Every once in a while the raw truth rears its ugly head and pops up above the surface of the White House spin-zone. The left-wing blogosphere has been trying to debunk this administration, point-by-point, on virtually everything they have said about Iraq since 9/11. Now the job has been done by USAID.
The USAID program, outlined in a Jan. 2 paper, envisions development between 2006 and 2008 of partnerships in cities that make up more than half of Iraq’s population. Those cities would include Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk and Najaf. The project, which to date has only $30 million of the proposed funds, will try to reduce violence by creating jobs, revitalizing community infrastructure, and mitigating ethnic and religious conflicts.
To prepare potential bidders for the task, USAID included an annex with the contractor application. It describes Iraq as being in the midst of an insurgency whose tactics “include creating chaos in Iraq society as a whole and fomenting civil war.” Many of the attacks are against coalition and Iraqi security forces, the annex says, and they “significantly damage the country’s infrastructure and cause a tide of adverse economic and social effects that ripple across Iraq.”
Although President Bush and senior administration officials tend to see the enemy primarily as Saddam Hussein loyalists and foreign terrorists, the USAID analysis also places emphasis on “internecine conflict,” which includes “religious-sectarian, ethnic, tribal, criminal and politically based” violence.
Point #1: USAID has a 28-month program. That is over two years for those of you that are not mathematicians. Many of us have been saying that we have no real plan to withdrawal (to bases, or from the country). This is evidence that our plan is to stay in Iraq’s five biggest cities for over two more years and to dole out $1.32 billion in contracts. Many predict that we will draw down troops for the midterm elections. USAID debunks that claim. Any drawdown will be cosmetic, at best.
Point #2: We have been warning about the prospect of civil war, and we have been noting that much of the violence in Iraq is ethnic, sectarian or tribal in nature, and has little or nothing to do with jihadis. USAID confirms this by emphasizing ‘internecine conflict’ and “religious-sectarian, ethnic, tribal, criminal and politically based” violence.
Point #3: While the Bush administration has lauded the newfound freedom of Iraqis, exemplified by their ability to vote, we have stressed the loss of women’s rights, and the loss of secular culture. I can’t imagine living in a society where my barber might get clipped for trimming my beard and my bartender might get whacked for pouring me a drink. These types of crimes were extremely rare or non-existant in Saddam’s Iraq. Now they are commonplace.
The women of Iraq are now subjected to dress codes, and the security situation is so bad that they are often too afraid to leave the house for school or employment. There is no honest appraisal of this development that would account it as a net increase in liberty.
The true situation for average law abiding Iraqis is best described in this passage:
Point #4: The resistance to the Iraqi government is not restricted to foreign jihadis, Ba’athist deadenders, Sunni sectarians, or, even (as we often point out), Iraqi nationalists. It now includes criminal gangs that prosper in an atmosphere of ineffective law enforcement.
But, speaking of Iraqi nationalists, the USAID paper apparently downplays their role.
One weakness of the paper, Pillar said, is the underplaying of the “resentment of the foreign occupation.” He said there are Iraqi “nationalists” beyond just the Sunnis who resent the presence of U.S. and other foreign troops. “There is a valid basis for some of the pro-withdrawal arguments,” he said, referring to recent statements by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).
Point #5: That is the analysis of our former CIA expert in the Middle East. If you don’t listen to your CIA analysts, you should not blame them for faulty analysis. We have accused the administration of dismissing their analysts for three years.
And this is just more confirmation that the resistance has a strong generic anti-occupation component.
He said the insurgency is being carried out primarily by different Iraqi groups, some that feel they are disadvantaged under the new system and others that oppose the presence of the coalition. “Some Iraqis do view the coalition presence as a reason to conduct violence against them. That is without question,” he said, but he would not characterize the size of that group.
He said he expects jihadists to keep trying to impose their views on those, such as the Sunni nationalists, who believe they are “not adequately represented” in the new government.
Differing with the USAID analysis, Vine said that Abu Musab Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq group may be in “disarray,” and that “indicators are that many of the events that we see are not related to al Qaeda in Iraq.” He said some were done by former regime elements but that “in some cases they’re related to people who conduct violent acts for pay.”
Pillar, on the other hand, warns that the group, though foreign-led, “is largely Iraqi in membership” and represents a commingling of foreign and Iraqi religious extremists.
Point #6: We have constantly questioned the role and influence of the phantom Zarqawi, and of foreign insurgents more generally. Here we see confirmation that even the so-called jihadists are ‘largely Iraqi in membership’, that they are in ‘disarray’, and that many of the attacks are carried out simply ‘for pay’. That doesn’t sound like our battle is for the ideological hearts and minds of Iraqis. It sounds like the jihadis are a comparatively minor element in the resistance.
Summary: Prior to the war we warned that the country would not greet us with flowers and chocolates. This was dismissed. We warned that the Sunnis would not accept a democracy where they were in the minority. They have not. We warned that the Kurds would push for independence and that this could lead to civil war and/or a break up the country. That process is well underway. We argued that Saddam’s Iraq was largely secular and an enemy of religious extremists. Now religious extremists have formed “roving bands of self-appointed religious-moral police” and are dominating the south of the country.
The USAID report gives an unvarnished version of the truth. And, yet, their primary goal is to dole out over a billion dollars over the next two years. The people that stand to receive that lucre are the one’s that dismiss the calls for withdrawal most vehemently.
This situation is intolerable. It is a true shame that the reaction of so many Iraqis to their new ‘freedom’ is to stifle the liberties of their fellow citizens and engage in intimidation, murder, and organized crime. But, all of this was predicted. All of the predictions were ignored. We do not have the money, or the national will, or the correct leadership, to put this right.
Tragically, the time has come to cut our losses. And the result for Iraq will be tragic.
