Wolfowitz's Reason 3 why Shinseki was wrong

Reason 3: No history of ethnic strife

Recall that Shinseki testified on February 25, 2003, and that he said that “We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.” Wolfowitz responded specifically to this statement in his testimony two days later:

There are other differences that suggest that peacekeeping requirements in Iraq might be much lower than our historical experience in the Balkans suggest. There has been none of the record inIraq of ethnic militias fighting one another that produced so much bloodshed and permanent scars in Bosnia, along with a continuing requirement for large peacekeeping forces to separate those militias. And the horrors of Iraq are very different from the horrific ethnic cleansing of Kosovars by Serbs that took place in Kosovo and left scars that continue to require peacekeeping forces today in Kosovo.

The slaughter in Iraq, and it is has been substantial, has unfortunately been the slaughter of people of all ethnic and religious groups by the regime. It is equal-opportunity terror.

Wolfowitz was essentially claiming there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, which in turn would mean there would be no need for a large occupation force. Such a claim was largely untrue, and to the extent it contained any truth, it was very misleading.

I said in previous posts that Wolfowitz is a putz. Perhaps “putz” is not accurate. “Certifiably stupid lying scumbag” is actually more accurate. As evidence I turn first to the lead paragraph from the January 5, 2003, editorial from www.opinionjournal.com I quoted in the previous post:

The recent theater of amity among Iraq's opposition factions at a London conference should not beguile anyone. Iraq's interethnic rivalry smolders daily hotter, especially in the northern areas around the strategic oil towns of Kirkuk and Mosul. That area is facing a potential Balkan-style upheaval of pent-up forces, with the most moderate secular Muslim group, the Iraqi Turkomans, cast in the role of the local Bosnians.

Wow! This paragraph talked about all kinds of ethnic strife in Iraq, and it spefically compared Iraq to the situation in Bosnia. Obviously, then, this editorial appeared in some liberal-biased, left-wing rag, and the author is plainly some pinko-commie-freedom-hater. Well, I oh so hate to disappoint all you right wingers out there (and these days saying “right wingers” and “out there” is rather redundant), but www.opinionjournal.com happens to be the web site for editorials from...the Wall Street Journal. And the author is a man named Melik Kaylan, and his resume includes being a senior editor at Forbes magazine and a regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal.

Ethnic strife is the only kind of strife mentioned by Wolfowitz.

Before showing more evidence that Wolfowitz is a putz (and so much more) because of his Reason 3, let's look at all the reasons he gave as to why Shinseki was wrong:

1. “First, it is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in a post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army—hard to imagine.” (Discussed in this post).
2. “Second, in making predictions, one should at least pay attention to past experience,” namely “Operation Provide Comfort” in northern Iraq after the Gulf War. (Discussed in the previous post).
3. No history of ethnic strife.
4. Many other countries–even those that opposed the war–would send troops for the occupation.
5. Iraqis would provide much of the manpower.
6. The Iraqis would welcome us as liberators.

The point here is that the only type of strife addressed by Wolfowitz is ethnic strife. A reasonable assumption is that Wolfowitz thus thought there was no other possible kind of strife that could require more rather than fewer troops for the occupation. With that in mind, let's see further why Wolfowitz was full of shit.

General statements that Wolfowitz's Reason 3 is brown and sounds like a bell

Go back and read the above excerpt from Melik Kayan's editorial. That's one general statement showing Reason 3 to be bogus. Here's another from a December 10, 2002, article:

If a U.S.-led force succeeds in ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the victors would inherit a traumatized society full of festering conflicts that didn't start with him and wouldn't suddenly fade with his departure. That raises some big questions: How can a stable new order take hold in Iraq? How can the nation avoid being dismembered by its neighbors or breaking up in spasms of violence like the former Yugoslavia?

Unlike the Kayan editorial, this piece surely came from some liberal-biased, left-wing rag, right? Once again, I oh so hate to disappoint you Bush apologists, but this article also came from the Wall Street Journal. Anthony Cordesmann of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said this in early March, 2003:

The possibility of ethnic fighting, with Turkish and Iranian complications, cannot be dismissed. There are major tribal and clan fault lines. There are serious Arab-Kurd-Turcoman-Assyrian fault lines. There are Sunni vs. Shi'ite fault lines, and deep fault lines within the Kurdish and Shi'ite populations plus problems like the Iraq-armed Iranian MEK and Iranian-armed Iraqi Badr Brigades. There are cities, agricultural area, and oil to fight over and there are real questions about revenge killings.

