Iraq and Ellee Seymour

Ellee Seymour is pleased to note that British troops are going to withdraw from Iraq. Ellee is an intelligent and great blogger and seems to be an incredibly nice woman as well- so its hard to disagree with her. Much of her post is entirely correct- I don't disagree that Iraq has been a foreign policy disaster for the United Kingdom, or that the occupation has been handled by the Americans with a minimum of competence. But the withdrawing of forces may not neccessarily be the way forwards- particularly if it leads to the withdrawing of US troops as well. Their is a key distinction which I will come to at the end of this post- but firstly let me map out of a couple of thoughts on withdrawing forces from Iraq.

My thoughts about the withdrawel of Western forces from Iraq revolve not so much about upon the idea that Iraqis can't govern themselves or are best able to govern themselves but upon the central problem to do with Iraq which is the response of its neighbours. If we withdraw from Iraq and Iraq splits peacefully into a trio of new states- Shia, Sunni and Kurd- a highly unlikely scenario but one worth considering- then the problems would begin. At the end of January, Turkey's Parliament held a secret session to discuss whether to invade Northern Iraq to deal with Kurdish terrorists- even with our troops present disquiet amongst the Turkish authorities is rising. Garret Johnson reported upon these issues recently here. Garret's article demonstrates just how difficult relations between these sub-groups and neighbouring powers could become. It is very possible that given an independent Kurdistan or even groups operating within Kurdistan and going into Turkey (or even Iran) that Turkey might invade northern Iraq.

Let me put another scenario- Andrew Sullivan, an advocate of withdrawel has raised the possibility of genocide in Iraq should the Americans and British withdraw- he thinks that we will have a quick genocide instead of a slow drip of genocidal killings under our authority should we stay. But what would the impact be of a genocidal campaign against Shias on Iran- would that not compel the Islamic republic to itself invade to support the Shia. And what about vice versa, should Sunnis get killed in large numbers, thousands or hundreds of thousands, what would happen with regard to the Saudis? Given that private citizens in Saudi Arabia are giving millions to Sunni insurgents in Iraq already- how much worse could it be if we withdrew and the Shias started massacring the Sunnis?

Looking at it in this way, withdrawing could quite possibly lead to something even worse than an Iraqi civil war- it could lead to a regional war involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and possibly Syria and other states. Its only one possible outcome- and definitely the surge is another kind of bet, the Iraq Studies Group report is another kind of bet and may be a better one, withdrawing is another kind of bet and its upsides are obvious. This post only demonstrates though that there is a possible downside to withdrawing not that the bet is wrong- but there are problems that might emerge.

Then there is the question of only British withdrawal. As a British subject I don't like the fact that British soldiers are dying in Iraq, nor do I like our present policy in Iraq but I understand the problems that ministers face and the reasons why they struggle with this. Personally I can see that if you think that the surge strategy is bound to fail then withdrawal is a possible decision but there are costs. Should we withdraw and America not, we face diplomatic problems. In many ways it would be an even worse blow to the American administration than had we not been in at the beggining, its more of a betrayel to start something together and not finish it than to have publically declared your disagreement at the beggining. We knew that it was this administration that we went in with- should we not have thought about how they might respond to the invasion. Such a withdrawal would make us the toast of democrats and the enemy of republicans. It is a question worth considering at least before we withdraw without the Americans though we might still decide to go.

I don't pretend that staying put and continuing the same policies, nor backing the surge is a good idea. I personally don't find the logic behind the surge convincing and have argued thus here. But I think our response to withdrawing should not be cheering- it will mean that fewer western troops die- but it might mean that there might be that the consequences would be terrible- a regional war which would draw in neighbouring states and have unmeasurable consequences. Ellee's glee at withdrawing would turn then very quickly to sorrow and sadness.

None of this is certain and I agree with Ellee that the thought of British troops out of Iraq and in Barracks is a very welcome one but the consequences might be terrible. They might be positive- but I'm not sure we should cheer about a decision that could go disastrously wrong- lets just pray that if the west withdraws the worst does not happen. If we withdraw without the Americans then lets hope that everything goes well in Iraq and for Britain on the international stage. Either way withdrawing is a difficult decision- especially if its withdrawing with the Americans- it could end in disaster. I'm not sure I'm in as celebratory mood as Ellee therefore- rather I'm biting my fingernails and hoping that everything is ok.