Iraq Faces Internal Strife

Tensions Between Shiites, Sunnis in Week of Violence

Bernard Finel , a professor of military strategy and operations at the National War College, was online Thursday, March 2, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest violence in Iraq and what tensions between Shiites and Sunnis could mean for the country's future.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Bernard Finel: Welcome all. I look forward to answering your questions over the next hour or so. I do need to mention, however, that all of my opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the views or positions of the National War College, National Defense University, or the Department of Defense. With that out of the way, on to the discussion.

_______________________

Guttenberg, N.J.: Growing up in the Middle East, I never heard about sectarian tension or violence between Shiite and Sunnis in Iraq. It's true that Saddam was a Sunni and was oppressing Shiites, but he was oppressing Sunnis as well. How come and since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq that we hear about this sectarian tension?? And does the U.S. have an interest in a divided Iraq which means a divided resistance, as opposed to a united Iraq and united resistance??

Bernard Finel: Certainly we have seen plenty of sectarian violence in the Middle East. Lebanon broken down into civil war in the 1970s due to sectarian divides. The situation in Iraq was like the situation in Yugoslavia. As long as there was a strong central hand, internal divisions could be suppressed. But that is too facile an answers -- it smacks of the Robert Kaplan-style argument about "ancient hatreds." Obviously, it is not that simple, but what happened what that with the removal of Saddam and his regime, there was rapidly a need to organize for political action, and most tempting avenue of political mobilization was along sectarian lines. This was not helped in the least, of course, by the fact that the Kurds were already mobilized as a self-conscious group. It would have been very hard for an Iraqi politician to step up and seek to mobilize support on non-sectarian grounds. Then once everything is thinking in terms of us-them, the situation becomes very volatile.

The question about the U.S. interest in a divided Iraq is very, very difficult to answer. At one level, the answer is yes, in the sense that we are getting support from some segments but not others. At another level, no, since a divided Iraq is an unstable Iraq, and an unstable Iraq is an Iraq that we will have trouble withdrawing from.

_______________________

Kansas City, Mo.: How good a job of encouraging cooperation among the different political parties do you think our ambassador in Baghdad is doing? Are Iraqi politicians sufficiently committed to compromise in the interest of unity, or will it take continuous pressure from Khalilzad? Do enough Iraqis respect him?

Bernard Finel: Everything I hear suggests that Khalizad is doing an extremely good job. He's tireless, smart, and well connected. The question, ultimately, is whether he is being asked to (a) do the impossible and (b) do the wrong thing.

(a) Is a national unity government in Iraq possible? Given how Iraq politics have developed since the removal of Saddam, it is hard to see how a unity government would function. What are the core issues that would bind this sort of coalition together? The problem is that the demands/needs of the various groups may be mutually exclusion in some sense.

(b) I think we also need to ask whether it even makes sense for the United States to promote any particular kind of coalition. Yes, of course, it is likely that the insurgency would lose some momentum if it were clear to the Sunnis that they were not being disenfranchised. But what would be the lesson they might draw from that? Well, one lesson is that regardless of elections, you can get a seat at the table through violence. George W. Bush has won two elections by razor thin margins, but he won and he has governed as the winner. He did not moderate his agenda. He did not place Democrats in prominent positions in his administration. Why should we ask the Iraqi victors to include the losers?

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: There have been many calls for national unity, etc. These seem to primarily come from Ambassador Khalilzad, Bush, and various other outside actors. Even if there are voices for national unity in Iraq, they certainly do not seem to be strong enough to quell the sectarian violence, which I am sure has many breeding grounds other than al Qaeda provocation. I believe that we will start to accept something more along the lines of a three-state solution (with DMZs) fairly soon. I assume that the major sticking points here are Turkey's unwillingness to accept Kurdish independence, the question of Kirkuk, and some form of economic assistance for the Sunnis. What is easier to solve, a three-state compromise (perhaps with some loose federal component) or the bloody mess that we have basically made no headway with in three years?