Should you think that Cordesmann must be another one of those freedom-haters, check out his bio. And how about a general statement from a general? On March 5, 2003, General Tommy Franks stated "[A]ll recognize that there have been frictions between the Kurds and the Turks up in northern Iraq, we certain believe that that is a factor...We're aware of history, and so we'll be working in order to mute whatever problem may arise." So there's a history of problems between the Turks and the Kurds. But didn't Wolfowitz say there was no history of ethnic strife?

The final group of general statements comes from "Iraq Backgrounder: What Lies Beneath," an October 1, 2002, report from the International Crisis Group (ICG).

Indeed, many tensions between opposition groups derive from deeper fault-lines that pre-date Saddam Hussein and are likely to survive him. These divides are principally along religious, ethnic and tribal lines, though class and ideology should not be neglected.

*******

After decades of power imbalance and discrimination, Shiites may seek to settle scores with Sunnis. Ethnic inequities and unresolved political and economic issues could ignite tensions and provoke violence between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomans.

*******

Violent conflict between Arabs and Kurds has been a feature of Iraqi politics since the country’s formation as a British mandate in the early 1920s when hopes for an independent Kurdish state were dashed by post-Ottoman-era manoeuvring and double-crosses by the colonial powers.

(emphasis added). Let's see...problems that pre-date Saddam, decades of power imbalance and discrimination, and violence between Arabs and Kurds since the 1920's...well, that cetainly shows there was no history of ethnic stife, right? I believe that these general statements show that Wolfowitz was wrong when he said that Iraq had no history of ethnic strife. Still, these statements are not definitive or conclusive. There is a possibility that Wolfowitz was correct...

Wolfowitz might have been right about ethnic strife.

There might be a way to prove that Wolfowitz was correct in saying there was no history of ethnic strife, but it requires Clinton-esque efforts of definition.

The previous post described in some detail the conflicts between the two main Kurdish parties in the north, the PUK and KDP. Civil war between them certainly constitutes a history of strife, but Wolfowitz would surely argue that it was not ethnic strife because it involved Kurds vs. Kurds. Likewise, to the extent the conflict in north Iraq involved Turkey and Iran, that still would not be ethnic strife because it would involve different nations. See how this works? It's the Bush administration SOP at work.

There is one bit of strife in northern Iraq I have not discussed, namely the "Arabization" of the area. This program included forcing Kurds and Turkmen from their homes and moving Arabs in and forcing non-Arabs to change their names to Arab names. This was definitely ethnic in nature. You can read more about this program in the ICG report and this report from the State Department. However, I am going to exclude this program from further discussion in order to give the Bush apologists a break.

What about the south of Iraq? The December 10, 2002, Wall Street Journal article described the potential perils of South Iraq as follows:

A ground invasion of Iraq probably would include a force pushing northward from the Kuwaiti desert through the vast plains and occasional marshes of southern Iraq to Baghdad. The invading forces would pass through one of the country's most complex and brutalized regions, known for its volatile mix of tribal and ethnic allegiances.

*******

Perhaps the biggest concern in the south would be heading off the sort of brutal revenge-seeking that marked the 1991 uprising. In the course of the rebellion, the local populace viciously attacked loyalists to the regime. While residents of the south don't possess heavy weapons, Mr. Hussein's regime has armed them with plenty of guns to fight the U.S. If central control is smashed by U.S. bombing, in remote places such as this, the weapons could be turned on fellow Iraqis to settle old scores or protect territory.

*******

Another potential powder keg: As civil order unravels, many Iraqis are likely to retreat into the protection of tribal clans. These play a major role in Iraqi society, and their intensely protective tribal codes could bring quick violent retribution for threats or injury to their members. Some worry that Iran might even intervene in the name of protecting fellow Shiite Muslims.

"I am sure there's going to be revenge-taking," says Dr. Azzam al-Wash, an Iraqi exile who maintains ties to southern Shiites. "The problem for the U.S. will be how to establish law and order to prevent this cycle from becoming civil war."

