Outlook: Civil War in Iraq?

Daniel L. Byman, director of Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies, was online Monday, Aug. 21, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the Sunday Outlook article he wrote with Kenneth M. Pollack of The Brookings Institution about Iraq. The authors say the country is in a state of civil war, tempered only by the presence of 135,000 U.S. troops, and that an all-out civil war would spell chaos not only for Iraq but for its neighbors in the region.

From Outlook:What Next?

The transcript follows.

____________________

Daniel Byman: Let me begin my discussion by noting that while the piece I wrote is co-authored, my online discussion today contains only my own thoughts. Dr. Pollack's own responses to the various questions may differ considerably.

Dan Byman

Daniel Byman:

Daniel Byman: Let me begin my discussion by noting that while the piece I wrote is co-authored, my online discussion today contains only my own thoughts. Dr. Pollack's own responses to the various questions may differ considerably.

Dan Byman

_______________________

Van Nuys, Calif.: The de-stabilization of The Middle East seems to be the outcome of the United States and Israeli wars in the area. Does the United States and Israel benefit from this civil war and the potential civil war which will very likely break out in Lebanon? What about Iran? Does it look likely that the United States and Israel will get us into another war in there? It seems to me that the United States and Israel and the Middle East are better off if the United Nations becomes much credible; stronger and independent to impose terms of peace in the region, without participation or intervention from the warring factions.

Daniel Byman: As our piece made clear, the United States does not benefit from a massive civil war in Iraq -- it tarnishes our credibility and creates a host of strategic and humanitarian problems. And all this occurs at a horrific human cost and painful financial cost.

In Lebanon, the Bush administration, to its credit, tried hard to push for a Syrian withdrawal and to support democracy there. The recent war is a setback for both efforts -- and, as Hezbollah has emerged strong, Israel didn't do well by it either.

_______________________

Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.: There was a piece recently in the LA Times advocating continued U.S. support for Iraq's reconstruction. Senator Reed has stated we should give more. I agree. Leaving Iraq half-destroyed would only make things worse no?

I know that means tens of billions of more money, but I thought the operating rule was "you broke it, you buy it"?

Daniel Byman: We certainly have a strong moral debt to pay given that many of the problems in Iraq today occurred on our watch.

However, reconstruction only works in a secure environment. Part of the problem with reconstruction in Iraq today is that thieves take half the money, and the other half indirectly aid various warlords who end up controlling the allocation of the money because they are the ones with people on the ground at the local level. So without security and an impartial government, reconstruction dollars largely are wasted or go to making the problem worse.

We need a more integrated strategy on reconstruction -- one that takes into account politics and the security situation as well as economic needs.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: What would happen if we were to announce that we declare that Iraq is indeed in civil war and that our military presence from now on will be only of a police nature to protect citizens from being killed by others, yet otherwise we are not interfering except to assist Iraq in its rebuilding of its infrastructure and its economic development?

Daniel Byman: The practical problems with such an impartial approach are twofold. First, rebuilding Iraq is a political act that threatens some groups -- if parts of Iraq are more stable, and better off, some warlords will lose influence. So what seems like an uncontroversial act (building a hospital or a school) will lead some people to use violence to stop it. Second, much of the conflict now involves the sort of policing you describe ... so we would still be heavily involved in the day-to-day violence, as we are now.

_______________________

Indiana: After describing all the horrors that would accompany a full-blown civil war in Iraq, you say "How Iraq got to this point is now an issue for historians." So, in other words, GW Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the neocon cabal that is responsible for this mess will simply walk away from all this at some point, to live out a comfortable retirement.

In the U.S., there is a sense that one must be held accountable for the crimes one commits. Whether you consider the irresponsible and foolish invasion of Iraq a "crime" or not is beside the point. Bush and his cabal have caused great harm to the U.S. and to the world by launching this war. Is there/should there be some way to hold these individuals accountable?

Daniel Byman: We also noted in the piece that this is an issue for voters as well -- of course we should hold our leaders responsible, giving credit where appropriate as well as pushing leaders out of office who do not deliver.

