Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek has a thoughtful post on “Tierney and Pape on the ‘War’ on Terror.” (Don provides links to several important articles on the “War on Terror.”) Don is an economist and thinks “on the margin.” That’s smart. I also worry, however, whether some decisions are now behind us, whether there is at this point anything that would induce al Qaeda to stop their attacks on us. If not, then it seems that their leaders, at least, just have to be tracked down and killed. The rub, of course, is that the tracking down will likely affect others adversely (even a relatively “clean” special forces squad will cause harm to innocents; al Qaeda members take hostages, deliberately site themselves among innocents, deliberately seek to maximize collateral damage, etc., etc.) who might thereby be induced to join the al Qaeda cause. On balance, what’s the best policy? Well, it seems likely to be a matter of balancing. (What seems more clear than ever is that the decision to go to war with Iraq was a colossal mistake. Since that decision was made and cannot be undone, what is now the best path forward?)
Whatever direction is taken, surely the “War on Terror” has to be shown to be absurd. How can one wage war on a tactic? One can wage war on some group of terrorists, but not on a tactic.
I support a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. Give the elected government a year to prepare to defend itself, and then withdraw.
Would there be a civil war? Well, probably. There is one now. Right now, the former Baathist government is attacking the elected government. And the elected government is attacking the former Baathist government.
So, if the U.S. withdrew, the civil war would continue. I believe the most likely scenario is that the Kurd/Shia coaltion that runs the government will hold up. And the Baathist will be able to continue to fight with broad support from the Sunni minority.
Given the elected goverments 4-1 population advantage, and that the oil is in the south in a Shia area, I think the Sunnis will lose. The sort of mass infantry attacks used by Iran against Iraq would work just fine if the Baathist really did try to mass forces and crush the elected governments. You know, let Sistani promise some virgins to Shia martyrs.
The difference, is that the U.S. won’t be involved.
Iraq and Iran fought a major war for 8 years. Why would a civil war between the elected government and a Sunni based insurgency cause more disruption to the oil markets?
So, what do you mean that if the U.S. withdraws there will be a civil war? Do you mean that the insurgents will be able to run 15% of Iraq (rather than severely disrupt 8%) and have even more support from the Sunni population? Perhaps. And perhaps the elected government will have more support from the Shia population than now.
It is possible that there would develop a three way regional war between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran–but I don’t think that is likely.
It is possible that the Kurds and Shia will fail to respect human rights in pursuing their war effort. It is possible they will make a peace agreement with the former government.
If the U.S. runs it, the Shia are going to take over everntually. Only if you buy into the fantasy of the new Middle Eastern man who loves liberalism and Israel, can you believe that if we just stay there long enough, it will become a liberal democracy.
So, get out quick.