Book World Live

"Despite its troubling prescription, Galbraith's book is important because, as much as any American, he has lived the Iraq tragedy up close and personal. From the beginning, he focused his attention on the plight of the Kurds, becoming a kind of adviser and emissary of the Kurdish leader (and now Iraqi president) Jalal Talabani." ( Review: "The Center Cannot Hold" , Post, Aug. 6).

Diplomatic scholar Peter Galbraith fields comments and questions about his latest book, "The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End."

Peter W. Galbraith, a former US ambassador to Croatia, is a fellow at the Center For Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Join Book World Live each Tuesday at 3 p.m. ET for a discussion based on a story or review in each Sunday's Book World section.

____________________

Peter Galbraith: Thanks for joining this conversation on the future of Iraq and US strategy in the country. I will try to answer as many questions as I can in the next hour.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: I agree with you that the solution to the problems in Iraq may be best to partition the country and allow Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd domination of three new countries. I suggested something similar and an expert stated that we Americans perceive there are more differences between these ethnic groups then really exist and that such an idea was nonsensical. Yet, since these groups killing each other, doesn't it indeed make sense to agree that their differences can not be resolved, at least in the short term, and it may be best to separate their leadership and allow the leaders of each community to lead their followers? What is your thinking?

Peter Galbraith: Kurds and Arabs are quite distict nations, speaking very different languages. Kurdish is an Indo-European language while Arabic is a Semitic language. The Kurds have never wanted to be part of Iraq and now have a de facto independent state with their own government, army, and flag. Kurdistan law prohibits the Iraqi Army from coming into Kurdistan without permission from the Kurdistan parliament. Central government mininistries do not operate in Kurdistan and the Iraqi flag is banned. In January 2005, Kurds voted 98 percent for independence in an informal referendum. Kurds and Arabs are not fighting each other now, but the Kurds will never voluntarily agree to any control from Baghdad.

Iraq's Arabs are 25 percent  Sunni and 75 percent Shiites. These are religious not ethnic differences bur increasingly they operate more like ethnic or national differences. As long the now dominant Shiites define themselves by religion, they exclude the Sunni Arabs who also resent the loss of their historic domination of Iraq.

I believe an independent Kurdistan is inevitable--not this year but likely in the next decade. At the moment, the Sunni-Shiite civil war is a struggle for domination of Arab Iraq. Forming distinct Sunni Arab and Shiite regions--with the very weak central government already enshrined in Iraq's constitution--is probably the best way to limit the civil war. It is possible--but far from certain--that a Shiite and Sunni entity would become fully independent.

_______________________

Springfield, Va: Peter, it strikes me that one of the turning points in the inexorable slide into civil war and anarchy in Iraq was when, just after the fall of Baghdad, our soldiers stood by and watched looters walk away with their stolen goods. We did nothing to stop it. Why did we let this happen? How could we not have taken swift action to stop the looting and set a tone of law and order and respect for our position as the new Sherrif?

Peter Galbraith: I arrived in Baghdad five days after Saddam fled. As I tell in the book, I went into more than a dozen government ministries and other key installations as they were being looted. The looters were mostly poor people,and generally friendly.

Although we invaded Iraq with too few troops, we could have protected all the government ministries and several other key locations--such as the National Museum--with the troops we had. But there was no plan to do so. The Pentagon leaders never anticipated the looting--even though they had been warned and even though it had talen place in 1991 in the parts of Iraq where Saddam lost control.

The consequences of this failure to plan were immense. With no place for bureaucrats to work, we could not keep the government functioning

Peter Galbraith: As a result, we could not get essential services functioning. Iraqis interpreted our failure to protect Baghdad as a sign that we were either incompetent (unable to protect Baghdad) which meant that resistance was possible or evil (we intended to destroy Baghdad) which made resistance imperative.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa: Would an independent Kurdistan seek to include Kurdish regions of present-day Turkey? One shudders to think of the problems that would entail.

Peter Galbraith: No. The Kurds in Iraq want their own state. The resolution to the Kurdish problem in Turkey and Iran has to be different. Turkey's integration into Europe--and changes in Turkey to improve the human rights of Turkey's Kurds--make being part of Turkey a more attractive option for its Kurds.

