Is Iraq Winning The War Against ISIS?

“The strongest of all warriors are these two - Time and Patience.” - Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

The Iraqi Army Marching Into Ramadi

The campaign to defeat the so-called "Islamic State" (also known as ISIS or ISIL) has come under increased scrutiny in the wake of recent ISIS inspired attacks in Paris and California.  Politicians (and presidential candidates especially) have been particularly critical of the U.S.-led effort, describing it as slow and ineffective.  However, recent gains by the Iraqi army against ISIS-held positions are beginning to show the strengths of this initiative.  Just this week, the Iraqi army succeeded in retaking the strategic (and symbolically important) city of Ramadi from ISIS fighters.  This week, we re-evaluate the ISIS strategy and take a look at the battles still to come in this brutal war.

So what is the current strategy being employed by the American-led coalition and the Iraqi government?  Since the fall of Mosul in the summer of 2014 (which involved the embarrassing retreat of the Iraqi military forces), the United States has worked closely with the Iraqi government to rebuild and retrain its military forces.  This is drastically different from the effort to train moderate Syrian rebel forces in Syria (which has largely failed to produce an effective fighting force).  The Iraqi army has begun to succeed in its ground campaign against ISIS, while American (and allied) forces have bombed targets and provided substantial intelligence support.  The United States is also waging a similar strategy with the Kurdish forces in northern Iraq (who are all but independent from the central Iraqi government).  Though not directly working together, these forces are largely focusing on the fight against ISIS and rather than on their own personal political grievances.

An ISIS Compound Being Bombed

The liberation of Ramadi marks a significant milestone in the fight.  It is also part of a series of victories in recent months.  The Iraqi army has retaken nearly half of ISIS held territory and liberated cities like Tikrit, Kobani, and many others throughout Iraq.  Ramadi itself is important in part because of it's position near Iraq's capital Baghdad, and the ISIS-held stronghold of Falljuah.  Just as important is the political significance of Ramadi as the capital of Iraq's Sunni Anbar province.  Winning the support of the Sunni population is key to eliminating ISIS and creating a stable Iraq.  The Iraqi army, who all but abandoned the fight a year ago, is now behaving like a capable and disciplined military force.  In all, ISIS appears to be on the losing side of this fight.

But the war is far from over.  Taking Ramadi is one thing, holding this territory and bringing the fight to other besieged cities is another matter.  ISIS has dug into its positions in Fallujah and Mosul.  Mosul, the administrative "capital" of the Islamic State houses a population of over two million people (many of whom actually support ISIS).  ISIS left a provisional force behind to defend Ramadi (enough to slow their advance, plant explosives, and probably launch an insurgency), but they still maintain an estimated fighting force of several thousand.  The government will also have to provide an enticing political alternative to ISIS control in order to have any chance of preventing ISIS from returning.  Maintaining the peace in a region of intense sectarian differences is problematic.  The ability to hold Ramadi is key, and doing this without upsetting the Sunnis will be critically important. Finally, ISIS still holds significant territory (and the city of Raqqa) in Syria.  Tackling that issue poses an entirely different set of problems.

Though many have criticized the Obama administration for its strategy, few have offered meaningful solutions or drastically different policies.  One of the most extreme alternatives is that the United States should recommit its regular military forces into a ground battle against ISIS.  This strategy, though bold and emotionally appealing, would drastically complicate the long-term prospects for a stable Iraq.  The American military would need to regain the trust of both the Sunni tribes (who felt betrayed by the American backed Shia government) and the Shia (who criticize the United States for not showing enough support).  This is to say nothing of the fact that the Iraqi government has completely rejected the idea of a full American invasion (making the effort illegal in the eyes of international law).  As stated before in this blog, we often overemphasize the ability of the American military to complete all of its objectives.  Though militarily crushing ISIS in Mosul would certainly be achieved, a complete re-invasion would completely eliminate the fragile alliances being forced among moderate forces in Iraq.  In short, we could win the battle, but would almost certainly lose the war.

Everyone's A Critic

But we shouldn't make this all about us.  The real heroes of this fight are the Iraqi and Kurdish forces who are fighting and dying to retake their homelands.  So far, the Iraqi military estimates that it has lost over 6,000 fighters in the war against ISIS, while the Kurds report at least 1,300 casualties in their battle against ISIS in northern Iraq.  Though allied airstrikes and intelligence have proven to be very helpful, the bulk of the sacrifice is being made by Iraqis, for Iraqis.  With any luck, this war can help to bring Iraq's moderate elements together against a force which represents the worst of Iraq's problems.  The sacrifices made and alliances formed during this conflict have a much better chance of producing lasting peace than an American-imposed government.

Didn't Work So Well The First Time

In all, progress is slow, but it is still progress.  We can't let a couple of desperate attacks against in recent months trick us into making a big strategic mistake.  There is certainly room for improvement in this fight, and suggestions to deploy small forces in limited roles aren't completely ridiculous, but let's not pretend that America's allies are still losing this war.  ISIS does not pose an existential threat to the country or to Americans, but it does to the Iraqis and their land.  Ultimately, this is their fight, not ours.  

TL;DR: The Iraqi military (yes that's a real thing) is showing strong signs of improvement in the fight against ISIS.  America needs to be patient and stay the course.

One Small Step For (Wo)man In Saudi Arabia

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - President John Quincy Adams.

Formerly: Vote AND Die In Saudi Arabia

This past week, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia held municipal elections.  Given that the Kingdom is known for it's position as one of the last remaining absolute monarchies in the world, this development is somewhat remarkable.  Even more remarkable was the participation for the first time of women in the political process.  In all, nearly twenty women were elected to local positions in municipal government throughout the country.  Saudi Arabia is well-known for it's lack of women's rights (and basic representational government for that matter).  So are these elections a turning point for women in Saudi Arabia, or just a sham to make the Kingdom look good?