In my view, the Bush administration and the senior leadership of the U.S. military made many grievous mistakes in Iraq. However, the Democratic Party did not distinguish itself on Iraq.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Can there be a 'civil war' in Lebanon if the Bush administration says that there isn't one?

What -objective- measures are there to determine that a continuing intra-country civil disturbance is a 'civil war'?

Daniel Byman: Scholars use a range of measures to determine if a country is in civil war. Needless to say, there is not universal agreement, and much depends on the size of a country. (One thousand people dying in India differs in scope from the same number dying in a small country.)

But looking at the deaths, and looking at the number of refugees, things look like we're well into the civil war stage. In addition, in the last year in particular the violence among Iraqis has grown considerably.

Although U.S. attention understandably focuses on anti-U.S. and anti-coalition violence, the biggest problem in Iraq is violence among Iraqis, both sectarian and between factions of the same sect, group, or tribe.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Prof Byman - Sometimes war in general, and civil wars in particular, actually resolve problems. You did pioneering work on the resolution of ethnic conflicts. Why shouldn't the Shia be encouraged to unite with the Kurds to defeat the Sunni insurrectionists?

Daniel Byman: Thank you for the kind words on my previous work.

Wars can and do resolve problems -- to pick and obvious and important example, fascism ended as a threat because of Allied militaries defeating fascist armies in World War II.

But in Iraq the problem is not good guys versus bad guys, but rather an untidy mix of groups. Some that are U.S. allies are quite brutal and unwholesome -- their "victory" would not be good for Iraqis or for U.S. interests. Moreover, the Shi'a show no sign of uniting (and recent fighting in Basra suggests the opposite).

Picking a winner in a civil war is exceptionally difficult. One condition that helps is a high degree of unity among the different factions. This is true to some degree with the Kurds, but not true with the Shi'a.

In part because of this lack of unity, it would be hard, but not impossible, for the Shi'a to defeat various Sunni forces outright. Another problem is that the Sunni are well armed and would probably receive some backing from neighboring states.

Unfortunately, in the end all the options are flawed.

_______________________

Leesburg, Va.: Dr. Byman, Is there any serious question about whether or not Iraq is in a state of civil war? Is the question a difference of degree or kind? Does it matter for the rest of your analysis and recommendations?

Daniel Byman: The degree of the civil war matters considerably. A massive civil war would lead to an incredibly tragic loss of life as well as economic devastation.

A low level war, which generates few refugees and causes relatively few deaths, would not generate the same degree of problems that we identified in the article. In particular, neighbors would feel less need to intervene, and the destabilizing effects of refugee flows would be diminished.

If the United States and the Iraqi government can reduce the level of violence considerably, then many of the most dire problems for the region may not occur -- let us hope this can be done, though I am pessimistic.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: You recognize the danger of civil war spreading to the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Isn't it also true that the Shiites of this province may now be a majority and that they have so long oppressed by the Sunni rulers of Saudi Arabia that they are ready to rebel and look to Iran for assistance?

Daniel Byman: The Eastern Province Shi'a have long suffered considerably discrimination. Some of them may find inspiration from the events in Iraq, particularly if aided by groups in Iraq itself. The tribal and religious ties between Iraq and the Eastern Province are considerable.

However, the Saudi royal family understands this danger and has both tried to coopt Shi'a leaders and repress potentially dangerous voices. In addition, much of the luster is off the Iranian revolution for the world's Shi'a community.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: As of today, I'm not sure whether one would call the state of Iraq as one in civil war or utter chaos. Nevertheless, this state has been brought about by the underlying enmities among the various cultural and religious groups in Iraq, but primarily by the incompetence and mismanagement of the occupation by this Administration.

What's clear is staying the "Bush Administration" course will lead only to further disasters. This Administration is tied to it's self-indulgent sense of righteousness. Nevertheless, it's clear that three things must occur before anything can be accomplished with respect to setting Iraq on a course towards stability. First, this Administration must admit it lied to the world about why it went to war with Iraq. Second, it must admit it's complete failure to rebuild and stabilize Iraq. Finally, it must ask for help from the European Union, from China, from all who can provide help to stabilize Iraq, and hand over the management of the rebuilding Iraq to some other entity. This Administration can no longer be allowed to be the one solely in charge of Iraq's reconstruction.