Bernard Finel: Haven't we made some headway in the past three years? I think in fairness, we have to look at the success of elections and constitutional reform as progress. But obviously, we are still not there. When you pose the question as you do, a "three-state compromise" versus a "bloody mess" it makes the answer seem simple. But what makes you think that a three-state solution would be peaceful and functional, even if you could get over the three issues you mention (which would be hard). Three weak states, each of which in some ways sees itself as the legitimate heir to the history of Iraq, and divided along sectarian/ethnic lines, seems to me to a recipe for instability and competition. But I think you are right in one sense. We need to include this option in our thinking.

Bernard Finel:

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Do you have an assessment as to the degree to which the Iraqi internal strife is being prompted by foreign sources? Iraq and Iran fought a long and gruesome war and we should presume Iran has a strong interest in Iraq's future. In addition, there are several countries and organizations without boundaries that have interests in Iraq. Are there estimates as to what percentage of combatants are from outside Iraq, and how much support and what kind of support they are receiving sources outside Iraq?

Bernard Finel: As you know, this is the source of much, much debate. There are a couple of issues to keep in mind. First, the amount of support may or may not correlate with the importance of the support. In other words, it is possible that even small numbers of outsiders are making a big difference. Second, while it is tempting to blame Iraq's troubles on foreign trouble makers, it strikes me that there are sufficient domestic sources of tension to result in violence regardless. There are plenty of weapons and disgruntled folks on the ground. In other words, I don't think we have a good of either the extent or importance of foreign trouble makers at this point.

_______________________

Berkeley, Calif.: The President has refused to answer questions about the possibility of an Iraqi civil war. This is the same line they took before the invasion when asked "What if we don't find WMDs?" and "What if we're not greeted as liberators?". Given this history, should we have any confidence that the administration will have a plan should outright civil war break out? Is hoping for the best all we can expect from them?

Bernard Finel: There are a number of questions in the queue along this line of thought. First, I think we need to think long and hard about what "outright civil war" means. How is civil war difference from the largely Sunni insurgency which has largely targeted Shi'as? Is it just that the Shi'a may begin to fight back? And if so, how is that a much more difficult situation to manage in any particular sense? I think the Administration is probably reticent to plan for or discuss publicly the civil war scenario because really, there is not much we could do about it other than diplomatic pressure. Politicians hate to think about problems that they don't have a solution for.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: To what degree do you think the presence of foreign military powers such as the United States has affected the infighting within Iraq, and are these affects increasing or decreasing the violence?

Bernard Finel: Interesting question. There is a school of thought that says that external intervention in domestic conflicts just prolongs the conflict. Proponents of this position will argue that it is best to just let conflicts run their course and "burn themselves out" more quickly. Maybe. It is hard to tell because the argument relies on a counter-factual claim -- that Iraq would or would not be more stable if the U.S. were gone. But we face a moral quandary that complicates the issue. How much responsibility (morally rather than practically) does the U.S. have for the future of Iraq? Colin Powell argued that "if you break it, you bought it." By that logic, we have to try to actively mitigate the violence, and pulling out on the hope that doing so will make things better is hard to justify. On the other hand, I do think it is worth asking whether we really feel that we have "bought it" or whether at some point we can say, "Look, we removed Saddam as a matter of national interest. We've given you three years to help you get back on your feet. We're leaving. Good luck." If you can get to that point and still look yourself in the mirror, then your question becomes much more decisive.

_______________________

Melbourne, Australia: Hi, there was an article yesterday in the Melbourne "Age" quoting a recent study of the attitudes of the U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq. It was carried out by Le Moyne College and Zogby International, polling 944 soldiers. It found that "An overwhelming majority (85 per cent) said the main U.S. mission was "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks". Another major reason for the war cited by 77 per cent of the respondents was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq".

It also found that "72 per cent believe the United States should exit Iraq within a year"

Doesn't this imply that the soldiers are lacking a basic understanding of the causes of the war?

Bernard Finel: There are a lot of questions about the Zogby/Le Moyne poll. Let me first say, that all I have seen are press reports/press releases. I have not had time to look at the methodology closely. But clearly, if the study was well-conducted and the results accurate, the results are troubling. There are several issues to consider.

First, for reasons that are not clear to me, the Bush Administration has been extremely sloppy and fuzzy in defining the relationship between Iraq and the war on terror/9-11/AQ. Clearly, we went into Iraq in part because one of the lessons of 9-11 was to eliminate threats before they come to fruition, but I think that the Administration has deliberately left that vague and has, as a result, convinced a lot of Americans that Iraq was somehow behind 9-11. Critics, though, who claim the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 also miss the boat on the connection through changing levels of risk acceptance.

