Tal Afar
Yesterday, a suicide bomber killed 28 people in the Northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar. It puts a gruesome exclamation point on the demise of the lone bright spot in the Iraq war, and serves as a microcosm of what might have been in Iraq, versus what actually was.
A little history is in order here. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the city of Tal Afar was a particularly nasty place. It was a hotbed of insurgent activity, and its position near the Syrian border made it possible for such insurgents to get outside support. The city was one of the worst places in Iraq, and its outlook was bleak.
Enter Col. H.R. McMaster. He was tasked with stabilizing Tal Afar and suppressing insurgent efforts there. Beginning in May-June of 2005, McMaster’s forces engaged in a three-phase plan to secure Tal Afar and the surrounding Ninawa province. It started with a methodical sweep of the city to kill or capture insurgents and their leaders. Then the entire city was actively patrolled by armed troops to keep the peace and discourage new insurgent attacks. Finally, they put their good intentions into practice by rebuilding the infrastructure of the city. The strategy became known as clear-hold-build. And it worked.
If you ever saw footage of American troops fraternizing with Iraqi civilians — smiling, chatting, taking pictures, etc. — there’s a good chance that this footage came from Tal Afar. Clear-hold-build was a blueprint for how to establish peace in Iraqi cities. If it could work in Tal Afar, one of the worst places in all of Iraq, why couldn’t it work elsewhere?
Many people in the government took notice, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. She and others actively went to bat for clear-hold-build as a strategy moving forward. There was one big problem, however: Clear-hold-build is very manpower-intensive, and it therefore ran directly counter to the administration’s preference to try to execute the war with a thin force. With the 2006 midterms looming, and the American public already weary of American efforts there, clear-hold-build was rejected, with the administration foolishly accepting Iraqi government promises that they would do the holding and building.
We all know how this turned out. To be honest, by the time all this happened (roughly September of 2006), it was almost certainly already too late for anything like success in Iraq. But the limited success of clear-hold-build in Tal Afar, while it lasted, shows that whatever you might think about the justification for going into Iraq, proper planning and adequate deployment from the beginning could have limited or prevented the disaster we currently have on our hands.
Tal Afar, once the lone beacon of hope, has once again fallen into the despair that plagues the entire country. What could have been a model for American success in Iraq is instead yet another example of the completeness of our failure there.
“Tal Afar, once the lone beacon of hope, has once again fallen into the despair that plagues the entire country.”
True, with the very significant exception of the Kurdistan region. That part of Iraq is moving ahead at a good clip, is virtually free of violence, has functioning military and police – and is praying to Allah that they are able to formalize their de facto split from Iraq. These poor bastards have been abused for a long time (they are the folks Saddam gassed), and now that they have had a window of time where they have been able to exert control, have really turned their area around. I hope they don’t get screwed by the US for the sake of some politicians wish that Iraq remain “whole”.
Ted wrote:’ I hope they [the Kurds] don’t get screwed by the US for the sake of some politicians wish that Iraq remain “whole”.’
The US…and Syria, Turkey and Iran. The problem with “Kurdistan” is the restive Kurdish minorities in the surrounding countries. Turkey is notably paranoid about any hint of expressing Kurdish pride. Iran and Syria are no less so, all worried about losing territory to a hypothetical Kurdish state. Turkey has amassed troops at her border with Iraq, no doubt to intimidate the Kurds. It’s a sorry state of affairs..I’m not sure what the answer is…
Early on in the war, or maybe before it, I read about how the British ended the insurgency in Malasia, which is one of the few successful counter insurgencies in modern history. Basically, they did the exact same thing – they took one district, did a “clear-hold” operation, then as the builders moved in the clearers and the holders moved into a neighboring district. Soon the people started to notice that things were better in the places where they cooperated with the British than in the places where the insurgents ran rampant, and started booting out the insurgents on their own in order to encourage the British to come build infastructure in their districts.
Suicide truck bomb kills 28 in Iraq
…
A suicide bomber slammed his truck into a densely populated residential area in the northern Iraqi c…
The US…and Syria, Turkey and Iran . . .
. . . and the rest of the civilized world, or at least those parts of it that don’t invite civil war on their own soil.
I’ve posted to this effect before, but I don’t get what makes the Kurds any better than the the ETA, the Tamils, the Serbs, the 19th-century Zionists, or any other restive ethnic group that ginned up its territorial ambitions into an imaginary moral cause. They show signs of stability now, but before the Gulf War they were the single biggest cause of instability in Iraq; you could say that they were even, indirectly, the cause of the Iran-Iraq war, with all its consequences.
If the Kurds weren’t a convenient cover story for the Republicans’ highly selective anti-Saddam propaganda, they’d hardly be poster children for setting the precedent that territorial sovereignty can be willed away by any group that wants to set itself up as a nation (whose territorial sovereignty would, of course, then be sacrosanct).