Your comments, please.

Daniel Byman: Although the Bush administration has made many mistakes in Iraq, I don't think future policy is aided much by public mea culpas -- though politically that may be appropriate.

Regardless of who is in the White House, the United States faces serious problems in Iraq -- and has few ways of getting help for solving them. European militaries, Brits aside, are limited in capacity, and their governments have no interest in being involved in the hard fighting in Iraq. So we cannot hope to solve this one by turning it over to others.

Having greater multinational involvement earlier might have offset some of the problems with Iraqi nationalism that were at the heart of much of the insurgency at the start. But it doesn't do much good now that we are in a state of civil war -- Iraqis are fighting Iraqis, and the color of the helmet of the peacekeepers doesn't really matter much to them.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: You note the danger of an Iraqi civil war spreading to the oil-rich Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia where a restive Shiite population has long been an oppressed underclass. Does this not prove that the ultimate interests of the United States in the region remains that of securing oil?

Daniel Byman: Of course one of the ultimate interests of the United States is oil -- or, more accurately, ensuring a stable supply of oil to the global market. But this is an interest of the entire industrialized world, including U.S. rivals such as China as well as U.S. friends such as Britain and Mexico. Given the importance of oil to the world economy, we should not be ashamed of caring about this.

But we have other interests in Iraq today. In addition to the humanitarian responsibility we bear, we have concerns about terrorism and regional war. In the region we also care about Iran's nuclear program and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. How Iraq plays out affects these interests in fundamental ways.

_______________________

Harrisonburg, Va.: What role can the U.S. possibly play that can be helpful in the Middle East given the huge problems they have set up for themselves there? Is the UN the best hope, and how can it be given their record of inadequacy?

Daniel Byman: You've hit on some serious problems. U.S. credibility is low, and U.S. popularity is even lower. But what are the alternatives? Middle Eastern regimes, many of which are brutal and corrupt, do not appear ready to solve their own problems. The EU is internally divided on Middle East issues, and in general lacks influence in many Middle Eastern capitals. And the UN is weak and not respected.

Because the U.S. has more capacity and influence, it is the best hope for improving things. But that is easier said than done.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Would the rise of a radical Shiite state controlling all of Iraq or at least the southern portion overwhelm the efforts of the Saud dynasty to placate Shiites in the oil-rich Eastern Province?

Daniel Byman: I think that any likely Shi'a government of Iraq would pose serious challenges for the Saud dynasty. But Saudi Arabia's rulers have a long history of weathering difficult storms. First Arab nationalism, and then pan-Islam threatened the regime. And in each case a mix of cooptation and repression has won the day for the regime. With the Eastern Province, they have a particular advantage in that the Shi'a there are not well led and that the rest of the country, while often critical of the Al Saud, is often very anti-Shi'a. Indeed, many Shi'a recognize that free elections in Saudi Arabia might usher in a government that is far more anti-Shi'a than the Al Saud. So that tempers the Shi'a, as they know things can be much worse.

_______________________

Sewickley, Pa: On a practical level, how can the U.S. military continue in Iraq when troops are serving multiple deployments and equipment is wearing out at a very fast pace? Do we have the manpower and material to do much better than we are doing? I see we have been reduced to inducting 42-year-old grandmothers into the army. How do you assess the national will to expand the mission?

Daniel Byman: I am not an expert on U.S. public opinion, so please take my comments with several grains of salt.

The military strain is considerable, particularly in the Guard and Reserve. Clever recruitment techniques have helped improve things, but this is a very heavy burden for the military -- indeed, I am amazed at how well things have gone given the small size of the overall Army force and the demanding nature of the mission.

Politically, I see no desire to expand the mission. With the possible exception of Senator McCain, no leading politicians of either party are calling for escalation. The public is dubious about staying the course, let alone putting more effort into this. The cost is already incredible and threatens a range of other initiatives, from health care to tax cuts, depending on your political stripes.