Second, I have the deepest respect for our men and women in uniform. They are committed, patriotic, hard-working, and in many ways genuinely altruistic. But there is no particular reason, ultimately, to assume that they necessarily know any more about international politics than anyone else.

Third, does it matter if our troops are essentially misguided on some key issues? Really, probably not. Our troops do not make policy. And there is no evidence that I know of that the belief that Saddam was behind 9-11 has affected the behavior of troops in Iraq (in the sense, for instance of unlawful reprisals against Iraqi civilians).

Fourth, is this in some ways inevitable. If you are a young person, living in Iraq, risking your life, losing friends, and so on.... you need to construct a world view that will sustain you. You can't go into combat doubting yourself or your comrades or the justice of your cause. You need to know you are doing the right thing. This has been true of all militaries at all times in history. So perhaps we ought to see these poll results as less in terms of politics, and more in terms of the sociology of armed forces in war.

_______________________

Irvine, Calif.: The Bush administration has really created a mess in the Middle East. Our country will be blamed for the civil war in Iraq if it breaks out. I do not sense any regret or sorrow from this administration. Are they really that mean?

Bernard Finel: They will claim that they did what they thought was best at the time. What purpose does regret or sorrow serve if in the end, given the same information, you'd do that same thing again.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Hello-

Do you think that the idea of a potential civil war is a media creation as claimed by Fox News?

Thanks.

Bernard Finel: No. It is a real threat. Virtually everyone who knows anything about the issue -- even folks inside the Administration -- agree on this. What people disagree on is what a civil war means? What does it look like? How different is it from the insurgency? How would it play out?

And by the way, I don't know if Fox has claimed this or not, I am just responding to the question as posed.

_______________________

Leesburg, Va.: Do you think that some of the problems we currently face in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere in the Middle East result from the U.S. not fully understanding the cultures of those we are dealing (e.g., factional differences)? Also, to what extent are the personnel being sent over there (both military and civilian) being trained in cultural issues and do you think they would benefit from additional training in that area?

Bernard Finel: Are there any good examples of cultural insensitivity significantly affecting the situation in Iraq? Supposedly in Somalia, the practice of American troops to fly over the Mogadishu with their feet hanging out of helicopters (thus exposing their soles to Somalis) had a dramatic effect and insulted many Somalis. Has anything like this happened in Iraq? My understanding is that quite to the contrary, American troops in Iraq have been quite successful in respecting cultural differences and local traditions.

_______________________

Annadale, Va.: In retrospect how many troops do you think we should have invaded Iraq with? How many should have been there for the first stages of reconstruction?

Bernard Finel: Personally, I think the decision to go in light was smart. It opened up the best case scenario -- which was to be greeted as liberators rather than occupiers. The problem, in my estimation, was failing to react quickly enough when the situation turned lawless and violent. My view is that we should have had a large number of troops ready to deploy quickly once it became clear that security on the ground was a major problem.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va. : I constantly hear that things are getting better in Iraq. Is that true? My metric of success is "can an American walk the streets in Iraq without fear". That was true right after the invasion. Until that happens any claims of improvement seems to me to be ridiculous. My test is that anyone who makes that claim, should go out on the Baghdad streets (unguarded) to demonstrate these improvements.

Has electricity output increased, potable water increased, oil production, more improvements in schools and hospitals increased?

Bernard Finel: Not to make a joke, but I don't think your metric of success (walking the streets without fear) can be applied to many American cities after nightfall.

There are a number of publications on the other metrics you mention, electricity, oil, water, etc. Brookings, I believe, tracks this on a quarterly basis. The problem is that the insurgency deliberately targets these things. A lot of effort has gone into making things better, but it is easier to blow up a power station than to build one unfortunately.

_______________________

Tallahassee, Fla.: What is the likelihood of a regional war if the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate? At what point do you think the U.S. would withdrawal if this were to occur (if at all), or what role do you think the U.S. would have in such an instance?

Bernard Finel: I think fears of a regional war are overstated. More likely is continued internal violence.

_______________________

Ottawa, Canada: Why would you start a war based on the "best case scenario"? I thought would only start a war based on the worst case scenario.