Kevin T. Keith wrote: “I’ve posted to this effect before, but I don’t get what makes the Kurds any better than the the ETA, the Tamils, the Serbs, the 19th-century Zionists, or any other restive ethnic group that ginned up its territorial ambitions into an imaginary moral cause.”
I think you’ve misinterpreted my post…I think dividing Iraq in three ethnic enclaves, invariably hostile to one another, would be an extremely unwise move, something I believe I’ve posted several times in the past. The idea of separate countries based on ethnicity is a quaint, 19th century idea not applicable to the 21st century (it wasn’t even realistic in the 19th century). How independent can Kurdistan (or Croatia, Azerbaijan or East Timor) really be? They can’t feed themselves, support an infrastructure without outside help or defend themselves from invasion by themselves. It’s ironic at a time when most of the world realizes, in order to compete and survive, that it’s more effective to be part of larger, economic entities, that the Kurds of the world are so focused on “independence”. That doesn’t mean that ethnic pride needs to be squashed, or that certain language radio stations or schools should be closed, but carving out separate countries is not realistic.
Funny, the six republics of Yugoslavia went their separate ways because they needed “independence”, and now they’re trying to join the EU…go figure.
“They can’t feed themselves, support an infrastructure without outside help or defend themselves from invasion by themselves.”
Except that is precisely what they are doing now.
By your standard, Switzerland is not a viable country either.
Ted wrote: “Except that is precisely what they are doing now.”
I don’t believe they are. In fact I think they are heavily dependent on outside support, most notably US support, for military, food and medical aid. Not to diminish what the Kurd have accomplished, particularly in light of what is going on in the rest of the country, but if we weren’t there, starting with the establishment of a no-flight zone under Saddam, the area would not have progressed to the degree it had.
“By your standard, Switzerland is not a viable country either.”
Do you think Switzerland would have made the progress she has if she were broken up into tiny, independent countries instead of united cantons? I don’t. Interestingly, although Switzerland has not joined the EU, agreements have been established for significant access to the EU markets.
The world has gotten alot smaller. Using ethnicity as a justification for creating borders would not only create unviable states, it’s very exclusiveness seems wrong to me.
I guess I didn’t realize that Switzerland was ethnically homogeneous…
Tgirsch wrote: “I guess I didn’t realize that Switzerland was ethnically homogeneous…”
Just my point…Switzerland opted for a larger, ethnically diverse union rather than small, independent German, French and Italian states.
Duh. I meant they (Switzerland) is a very small (half the size, and about the same population as KR) country that has done quite well. There is no minimum size for a stable country.
I guess you guys also think the Palestinians are better off being part of Israel and don’t deserve their own state because they would be too small and ethnically homogeneous.
Janusz:
As Ted accurately surmised, my snark was intended for him, not for you.
As for the Palestinian two-state solution, I don’t think anybody’s arguing that it’s a good idea; from a pragmatic standpoint, it may or may not be the least bad idea in a sea of bad ideas.
Tgirsch, chemotheraphy ain’t a good idea either, but…
Ted:
I do agree with Tgirsch here.
Further, I don’t think Palestine and Israel are a good analogy for Iraq and Kurdistan because the West Bank and Gaza were never part of pre’68 Israel, and Israel had no intention of truly annexing the territories, just maintaining military control. True annexation would have made Israelis a minority in the expanded state. In a way, the occupation was/is worse than true incorporation because the territories received no services from the state, had no political leverage etc. as the Kurdish areas presumably will have if Iraq ever becomes a true state again (not that I’m saying Israel should annex the territories, mind you…)
Ironically, if Palestine ever becomes a true state with contiguous borders, I think the relationship between Israel and Palestine will eventuallty have to be more symbiotic than people realize. Israel is dependent on Palestine for labor, Palestine on Israel for jobs etc.
Probably the best thing for the region would be strong economic cooperation between Israel, Palestine, Jordon and Lebanon…but of course, that would require the parties in the area to put aside their petty ethnic and religious disputes…
Of course Kurdistan as part of Iraq dates way back to the 20’s…
KTK -
You have indeed expressed that view about the Kurds before. And I responded to you before. If anyone here wants to check out the exchange, it was right here.
Ted wrote: “Of course Kurdistan as part of Iraq dates way back to the 20’s…”
And before then, they were one more ethnic group under the Ottomans…
I just don’t see the plus side for Kurd independence, particularly for them. They’ll be a small, landlocked country surrounded by hostile neighbors, not an auspicious start. There are oil fields around the Mosul area, but will they fall inside the Kurdish borders? You can expect a huge fight over that. Mosul is a relatively cosmopolitan city, and very diverse ethnically (Kurds, Arab Sunnis and Shiites, Turkomen etc) Should we expect it to remain so after division? Do we really want to exacerbate ethnic tensions even further in Iraq by dividing the country? Bosnia should be instructive here. There’ll be mass migrations, people forced from their homes and hostilities won’t abate just because borders are created.
