WHICH IS WHY AMERICANS HOLD STATECRAFT IN CONTEMPT:

How to Contain Iraq (Dennis Ross, 06.04.07, New Republic)

In theory, the surge was designed to create a secure environment in which Iraq's sectarian leaders could feel safe enough to bridge their divide and forge a national compact. Hard political compromises would be hatched, and a different, more hopeful future for Iraq would emerge. But the Shia-led government (and militias) are not operating according to the theory. Instead they behave as if they fear losing power at any moment and are therefore disinclined to compromise with the Sunnis on key issues such as sharing revenue, integrating Baath Party members into the government, and revising the constitution. And the Sunnis are still emotionally hard-pressed to accept being led by the Shia. Perhaps compromise will come eventually, but probably not before complete exhaustion sets in. And, despite the current terrible conditions in Iraq, the point of exhaustion is, I'm afraid, still far away.

Given that reality, our central objective must be to contain the conflict. We do not want it spreading outside Iraq, and we do not want jihadists being able to move into and out of the country. But no containment strategy can depend solely on the U.S. military; on our own, we would never have enough forces to seal the Iraqi borders. We need Iraq's neighbors to have a stake in this. While neither the Iranians nor the Syrians will pull our chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq, they will intervene to protect their own.

How can we create such an incentive? As I have often said, statecraft is about leverage. Much like in negotiations, one does not want to say that you need the other side more than it needs you. When we seemingly plead with the Iranians and Syrians to help establish stability in Iraq, we actually increase their incentives to create trouble. It is that trouble that leads us to seek their help.

But Syria and Iran would have a stake in Iraq's stability if they see that the alternative in Iraq is a convulsion that fragments the country, produces several million more refugees, and triggers all of Iraq's neighbors to fill compelled to intervene. Do the Iranians really want Saudi Arabia and Jordan intervening to shore up the Sunni tribes? Can the Iranians be so sure that the Shia won't fragment, given the rivalries between the Badr organization and the Mahdi army? Do the Saudis want to be in a position where they must save the Sunnis?

And so a statecraft approach to containment would emphasize that we will not remain in Iraq forever; we will not keep the lid on forever; and Iraq's neighbors will have to live with the consequences of the United States getting out. Redeploying our forces, reorienting ourselves to a training mission, and reducing our combat presence will probably begin gradually next year, even before the end of the Bush administration. We can either shape an approach to our disengagement that works for everyone's interests--or only our own desire to leave.

The notion that we have an interest in the stability of the Ba'athist regime in Syria, the Sa'udi sheikdom or Twelver Iran is ludicrous on its face.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 4, 2007 12:23 PM