My take is that by 2008 the Bush administration (or, perhaps, its immediate successor with McCain being one possible exception), will declare victory and go home. We will pretend that we are handing off to the Iraqi forces, when in fact they will not be ready for the mission. And then we will be shocked, shocked when a massive war occurs.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Do you think that if we had not gone to war with Iraq, the United States would have (or could have?) devoted the right amount of resources and soldiers to stabilize Afghanistan?

Daniel Byman: If we had not gone to war with Iraq, we certainly could have done a much better job of stabilizing Afghanistan. One of the stories most people (but not you) missed in the last year is how bad things have gotten. What looked like a success in 2003 is closer to the brink of failure -- violence is up, as is suicide bombing. More troops could have helped this considerably, but all our spare capacity is in Iraq.

_______________________

Columbia, Md.: I hope you will take this question even though it is somewhat off-topic. A questioner earlier mentioned wars sometimes do solve problems. I'm of the believe that often deep-rooted ideological conflict (as opposed to territorial disputes, etc..) are often ONLY solved by violence (for the record, I'm a liberal Democrat, too)... I view the conflict in Israel/Lebanon as one of these types of conflicts. What do you feel about notion that possibly the best way for lasting peace there is years of all-out war?

Daniel Byman: The problem with history is that there are too few clear patterns to guide future policy. But it does give us enough hints where we can do better if we pay close attention (I think it was Mark Twain who said "history doesn't repeat itself -- but it rhyme.")

The Cold War was a deep-rooted ideological conflict. Although there was considerably violence along the periphery (Vietnam, Angola, etc.) there was not a direct U.S.-Soviet clash of arms. In the end, one system collapsed, and we are all better off.

Ethnic and religious groups at times fight, but they often get alone. India is home to myriad linguistic groups and seems highly divided. And it has suffered some bitter strife. But most of the country gets along well, though tension remains.

So my answer is a decisive "sometimes."

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: I've just finished Thomas Rickett's excellent book FIASCO, which casts the American problem in Iraq as a classic counterinsurgency mission which can be addressed through more or less classic strategy and tactics appropriate to the situation. In your view, is this approach appropriate in the current situation, where the fight seems to be between Iraqi sectarian groups as much as between the Iraqis and American forces?

Daniel Byman: I agree the Ricks book is superb -- in fact, I gave it a glowing review for the Post.

I've written my own views on what to do in Iraq in a little-noticed piece that appeared a while back in Survival ("the British Foreign Affairs"), and it is called "Five Bad Options for Iraq." As the title conveys, I think that we have few good choices there -- and things have gotten much worse since I wrote that piece.

As I note in the Survival piece, a classic counterinsurgency strategy has a chance of working (it is by no means a certainty) under some conditions. The first, is a military that embraces the mission (Ricks describes many of these problems). Second, you also need many, many troops and these troops must do a mission that, at first, risks many (more) casualties. For now the Iraqis can provide some of these troops, but coalition (US) would provide the bulk of them, particularly in dangerous areas. As a result, the US would have to withdraw from much of the country and slowly reestablish control. Third, it needs time -- many, many years in my view. And as a I noted in a question on politics, I'm skeptical the time is there.

Another approach is a limited drawdown. This would essentially be accepted that the United States cannot change much in Iraq but would use a much smaller US presence (20,000 troops or so, much of which would be based outside the country) to help shore up a few factions and to go after the jihadists.

My colleague and co-author, Ken Pollack, has published a very long report available on the Brookings Web site called "A Switch in Time." Dr. Pollack argues for embracing a counterinsurgency mission and gives an extremely detailed explanation of what is required.

_______________________

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Isn't the first step to stability in Iraq or any place else to first acknowledge the reality of the situation?

George Bush just gave a press conference. He thinks things are hunky dory; stay the course; stand up, sit down, fight, fight, fight; terrorists can't win; et al.

Chutzpah, pomposity, and cluelessness are poor substitutes for recognizing reality.

Iraq is a mess. "If what you're doing ain't working, it's time to do something else."

Thanks much. Vietnam Era Draftee/Veteran

Daniel Byman: This is in part my motivation for writing this piece. The first step toward fixing a problem, or at least limiting it, is recognizing it.

I am hopeful that in internal deliberations the Bush administration is more willing to recognize the many difficulties Iraq faces.