Of course, if you’re going to divide the country, you may as well have a separate homeland for the Assyrians/Chaldeans. Now there’s a group who deserves a separate homeland if there ever was one…
“I just don’t see the plus side for Kurd independence, particularly for them.”
A rather presumptuous statement, given that the Kurds themselves are in near unanimous agreement that it would be better for them. If Bush gassed Hawaii, I’m thinking the locals would have second thoughts about remaining part of the US if the chance to leave presented itself.
I don’t think it’s presumptuous at all, but a result of weighing plus and minuses of the situation.
Saddam’s gassing of Kurds was truly horrible, but the last I checked, he’s no longer in the picture, nor are any remnants of his regime. What positives will be offered by “independence”? Security? Unlikely if you’re surrounded by hostile nations. Prosperity? It remains to be seen which resources will be available to the Kurdish state. No doubt there will conflicts over possesion of oil resources in the area. And there would be a real possibility of a blockade/embargo by Turkey, Iran and Syria. You can’t underestimate how real a threat the Kurdish state will appear to them. How long will the US be able to continue an airlift to help the new country survive? Preservation of language and culture? That can be accomplished by cultural autonomy within the Iraq state (if Iraq ever becomes a real state again), without incurring the hostility of surrounding countries.
The region is volatile enough as it is…it seems ill-advised to increase tensions further by creating yet more boundaries. Ethnic conflicts are rarely solved by separation.
I don’t look at it in terms of what is good or bad for us or others, I look at it in terms of what the people in Kurdistan want, and they want independence. Desperately. So I say allow them to have it.
We didn’t roll Kuwait into Iraq or Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War did we?
Had Europeans not been so set on deciding how the whole area should be partitioned, perhaps those on the ground could have sorted it out and we wouldn’t have this on-going mess.
Ted:
The Confederacy desperately wanted independence, too. Should Lincoln have let them have it?
Well, had they been initially forced into the Union by a European Treaty, mass murdered by Lincoln, and if the Brits had just invaded the Union and totally fucked the country up, then hell yes, if they were able to pull themselves together and wanted to be their own country, more power to them.
OK, suppose the Susquehannock united and declared they wanted an independent state comprising parts of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia…
Ted wrote: “Had Europeans not been so set on deciding how the whole area should be partitioned, perhaps those on the ground could have sorted it out and we wouldn’t have this on-going mess.”
Ted, I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, I’d include Africa and much of Asia as well (possibly South America…isn’t there an on-going border dispute between Bolivia and Chile [or is it Peru???]. So, how do you propose we rectify the situation? Throw all borders up for grabs? Redraw the world map along ethnic lines?
Hell, if you’re going through the bother of redrawing the world, I wouldn’t use ethnicity to define boundaries, use economic, agricultural and natural resource concerns to define new states. In a world with increased mobility, porous borders and access to information, why use ethnicity to determine states? For what purpose? Creating ethnically exclusive states creates more problems than it solves.
“Creating ethnically exclusive states creates more problems than it solves.” I disagree – to a degree. In the case of a geographically isolated region that happens to be ethnically homogeneous, I don’t think a better state results by contorting borders to include other ethnicities, or by forcibly importing ethnic diversity (think UN busing). Japan would be a good example.
If the Kurds were actively exporting people to achieve ethnic homogeneity, I would not approve, but whatever has been done is done; they are living in peace, so I say let them do what they want to do.
Ted:
We’re not talking Japan here, we’re talking an extraordinarily diverse area of the world. Kurds, Arabs (both Sunni and Shiite), Turkomen, Assyrians, I’m sure Persians and God only knows who else.
If new borders were drawn, you don’t think there would be a mass exodus of people? You don’t think the Kurds would prefer to have Kurdistan for the Kurds? Would Kurds get preferential treatment at the expense of other ethnic groups that have lived in the area for centuries? or even decades or years? Bosnia would be instructive here. Hell, Bagdad would be. Would the Kurds be satisfied with a relatively small part of traditionally Kurdish areas? Would Kurds living in Turkey, Iran or Syria be satisfied? You’re talking about openning a real can of worms here. And frankly, I still don’t see how independence would benefit the Kurds in real terms. Would they get a fairer (or greater) share of revenue from oil and other resources than they do now? We won’t know that until the government in Bagdad decideds how they plan to distribute said revenue, something they’ve been avoiding. A Kurdish state may sound nice in idealistic terms, but in the real world it’s fraught with landmines.