THE IRAQ ELECTION
War experts advise strategy overhaul
Authors of downbeat report fear current course risks cataclysm
- James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, December 11, 2005
President Bush has framed the debate over Iraq as a series of stark choices -- tyranny or freedom, terrorism or democracy, stay the course or cut and run -- and he has insisted U.S. troops will not leave until Iraq has a secure, flourishing democracy and a market economy.
But with the insurgency raging, two respected U.S. Army experts on the Middle East argue that the president should dramatically scale back those goals to avoid what they say are the growing prospects of a catastrophic civil war. Such a war, they say, would create a major security crisis not just for Iraq and the Middle East, but also for the United States -- and so a fundamental shift in strategy is called for.
The two propose that the United States be willing to place stability above democracy, at least in the near term, and to swallow the "bitter pill" of supporting an authoritarian regime in Iraq backed by sectarian militias if that is the best means of suppressing the insurgency and bringing U.S. troops home.
Such a policy shift would, in effect, achieve success by lowering expectations, not out of choice but out of necessity, they say.
"Avoiding the worst is really something we need to focus on now, not seeking the best possible outcome," W. Andrew Terrill, one of the authors of the report, said in an interview. "It would be too horrendous not just for Iraq, but for us if things fall apart. I don't want to sound alarmist, but these are our vital interests."
Terrill and his co-author, Conrad C. Crane, are Middle East specialists at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., a highly respected graduate school for the military's elite. They both write for and get information from some of the Army's top leaders, including commanders in Iraq.
Their report, first published in October, has attracted attention recently because its downbeat conclusions, coming from a U.S. Army institution, differ sharply from the more optimistic assessments by the Bush administration, and also offer a sharply different exit strategy.
This is not the first time the two have attracted interest with a dissenting perspective on Iraq. Lending them credibility in policy circles is the fact that a controversial report they wrote weeks before the war began proved especially prescient. In the bluntly worded analysis, published in February 2003, they warned of escalating violence if the United States did not make "an overwhelming effort to prepare for occupation," no matter how swiftly the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein.
"The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years," they wrote in 2003, "a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making." Having correctly predicted the insurgency, the two now urge a different exit policy. In the interview, Terrill insisted he is completely nonpartisan and said he strongly supports Bush's refusal to announce a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, which in his view could create a dangerous vacuum.
"Under these circumstances, the idea that we can just walk away from Iraq is just not realistic," said Terrill.
But he also said he feels the threat of civil war in Iraq has grown so grave as to make the president's more ambitious goals unrealistic, at least in the short term.
"It may not look like a democracy we would like before we withdraw," he said. "As long as you start someone out on the right road, that's important."
Ken Lisaius, a White House spokesman, said he had not read the report and could not comment on hypotheticals, but added that the president had made it clear he intends to institute a strong democracy before U.S. troops leave.
"The president has said we are pursuing democracy in Iraq," Lisaius said. "That is the present strategy. That's what we're there for. Security, democracy and economics, all of them are intertwined."
Terrill said he had received no feedback from the White House, but that he and Crane had briefed many senior Army officials and received encouragement, particularly from the U.S. Central Command, which is running the war.
The 60-page report, titled "Precedents, Variables, and Options in Planning a U.S. Military Disengagement Strategy from Iraq," warns not only that a civil war in Iraq may be approaching, but that it could threaten access to Middle Eastern oil and possibly spread violence -- and terrorism -- throughout the region. Such a powerful shock to the United States must be avoided by all means, it maintains.
The report argues that the efforts to build a new Iraqi army are falling short and that the United States should be willing, at least for an interim period, to permit militias to control sections of Iraq, even if that brings with it human rights violations.
In the interview, Terrill added that America should be prepared not just to provide billions of dollars in aid for Iraqi reconstruction for years to come, but also should be prepared to supply arms to an authoritarian government.
"There is a danger they will use those weapons in a way we don't want," said Terrill. "I hate to say that, but we have to maintain our influence there. Some problems are too difficult to solve right away, and you have to kick them down the road."
Although Iraq is set to pass another milestone in its democratic development on Thursday with elections for a new parliament and permanent government, Terrill said he holds out little hope that the ballot box is winning out over bullets. The minority Sunnis are so frustrated at their loss of power to the majority Shiites, he contends, that a day at the polls will not result in the abandonment of violence.
"What many people don't understand is that voting is not a renunciation of violence," said Terrill. "It is just one way for the Sunnis to try and gain some power, but not the only way. The Sunnis will use all means to oppose the Shiites, and if that means violence they will use violence. "
According to Terrill, one of the most worrisome signs has been reports from the field that, despite the enormous efforts to train a capable Iraqi army, the motivation and allegiance of many of those forces remain highly uncertain.
"What has struck me is that there are still those intangibles," said Terrill. "We don't know enough about their soldiers, even now."
If there is a more realistic model for Iraq, they say, it may be a country like Yemen.
That Middle Eastern country, bordering Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Sea, is rated "poor" by the U.S. State Department in its respect for human rights, and its record in fighting terrorists is spotty. Militias are active and democratic expression is limited. But at least Yemen is stable, Terrill said; it is generally cooperative with Washington, it has nascent democratic institutions, and over time it could be pushed toward greater political openness.
"They acknowledge they have a long way to go, and sometimes they go backwards," Terrill said of Yemen's leaders. "But this is a default position if we start spinning toward a civil war."
Terrill was defensive about appearing to oppose the president's policies, but said he and his co-author have an obligation to be candid.
"We're not trying to pick a fight with anybody," he said. "What was driving us in writing the report is that there are some real horror scenarios that we want to make sure don't play out. That's the most important thing for the American national interest at this point."
E-mail James Sterngold at [email protected].
