Failure to Learn

The philosopher George Santayana once said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." It is a shame that America's leaders have failed to learn.

This week in Iraq, an unidentified group blew up the Askariya shrine in Samarra. This shrine is the burial site of one of the last founders of the Shia sect of Islam and a holy site to Shiite muslims. This act set off sectarian violence in Iraq that has led to the deaths of over 100 people. But does all this come as a surprise? Not to students of history and political science.

The modern middle east was "established" largely by the British and French. After the Ottoman Empire lost World War I, their former territory in the middle east was broken up to be controlled by the two European powers. If you look at a map of the middle east and think the borders look a little goofy, there is a reason why. Two main factors went into drawing the lines: oil (surprise!) and control of the population.

The French and British figured that if you kept the native population angry at each other (i.e. Sunnis against Shia, Jews against Arabs, Moslems against Christians), they would be less apt to revolt over their control. Iraq has populations of Shia, Sunni and Kurds in addition to a number of smaller groups like the Turkmen.

When Saddam Hussein was in charge, he -- being a minority Sunni -- kept things under control, primarily using brutal means. But history shows other places that had problems once a strongman is no longer in the picture. The one that is the closest analog is Yugoslavia. While Tito was in power, the country comprised of Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Albanians and Montenegrins was united. Once he passed on, the country broke down into civil war and atrocities. It has taken the intervention of the UN and NATO to bring peace to the region, at the expense of tens of thousands of peackeeping troops in Bosnia and Kosovo. They will likely be there for years to come to enforce the peace.

So, now we find Iraq on the brink of a civil war. Is it worth keeping Iraq as a unified country? Or should it devolve into its natural state of three states? The United States, due to promises to our allies (mainly the British, French and Turks) has agreed to keep Iraq united. The Turks are concerned the most since an independent Kurdistan is a threat to their territorial integrity given a large Kurdish population in their eastern provinces (along with a separatist movement).

As the British found out in Palestine in 1946-47, when the native population want you out, you'll be leaving soon. And they'll still be fighting with each other. Does the United States want to be stuck between fighting Shia and Sunnis?

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was one of the most poorly thought out plans in history. The reasons were contrived. WMD didn't exist and even if it did, how much of a threat was it to the U.S.? The main reason we invaded was to send a message to Iran and the Saudi monarchy. The former not to mess with U.S. interests and the latter to finally start fighting al Qaeda.

There was no plan to stem al Qaeda within Iraq and Syria. Iran, seeing the US stretched thin, became stronger (plus the ruse of WMD in Iraq ruined our credibility globally). There was no plan to integrate the country. There was no plan to govern. There was no plan to exit.

The U.S. needs to return our foreign policy into the hands of professionals and scholars. The elected politicians have royally screwed it up.