_______________________

Jamestown, R.I.: The Kurds in Iraq have been under U.S. protection since 1991. They have developed their own security forces, taxing systems, local governments and other autonomous devices separate from Baghdad. Isn't it naive to think that they will ever give up their autonomy to a central government now?

Daniel Byman: I agree that the Kurds are unlikely to give up their high degree of autonomy. They have suffered too much under leaders like Saddam to risk going back to strong rule from Baghdad.

The question is how much autonomy? The Kurdish leaders have responsibly walked the line between a high degree of autonomy and outright secession. They recognize that neighboring states, particularly Turkey and Iran, might intervene if they secede. But polls suggest many Kurds want their own state.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: What are your thoughts on the proposal of Professor Galbraith and others to divide Iraq into multiple countries with different warring groups in control of their own portion of the country?

Daniel Byman: I wrote a piece ten years ago that basically said "if Iraq falls apart into three pieces, it is not bad for U.S. interests."

I've changed my views in a number of ways since then. First, I overestimated the solidity of the Iraqi Shi'a. Shi'a infighting is horrendous, and it is not clear whether there could be a "Shi'astan" that comes out of Iraq. The Kurds have the capacity and probably the unity to pull it off, but I'm not sure about the rest of the country. Second, when I wrote the piece, I did not think this would be done after the United States occupied Iraq. Having partition occur is one thing ... creating a mess and then having it occur is another.

This is compounded by the practical difficulties of partition. Who gets what? What do you do about pockets of one community living inside areas dominated by others? And, of course, partition might lead some neighboring states, particularly Turkey, to meddle even more.

But Iraq may end up partitioned in the end, at least in a de facto sorta way. (Right now, the Kurdish north enjoys a high degree of autonomy, and it is reasonable to call it a de facto state.) If the U.S. leaves (and even if it doesn't), the war could go in about 20 directions, some of which lead to partition.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: "And then we will be shocked, shocked when a massive war occurs."

Not entirely the only way it can play out. I expect to see some deal making and compromise. Is that possible?

Daniel Byman: There are many ways this can play out, and I hope my cynical view is wrong. My question is how committed the U.S. will be to enforcing any deals. In the past we've cut deals, recognizing that they will fail ... and then we've cut deals (e.g. Dayton) and worked hard to enforce them.

Much depends on leadership as well as on events in Iraq.

_______________________

Potomac Falls, Va.: Mr. Byman,

I am from that part of the world, and think that the genie is out of the box now, and that there is little the U.S. or anyone can do at this point. That part of the world has many many centuries of violence, and rhetoric moves whole populations one way or another overnight. I believe that civil war is inevitable in Iraq and probably in other surrounding countries. So since civil war is inevitable, do you think that the sooner we get out of there, and let them fight their own civil wars, the sooner they will stop out of exhaustion? Also, there will be oil disruption, but it is going to happen sooner of later, and eventually it will resume as much of these Middle East countries live from oil revenues, and could not survive long without them. Please comment. Thank you.

Daniel Byman: I'm always nervous about saying "let a civil war play out" simply because the humanitarian and strategic consequences are often so painful. As the article makes clear, I am very concerned about an array of potentially horrific problems that a massive civil war could bring.

But to say that we should stay requires a plan with a realistic chance of success. Our options are few and, as we say in the article, the ones we have are incomplete and difficult.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: From what I've read in your article and from this transcript, where ever are we going to get the 450,000 troop we need to provide security and stability in Iraq? The U.S. does not have the resources.

We must have international involvement - and I believe the price we will have to pay is making a mea culpa statement. Plus the fact that those countries supplying the troops and their supplies are going to request a significant level of management control.

Daniel Byman: The 450,000 figure is beyond current U.S. capabilities -- it would require a truly massive international contribution (highly unlikely) or a major expansion of the U.S. military (also unlikely, in my view).

_______________________

Daniel Byman: Thank you all for such a stimulating discussion. I am glad so many people are thinking hard about the problems we face. Dr. Pollack and I hope that our article will kick off a broader discussion in this country about the challenges the United States faces in Iraq and how to best meet them.

Dan Byman

_______________________

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.