Bernard Finel: The worst case scenario was Saddam getting a nuclear bomb. The best case was democracy blooming in Iraq and transforming the Middle East. Both the feat of the worst and the hope for the best led to the war.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: Do you think the U.S. is planning to leave Iraq? Do you think would like to keep bases there?

Bernard Finel: Yes, mostly.

Yes, ideally.

The answer to both questions, ultimately, is a function of what the future Iraqi government looks like.

_______________________

Bluffton, S.C.: What do you think of the idea that the Iranians blew up the mosque in order to raise the standing of Sadr? Isn't his militia responsible for much of the killing? And since his was the vote that put Al-Jafari back in as prime minister it looks like he's rather dangerous and the press should be reporting more of this.

Bernard Finel: I am always wary of arguments like that. As a general rule, I think it is generally easy to invent a conspiracy on the basis of the "who benefits?" principle and then recruit evidence to support the argument. It is an intellectual trap. Absent clear evidence, a priori, about Iranian involvement, I see no reason to assume it particularly likely.

_______________________

Marshall, Mich.: Ten years after, Vietnam had a much more profound effect on our country and politics. No more draft, only volunteer army. With respect to the current situation do you see the same types of outcomes for our politics

Bernard Finel: No, because the effect of the all-volunteer force has been to insulate society from the consequences of war. This is especially true in this case because the military is overwhelmingly conservative, and for major changes to occur, you would need to see a movement away from that, which is not likely to occur for all sorts of social reasons. In short, the dynamics for a backlash against the establishment a la post-Vietnam are not there, in my estimation.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: How is morale at the National War College? Are professors and students upbeat about the business of war? What are the hot topics of study these days?

Bernard Finel: No we're not upbeat. It's a war and people are dying. Some folks are more hopeful than others, some more pessimistic. People with little contact with the military would be surprised at the range of opinion you hear.

Hot topics: Iraq, insurgency, terrorism, inter-agency cooperation. Just what you would expect.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: Has the bombing of the Golden Mosque created a whole new ballgame in Iraq?

The catchphrase, "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down", sounds like great rhetoric, but does anyone believe that the newly recruited Iraqi Army can stand up to hardened terrorists made up of Afghanistan veterans and Hussein's elite troops?

Am I wrong in believing that a civil war in Iraq would benefit the terrorists and gravely threaten the vulnerable first sprouts of Mesopotamian democracy?

Bernard Finel: Running out of time, so I'll just answer the middle part. Yes, a new Iraqi army can stand up to the insurgents and outside terrorists. On the whole, we're talking about small unit actions, and with decent training and good leadership the military problem is not impossible to deal with. The challenge is political -- you need to find a way for the average Iraqi Sunni to reject the insurgency.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: Do religious beliefs play a part in the tensions between Shiites and Sunnis? If so, how much?

Bernard Finel: My sense is that the problem is more about political power than debates over religious doctrine.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: How certain are you that majority rule will work in Iraq? The Sunni minority reacted to their past oppression by installing Saddam Hussein, who of course then developed a government that protected minority Sunni rights yet, of course, created his own oppressive government. Don't we need a means to make Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds all feel safe and secure? Majority rule works in America because Democrats and Republicans both know they have the possibilities of electing their leaders. In Iraq, majority rule probably means domination by Sunni leaders. Would that work in Iraq?

Bernard Finel: In the short-run you are right. In the long run, I don't think you are. After a few elections, I suspect that people will vote on merit and platform rather than just ethnic/sectarian divides. The challenge is keeping the system working until you get to the point where political mobilization is based on issues rather than identity.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Thanks for hosting the chat. When you listen to media reports, are there any specific misconceptions you hear that need clarifying?

Bernard Finel: I may be in the minority here, but on the whole, I think the national media is trying to get it right. Clearly, they report bad news more prominently than good news. But it is not clear to me that in doing so they are distorting the reality of the situation on the ground. In a weird way, they may be getting at a more profound understanding of the challenges we face than a litany of stories about new sewers would.

_______________________

Bernard Finel: Okay everyone, we have to end now. Great questions throughout. I enjoyed chatting with all of you and I hope my answers were worth your time. There were plenty I didn't get to, so hopefully we can do this again in the near future.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.