Page A - 22
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/11/MNG0FG5LLV1.DTL
War experts advise strategy overhaul
Authors of downbeat report fear current course risks cataclysm
- James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, December 11, 2005
President Bush has framed the debate over Iraq as a series of stark choices -- tyranny or freedom, terrorism or democracy, stay the course or cut and run -- and he has insisted U.S. troops will not leave until Iraq has a secure, flourishing democracy and a market economy.
But with the insurgency raging, two respected U.S. Army experts on the Middle East argue that the president should dramatically scale back those goals to avoid what they say are the growing prospects of a catastrophic civil war. Such a war, they say, would create a major security crisis not just for Iraq and the Middle East, but also for the United States -- and so a fundamental shift in strategy is called for.
The two propose that the United States be willing to place stability above democracy, at least in the near term, and to swallow the "bitter pill" of supporting an authoritarian regime in Iraq backed by sectarian militias if that is the best means of suppressing the insurgency and bringing U.S. troops home.
Such a policy shift would, in effect, achieve success by lowering expectations, not out of choice but out of necessity, they say.
"Avoiding the worst is really something we need to focus on now, not seeking the best possible outcome," W. Andrew Terrill, one of the authors of the report, said in an interview. "It would be too horrendous not just for Iraq, but for us if things fall apart. I don't want to sound alarmist, but these are our vital interests."
Terrill and his co-author, Conrad C. Crane, are Middle East specialists at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., a highly respected graduate school for the military's elite. They both write for and get information from some of the Army's top leaders, including commanders in Iraq.
Their report, first published in October, has attracted attention recently because its downbeat conclusions, coming from a U.S. Army institution, differ sharply from the more optimistic assessments by the Bush administration, and also offer a sharply different exit strategy.
This is not the first time the two have attracted interest with a dissenting perspective on Iraq. Lending them credibility in policy circles is the fact that a controversial report they wrote weeks before the war began proved especially prescient. In the bluntly worded analysis, published in February 2003, they warned of escalating violence if the United States did not make "an overwhelming effort to prepare for occupation," no matter how swiftly the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein.
"The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years," they wrote in 2003, "a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making." Having correctly predicted the insurgency, the two now urge a different exit policy. In the interview, Terrill insisted he is completely nonpartisan and said he strongly supports Bush's refusal to announce a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, which in his view could create a dangerous vacuum.
"Under these circumstances, the idea that we can just walk away from Iraq is just not realistic," said Terrill.
But he also said he feels the threat of civil war in Iraq has grown so grave as to make the president's more ambitious goals unrealistic, at least in the short term.
"It may not look like a democracy we would like before we withdraw," he said. "As long as you start someone out on the right road, that's important."
Ken Lisaius, a White House spokesman, said he had not read the report and could not comment on hypotheticals, but added that the president had made it clear he intends to institute a strong democracy before U.S. troops leave.
"The president has said we are pursuing democracy in Iraq," Lisaius said. "That is the present strategy. That's what we're there for. Security, democracy and economics, all of them are intertwined."
Terrill said he had received no feedback from the White House, but that he and Crane had briefed many senior Army officials and received encouragement, particularly from the U.S. Central Command, which is running the war.
The 60-page report, titled "Precedents, Variables, and Options in Planning a U.S. Military Disengagement Strategy from Iraq," warns not only that a civil war in Iraq may be approaching, but that it could threaten access to Middle Eastern oil and possibly spread violence -- and terrorism -- throughout the region. Such a powerful shock to the United States must be avoided by all means, it maintains.
The report argues that the efforts to build a new Iraqi army are falling short and that the United States should be willing, at least for an interim period, to permit militias to control sections of Iraq, even if that brings with it human rights violations.
In the interview, Terrill added that America should be prepared not just to provide billions of dollars in aid for Iraqi reconstruction for years to come, but also should be prepared to supply arms to an authoritarian government.
"There is a danger they will use those weapons in a way we don't want," said Terrill. "I hate to say that, but we have to maintain our influence there. Some problems are too difficult to solve right away, and you have to kick them down the road."
Although Iraq is set to pass another milestone in its democratic development on Thursday with elections for a new parliament and permanent government, Terrill said he holds out little hope that the ballot box is winning out over bullets. The minority Sunnis are so frustrated at their loss of power to the majority Shiites, he contends, that a day at the polls will not result in the abandonment of violence.
"What many people don't understand is that voting is not a renunciation of violence," said Terrill. "It is just one way for the Sunnis to try and gain some power, but not the only way. The Sunnis will use all means to oppose the Shiites, and if that means violence they will use violence. "
According to Terrill, one of the most worrisome signs has been reports from the field that, despite the enormous efforts to train a capable Iraqi army, the motivation and allegiance of many of those forces remain highly uncertain.
"What has struck me is that there are still those intangibles," said Terrill. "We don't know enough about their soldiers, even now."
If there is a more realistic model for Iraq, they say, it may be a country like Yemen.
That Middle Eastern country, bordering Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Sea, is rated "poor" by the U.S. State Department in its respect for human rights, and its record in fighting terrorists is spotty. Militias are active and democratic expression is limited. But at least Yemen is stable, Terrill said; it is generally cooperative with Washington, it has nascent democratic institutions, and over time it could be pushed toward greater political openness.
"They acknowledge they have a long way to go, and sometimes they go backwards," Terrill said of Yemen's leaders. "But this is a default position if we start spinning toward a civil war."
Terrill was defensive about appearing to oppose the president's policies, but said he and his co-author have an obligation to be candid.
"We're not trying to pick a fight with anybody," he said. "What was driving us in writing the report is that there are some real horror scenarios that we want to make sure don't play out. That's the most important thing for the American national interest at this point."
E-mail James Sterngold at [email protected].
Page A - 22
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/11/MNG0FG5LLV1.DTL