Revenge killings based on religious and tribal connections...Well, that might be strife, but it certainly isn't ethnic strife, now is it? So, maybe there was no history of ethnic strife in north and south Iraq, but what about the central region? From the Wall Street Journal:

The U.S.-led coalition would encounter some of its toughest challenges in the center of Iraq -- in Baghdad and across the heartland occupied by the minority Sunni Muslim population. There the Sunni elite would find themselves threatened as they haven't been since the British took the region away from the Ottoman Turks after World War I. Although Sunni Muslims make up no more than 18% of Iraq's population, they have dominated the country's affairs for centuries. From their ranks have come not only Mr. Hussein but also a long line of sheiks, monarchs and strongmen stretching back through British rule to the administrations of the Ottoman Turks. Sunnis play crucial roles in operating the country day to day, from holding key positions in its military to overseeing public services such as water and health care.

Ah, but once again, this seems to be religious strife, not ethnic strife.

And speaking of religious differences, anyone who has done even meager study of Islam knows that these branches of Islam have been deeply divided and antagonistic for hundreds of years. As the ICG put it:

There is little doubt that a religious schism exists and dates back to the earliest days of Islam when what is now Iraq served as a battle ground for many of the seminal events that have defined the Sunni-Shiite division. The ascendancy of Sunnis during the Ottoman period was perpetuated in modern Iraq, and Sunni political figures and officers have held a disproportionate share of power since independence.

*******

During the 1990s, the rift between Sunnis and Shiites deepened, and overall religious tensions intensified.

Gee...a dispute that goes back centuries and has been fought primarily in Iraq...But hey, once again this is a religious, not ethnic conflict. I also need to point out that the ICG felt that although the differences between the Sunnis and Shiites would have to be addressed, it also felt that "tensions between Shiites and Sunnis arguably are one of the more overstated of Iraq’s fault-lines." Still, when Wolfowitz gave his testimony, there was a long history of strife between the two groups.

Does tribal conflict count? The ICG explained in October 2002 that "Tribal identities have largely survived modernisation and the growing role of the central state and remain important social and political units in Iraq," and "The tribal ethos...currently is the principal dispenser of people’s identity, of regulation, and of authority." Why does this matter? Well, among other reasons, the Iraqi tribal system was "replete with shifts in allegiances, betrayals, conditional alliances and, above all, men in arms[.]" So, there was a system that had long existed in Iraq which presented all kinds of potential for strife. But does tribal conflict equal ethnic strife?

Gee, Wally. I guess maybe I was wrong, and maybe that nice Mr. Wolfowitz was right. There really was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq.

Then again, just what is the definition of "ethnic"?

In the preceding section, I was assuming that "ethnic strife" did not include conflicts based on religion, nationality, or tribal affiliation. Then I decided to check several dictionaries to find the definition of "ethnic." MSN's Encarta dictionary has this definition:

of specified origin or culture: relating to a person or to a large group of people who share a national, racial, linguistic, or religious heritage, whether or not they reside in their countries of origin.

(emphasis added). The Fourth Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary says"ethnic" means "Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. " (emphasis added). And the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the term as "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background." (emphasis added). If one chooses to apply any of these definitions, then all of the conflict and strife described above was indeed ethnic strife, and there was an extensive history of ethnic strife in Iraq, meaning in turn that Wolfowitless was completely full of shit.

Regardless of how "ethnic" is defined, Wolfowitz's Reason 3 is garbage.

Review the section of this post entitled "Ethnic strife is the only kind of strife mentioned by Wolfowitz." Assume for a moment that Wolfowitz was actually correct in saying there was no history of ethnic strife. Did that mean that there was no strife which could have been cause for concern? NO. Did that mean that no other forms of strife had occurred? NO. Did that mean there was no other kind of strife which would require more rather than fewer troops in the post-war period? NO. And yet that is precisely what Wolfowitz was trying to convey. And don't even give me the Bush SOP of "Well, he didn't actually say that."

What is most appalling about Wolfowitless's statements is that all of the history discussed above--that is, all of the strife I described--was known at the time he testified on February 27, 2003, and yet he sat before a Congressional committee--under oath--and said things that simply were not true. He either knew or should have known that what he was saying was untrue, and he said those things in an effort to convince Congress and the American people that Shinseki--the general with actual experience in this area--was wrong when he said several hundred thousand troops would be needed for the post-war period. Wolfowitz's testimony thus contributed to the chaos in Iraq--chaos which has cost American lives and billions of dollars. And the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton for lying about a blowjob. Talk about being full of shit.