_______________________

New Orleans, La: In your view, what politician has the most realistic plan for effectively ending our involvement in Iraq?

Peter Galbraith: Senator Biden has a plan similar to the one I advocate which is to accept the reality of a country that has broken up already and work with the pieces.

_______________________

Brattleboro Vt: In watching the News Hour last night, Ambassador Khalilzad was talking about Iraq as if cival war was just a possibility, not something that is already happening. Can you comment on why this is still the position of the Bush administration, and on Khalilzad's comments?

Judith J

Peter Galbraith: Greetings from up the West River.

The Administration does not want to describe the violence in Iraq as a civil war because it would be an admission that the US cannot achieve the President's goal of a unified and democratic Iraq with the forces we now have in country.

If there is a civil war, Iraqi forces--which are either Shiite or Sunni--can not provide security in mixed areas, like Baghdad, as they are partisans in the civil war. Containing the civl war would mean US troops would have to become the police in Baghdad and this in turn would mean many more casualties.

In fact, the Bush Administration has no intention of doing what is required to build a unified and democratic Iraq. This would require many more troops and accepting more casualties, and there is no poltical will for this. As a consequence, we are locked into a strategy that cannot win and which can only be justified by denying the reality on the ground in Iraq.

_______________________

Arlington, Va: Explain this to the public and whether the solution is in the book. If the Iraqis cannot resolve their tribal differences without war why can't the UN step similar to OSCE in Bosnia and Kosovo and simply separate them into their respective enclaves under armed guard until they resolve to settle their differences. In this way we get out and go to a perimeter if necessary. How can we be so stupid as to stay inthere and play the Iraqui's civil war game? Dan W

Peter Galbraith: Neither the UN nor any of its members is going to be willing to put its troops into harms way int the midst of a civil war. We cannot hope to pass this one off to someone else.

_______________________

Idaho Falls: Peter Galbraith: No. The Kurds in Iraq want their own state. The resolution to the Kurdish problem in Turkey and Iran has to be different. Turkey's integration into Europe--and changes in Turkey to improve the human rights of Turkey's Kurds--make being part of Turkey a more attractive option for its Kurds.

Could you elaborate a bit on that? Are yous suggesting that, should Turkey implement the required human rights changes demanded for membership in the EU, the Kurds might reverse course, and instead of seeking to append the Kurdish areas of Turkey to a new Kurdistan, might instead want to join the present Iraqi Kurdish Autonomous Zone to Turkey's Kurdish province and integrate into the Turkish economy and government?

A complete reversal of the present situation?

Peter Galbraith: The Iraqi Kurds do not seek a Greater Kurdistan, where they would be overwhelmed by the more numerous Turkish Kurds. In fact, in the 1990s,  they worked with the Turkish military against the PKK--the Turkish Kurdish separatist insurgents--which was operating out of bases in northern Iraq.

Most Turkish Kurds understand that there is no realistic chance to break away from Turkey and that they are better off being part of a democratic Turkey on the path to the EU. For this reason, the Turkish Kurdish parties area among the strongest supporters of Turkey's EU Memebership.

_______________________

Anonymous: Is Peter Galbraith John Kenneth Galbraith's son?

Peter Galbraith: Yes.

_______________________

Phoenix, Ariz: Isn't a de facto break up of Iraq already under way, as evidenced by the quasi-independence of the Kurds and the ethnic cleansing and house-swapping in Sunni and Shia areas of Baghdad?

Although Senator Biden's proposals may be more reality-based than most, he was treated by the media as almost certifiably mad, not to mention, treasonous, when he advanced this position. In your opinion, what will it take for Biden's proposals to gain traction with the American public (short of a full-blown civil war that is so dire that even the deniers can no longer deny the severity of this situation)?

