« Why We Need More Historians | Main | CGI »
September 26, 2007
Does The Military Matter?
The Atlantic Community surveyed some European foreign policy thinkers on how America should approach Iraq, and the results were interesting:
Many of those interviewed focused on military strategy as a means to political reconstruction in Iraq, rather than an end in itself. “Winning” and “losing” the war, a theme in the American discourse, was not discussed. The US focus on military progress was, in fact, largely viewed as damaging to priorities in rebuilding the country. Dr. Reidar Visser, a research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs who also runs the Iraq website Historiae, observed that the “main problem [with the current strategy] is the heavy emphasis on security instead of creative political initiatives to encourage national reconciliation.”
The surge sort of dramatized this effect by coinciding with a complete loss of faith in the Maliki government's ability to pursue consolidation: The security situation and the political situation really aren't linked, at least not in that direction. The idea that stability would accelerate reconciliation was always backwards. There's a lack of stability because there's an absence of reconciliation* -- and the relationship there is causal. The surge was like trying to stop someone with a cold from sneezing by pinching their nose really hard. It didn't cure the cold, and it sort of created a mess.
*And because there are jihadists targeting American forces.
September 26, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
You really need to fix that last sentence.
Posted by: William Burns | Sep 26, 2007 9:16:45 AM
I think it cuts both ways. As Ezra suggests, the lack of reconciliation certain does lead to a lack of stability. However, I still agree with the conventional wisdom that once stability degenerates past a certain point, reconciliation becomes impossible until the immediate violence can be brought to a halt, giving cooler heads a chance to prevail.
Posted by: North | Sep 26, 2007 9:24:17 AM
A reduction in daily violence is not necessarily going to create stability, if by that we mean an environment in which a government is able to function as it should and opposing factions feel that all of their views will be heard and included in decision making processes.
But even if we do accept the premise that less deaths = stability (and if we accept that there are in fact fewer deaths because of the surge), there's still a difference between a lack of violence due to warring factions adhering to a cease fire or a lack of violence due to the overwhelming military presence of a foreign occupier.
In the latter situation all grievances and hatreds remain and fester without resolution. It's only when the former scenario comes to pass that there's any hope for stability.
That's why UN peacekeepers never go somewhere unless they're invited, and why their presence sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It all depends upon the people who actually live there, who are feeling the hurts and the hate and are picking up weapons because of them. If they don't want to have peace - if even just one side doesn't want peace - then any attempts at reconciliation are doomed.
Instead of having 160,000 American soldiers point guns at everyone and say "work this out or else," it might be helpful to see what the Iraqis themselves want. Unfortunately, this means not installing puppet regimes whose decisions are constantly and publicly overruled - and really, much of the instability in Iraq right now can be traced not to sectarianism, but to the fact that the US government pulls all the strings and makes all the decisions, making it rather hard for disaffected groups to feel like they can work out a political solution.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 26, 2007 10:38:32 AM
Hi,
I work for the Atlantic Community and was part of the team that conducted and analyzed the responses of this survey. First of, many thanks for picking up on the story - we thought some of the results were quite surprising ourselves.
@ North: your commentary is very perceptive. As Reider Visser points out, the focus on military victory in the American discourse means that the much stronger causal link 'reconciliation creates stability' is too often overlooked in favor of the weaker 'stability creates reconciliation'.
@ Stephen: If will for reconciliation exists, creating a temporary space for debate can be equally important in order for the population to see that reconciliation is not a dead-end. Not to say that military force are the only means of creating such space - engaging influential neighbors or convincing them from refraining from interference is another, maybe even more effective one.
Our editorial team always likes to respond to comments made on articles and surveys we feature, but it is difficult to monitor 20+ blogs all the time. Thus, if you have any questions or comments on which you would like an answer from us directly, it would be better to go to www.atlantic-community.org, quickly register (free) and comment there. That way I'll see it immediately and can respond more quickly.
There will also be two more installments of analyses of the interviews we conducted, dealing with the questions "What can Europe do to help stabilize Iraq?" and "What are the repercussions of an American withdrawal for Europe?" coming out by the end of next week.
Best,
Niklas Keller
Staff Writer/Researcher
Atlantic Community Editorial Team
www.atlantic-community.org
Posted by: Niklas Keller | Sep 27, 2007 7:01:52 AM
