they’re getting in the way of Sunnis and Shi’a fighting with each other.

Share This

2 Responses to 'Four Wars in Iraq?'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Four Wars in Iraq?'.

  1. Kyle said,

    on July 24th, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    So how do you think splitting Iraq up into different states would affect the latest “war”? What about some kind of confederation, like Switzerland?

  2. Will said,

    on July 24th, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    As far as I can tell, there is no enthusiasm by any Iraqis (except for the Kurds) for splitting up the country, so if we did it it would have to be undemocratic, and I think it would do far more harm than good by reminding the rest of the Middle East of the days after World War I when the European Imperial powers drew lines on the map. There’s also the problem of who would get Baghdad. And even if they did get Baghdad, the Sunnis would still be left with neither sea access nor oil money…all they’d have would be lots and lots of ex-military officers (well, fewer than they had four years ago, but still plenty). Overall I think splitting up Iraq is a recipe for disaster, more so than we already have.

    In my opinion confederation is really the way to go. So now we have to figure out how a president who doesn’t practice federalism, can lecture Iraqis on it…

Post a comment