Peter Galbraith: You are absolutely right that Iraq has already broken up. Further, the Bush Administration de facto accepts this break up while saying it is committed to a unified Iraq. It has done nothing to dismantle the Shiite militias that mushroomed during the period of official US occupation (2003-2004). It has accepted that Kurdistan retains its own army and wisely has made no serious effort to reintegrate Kurdistan into Iraq. As noted, the Administration deals with Iraq's Sunni-Shiite civil war by pretending it isn't happening.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Now that US has physically destroyed and obliterated hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, we recommed the break up of the country? Did US break up into factions (except political) after the Civil War?

Peter Galbraith: I am not recommending the break up of Iraq. I am simply saying that it has happened.

But I see no reason to hold countries together against the will of their people. We lived with the break up of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Just like Iraq, these were multinational states put together after WWI and held together by force. The real issue is not the break up but avoiding the violence that can accompany it.

Alas, we have not learned the lesson of Yugoslavia where we put all efforts into preventing a break up--a futile task-- when we should focus on stopping the war.

_______________________

Brookeville, Md: why did you title the book American Incompetence created a war without end? I believe it was Bush's incompetence, or possibly media's incompetence. I was part of major was protest movements that were completely ignored by the press. Many Americans did their best to warn against this very scenario. Many Americans in govt. and outside were shut out of the process.

Peter Galbraith: The press did not cover itself in glory in the lead up to the war. In addition to the hyped WMD stories that some journalists wrote, there was almost no coverage of the inadequate planning for the post war.

_______________________

Princeton, NJ: But there are no clear boundaries. What of Mosul, Kirkuk, and Baghdad? Will the Sunni get any oil? Will the Turks allow an independant Kurdish state? Partition is a recipe for war.

Peter Galbraith: The Iraqi constitution does have a formula for resolving the status of the territories in dispute between the Kurds and the Arabs by the device of a referendum to be held not later than Dec 31, 2007. Kirkuk will probably vote to join Kurdistan while Mosul is not part of Kurdistan--although it has a substantial Kurdish minority. Baghdad, tragically, is dividing between the Shiite east and Sunni west.

_______________________

Delmar, NY: I'm looking forward to reading your book. In reading about "The End of Iraq" it is said that shortly before the US invasion of Iraq President Bush was unaware of the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Iraqis. This is the second time I have heard this. While I was skeptical the first time it at least seemed credible based on what we seem to know about the President's ignorance due to his lack of curiosity. What is the source for this? Did Cheney and Rumsfeld know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis?

Peter Galbraith: The anecdote is told--and sourced-- in the book. It wasn't that Bush didn't know of the differences but that they he didn't know that these two branches of Islam existed.

Rumsfeld and Cheney certainly did know, but operated on wishful thinking about the leanings of Iraq's Shiite paties

_______________________

Hanover NH: Is there any Arab state that is not as multi-ethnic and multi-religious as Iraq? How should they look upon the "End of Iraq"?

Nationalism seems to have been a very bad solution to the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.

Peter Galbraith: Iraq is proobably the most diverse of the mostly Arab countries (the Kurds object to calling it an Arab state).

I don't assess whether nationalism is good or bad--only that it is a fact.

_______________________

Tacoma, Wash: With the new uprise of unrest in the Middle East, will Iraq be an ally in the quest for peace or with it become another nation bent on destruction?

Peter Galbraith: Iraq's Shiite dominated government is very sympathetic to Hezbollah--perhaps more so than any other Arab goverment. (The others are led by Sunnis; Hezbollah is, of course, a Shiite party).

Further, should it come to a showdown between the US and Iran, Iraq's Shiite militias have already said they will side with iran

_______________________

Anonymous: Do you think your recommendations would ever find a receptive ear in the administration or the military? Or would that be too much to hope for? Have you ever discussed this with them? My apologies if this is detailed in your book but I haven't read it yet.

Peter Galbraith: There is a lot of interest in these ideas among the uniformed military and I have had many conversations with them. They know the reality on the ground and realize our current strategy will not prevail.

_______________________

Peter Galbraith: Wow. This forum sparked many more questions than I could answer. The book, The End Of Iraq, provides much more information on almost all the questions you have raised as well as fleshing out the argument for a different strategy. I hope you find it useful.

Thanks.

_______________________

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.