How To Avoid Refugee Crisis (or Worse) in Iraq
Now that several leading Republican politicians (and many more smart Republican voters) have abandoned the inane Bush/Cheney position that USA troops must stay the course in Iraq, it seems likely that American forces will begin pulling out soon (how soon? I wish I knew). This is far the end of our troubles in Iraq, or Iraq’s troubles. The hard work will get harder before it gets easier, and some frightening issues loom. We must pull out without leaving causing a massive refugee crisis that could lead to further horrors, privations and invitations to genocide.
As we’ve observed elsewhere on this site, major historical acts of genocide from Turkey to the Ukraine to Nazi Germany to the Chinese heartland to Rwanda have almost always been politically motivated. The “madman” theories that blame past disasters on obsessive politicians (Hitler) or mindless marauding gangs (Rwanda) invariably miss their mark. Genocides happen, sadly enough, because they benefit the governments that support them (I don’t want to repeat my past writings on this topic here, but if you find this formulation unconvincing please visit the articles in the “genocide” category here, where I explore this in more detail).
Here’s why this is relevant now: the territorial and economic battles between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions over control of Iraq (and Iraq’s oil wealth) will probably result in some type of either formal or (more likely) de facto partition. A national partition will quickly lead to a refugee crisis (as it did in, say, the creation of Pakistan from the partition of India). A refugee crisis invariably involves the type of chaos that can lead to genocide. It’s all too easy to see the worst-case scenarios that could emerge in Iraq in the next couple of years, and it is the entire world’s responsibility — not just the USA’s, and not just Iraq’s — to make sure this doesn’t happen.
What can we do to help? As I’ve said so often in these pages before, we can begin by improving the quality of our national debate on the future of Iraq. This Huffington Post article by Thomas de Zengotita helps by pointing out the flaw in the oft-spoken Bush-Cheney line that the current Iraqi government needs to “step up” to solve the country’s problems. The condescending idea that Iraq’s inability to govern itself is due to a lack of national character or organization is pure fiction. Iraq can’t govern itself because its people are allied along Shiite/Sunni/Kurdish lines rather than national lines (and have always been) and will choose to fight for the sectarian causes they have been raised to believe in rather than for a “unity government” that they do not trust.
Unfortunately, not many people will read or understand articles like Thomas de Zengotita’s, and the idea that we can allow “nature to take its course” in Iraq while they “figure out how to govern themselves” is all too widely believed.
I don’t know how we can avoid a vicious refugee crisis in a post-USA Iraq, but this is the question we all need to ask, and we need to ask it now. And let’s just skip the simplistic answers, because they are not going to help.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:22 am
The Cheney/Bush/Rice theme for the past year, has been - we need to have American soldiers dying, otherwise Iraq with descend into a regional inferno. Nobody knows that. Tucker Carlson says “yeah, that’s true.” He doesn’t know that. Why is this absolute unknown accepted as absolute fact?
In Anbar, Sunni warlords are fighting foreign agitators mercilessly. The Kurds aren’t actively killing other Iraqi’s. Most points south of Bagdad seem relatively quiet and stable. That’s fact. Fact is what we know.
I could say - the primary cause of instability is US troop presence. That holds as much validity as - withdrawal would lead to chaos.
Iran doesn’t want a fight with the 90% Sunni population in the Mideast. Only Al Queada wants regional revolution; and they can’t sustain it against Saudi, Eqypt, Turkey, Iran, etc. - call their bluff.
Al Queada was a puny little terrorist concept until Bush propelled them to ‘cold war with Russia’ status. This is economics. This is 1984. This is fact.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Mike, I’m not in the habit of agreeing with Cheney/Bush/Rice on anything. But they are not the source of my belief that a USA pullout from Iraq must be planned and executed very carefully and intelligently (much more carefully and intelligently than the US invasion was planned) to avoid a real risk of a refugee crisis as the country splits into Sunni and Shiite power bases.
My source here is history. I pointed above to the partition of India in 1947 as one example we must study. When has a country ever partitioned without causing a refugee crisis? Or is it that you believe Iraq’s current “shared’ government will remain in power throughout the country after a US pullout? I don’t see much basis for that belief.
I guess I’m wondering what you are suggesting, Mike — are you suggesting that we don’t need to worry too much about what will happen in Iraq after we pull out?
The fact that Bush and Cheney use the dangers of a USA pullout to buttress their case for continuing the war doesn’t mean these dangers aren’t real (though I think you and I agree that they are no good reason for continuing the war).
July 16th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
If Iraq is like Vietnam, maybe they’ll get a Nike contract. If George Bush planned the invasion, maybe Mickey Mouse can plan the withdrawal. If Muslim Paki’s and Hindu Indians want to kill each other, why not have nuclear weapons. Semites want to kill Semites in the Holy Land, but when Clinton was getting blowed, there wasn’t any killing going on. We can’t assume that we smart, and Persians is dumb. This assumption that America gots to plan the new world order is about as clever as Halliburton relocating to Dubai. You started Cherry Orchard with the UN. If we don’t trumpet the UN at every turn of phrase, we get 9/11’d. That’s a fact.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
So, aside from your humorous flourishes, you’re saying that we need to involve the UN? In that case I totally agree, though it’s a fact that the UN hasn’t proven itself to be capable of fast action to prevent genocide (see “Rwanda”). Also, I’m not really sure if this is what you’re saying or not.
Mike, the good news is that the American people and non-Executive branch politicians have finally wised up to the point that we can realistically expect plans for a US withdrawal from Iraq to begin sooner than many previously expected. Things have changed, and we need to shift our focus from condemning Bush/Cheney (their ineffectiveness is now widely understood) to figuring out how to get out of the mess they created in Iraq without letting things get worse. So I think it’s a pretty serious question that I’m raising here, and it deserves a thoughtful and serious answer.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Seriously, Cheney/Bush/Rice are too stupid to comprehend ‘Bin Laden planning to attack New York…soon.’ Either that, or they welcome defense contracts from a new and better ‘cold war’ that’ll last a long, long time. Seriously, if you think they have any interests besides campaign contributions from defense contractors; and international wealth and power from Saudi investors, you’re missing the obvious.
Do they care if poor kids die in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, or anywhere else? Do they really care about that? Are they demanding that we save Darfurians from starvation, disease, and slaughter?
They only way for the the UN to succeed - is for the US to be its champion, not one of the biggest road blocks undermining the UN at every opportunity. But that’s what they want, and that’s what we got. Gonzo aint going nowhere, nor Cheney/Bush/Rice; they laughing all the way to the bank.