Saudi Women Registering To Vote

Since it's founding in 1932, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been ruled by an absolute monarchy controlled by the Saudi royal family.  The royal family contains around seven thousand people, many of whom are appointed to key government positions by the King (currently King Salman).  Citizens are sometimes allowed to petition the King on Saudi policy, but for the most part citizens have no real say in their government, human rights practices, or domestic and foreign policy.  From a Western perspective, this type of absolute control seems unsustainable.  After all, why would people support a government they can't change?  The answer lies in Saudi Arabia's vast petroleum wealth.  The country is able to provide the means of employment and success for nearly all of its citizens, so they often see few reasons to upset the status quo unless their quality of life decreases. 

Luckily Oil Lasts Forever!

So the recent elections have now included women in the political process.  This is a (small) step towards improving women's rights, but there are still vast differences and inequalities.  For instance, women cannot drive and usually need a male escort to go out in public.  Saudi society typically relegates a woman's role to maintaining the household and refraining from public life.  What drives this extreme conservatism?  Saudi Arabia adheres to an extremely strict form of Islam known as Wahhabism.  Named after its founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, this interpretation takes an extremely literal interpretation of the original texts of the Qu'ran and the examples of the prophet Muhammad.  While most other interpretations of Islam also highly regard these sources, most of them attempt to view their messages within the context of the time they were written.  Since these sources are over 1,500 years old, literal interpretations can seem very out of date in a modern context.  The Saudi family formed a strong alliance with al-Wahhab in the 1700s, and this partnership has lasted ever since. 

Scandalous!

However most other Arab and Muslim countries are not nearly as strict.  Some have nearly equal rights for women and have more representational systems of government.  They have also adopted much milder interpretations of Islam (and some are completely secular).  It is important to remember  that Islam originally gave women far more rights then they had enjoyed in the centuries before Muhammad.  The first Muslim community actively worked toward a more equal system (though there were still massive differences by modern standards).  It was generally assumed that men served public roles while women served in private life, but equal importance was to be given to each role.  Unfortunately, some interpretations seem to have lost sight of this original breakthrough in women's rights.

Still, the situation of women is gradually improving in the Kingdom.  Women are increasingly finding roles in professional careers and attending schools at an unprecedented level.  In Saudi society, women's rights are just one section of a much larger change in traditional society which challenges the well-established political/religious order.  There is also increased scrutiny on Saudi Arabia's flagrant human rights violations and its policy toward migrant workers.  Plenty of Saudis would like to see more rapid change, but since the government provides nearly all of the keys to success in the country, many often don't see much of a need for (or way to create) changes such as widespread representational government (why change what seems to be working for most people?). 

Polls Showing Support For Women's Rights

In all, this is a modest (though very positive) development for women's rights in the Kingdom.  Though a completely representational government for all citizens (both men and women) would seem ideal from a Western perspective, it would be disingenuous to assume that all countries should adopt our form of democracy (after all, look what that thinking created in Iraq).  Still, there are standards of equality of fair treatment which ought to transcend political ideologies.  A socially,economically, and politically active female workforce is a positive development for the Kingdom's continued growth.  It may be a small step, but to many women in Saudi Arabia, it could become a key turning point.

TL;DR: Women now have about as much political influence as men in Saudi Arabia.  Which isn't that much to begin with.

What Is Sharia Law? ...And Why Is It Always Creeping?

"Well I think this whole notion that somehow we need to say no more Muslims and just ban a whole religion goes against everything we stand for and believe in. I mean religious freedom’s been a very important part of our, our history." former Vice President Dick Cheney

Coming To A Supreme Court Near You? (Not Really)

As could only be expected following the (likely) terrorist attack in California last week, the debate over Muslims in American culture has been reignited with predictable veracity.  Some presidential candidates have even gone so far as to suggest that all Muslims be monitored and banned from entering the country.  This is, of course, completely ridiculous and in direct violation of America's founding principles (even Dick Cheney agrees!).  However, others have taken issue with a perceived threat from Islamic law (known collectively as Sharia), believing that America's Muslim population is attempting to make Washington look more like Riyadh.  This week, let's take a look at the reality of Sharia law in America.

That's Where Riyadh Is By The Way

First, it should be strongly noted that Sharia law is not a single, codified set of laws which can be easily and authoritatively referenced for every situation.  Like many other legal systems, it draws from a central set of general precedents, but leaves significant room for interpretation.   Generally speaking, Sharia law draws heavily from the Sunna (reported sayings and examples of the prophet Muhammad), but also contains elements of other ancient legal systems and practices.  There are four main schools of Sunni Islamic thought (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali) and one main school of Shia Islamic thought (Ja'fari).  All of these place a different emphasis on the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad), the Qur'an, and previous rulings by early Islamic scholars. 

The Main Schools Of Islamic Jurisprudence Throughout The World

But Sharia is more than just communal legal decisions. A large number of decisions found in the various interpretations of Sharia deal with family and personal life. The word Sharia is derived from the Arabic word for "way" or "path," and is typically used as a guideline for living a virtuous life.  Instructions on personal relationships, prayer habits, and dietary restrictions are the primary emphasis of Sharia practices among most Muslims.  This would include behaviors that are generally considered obligatory (giving of charity), encouraged, discouraged, and forbidden (consumption of pork or alcohol).

But It Tastes So Good!

So why is everyone so afraid of Sharia?  Aside from the general trend of Islamophobia, most people (incorrectly) equate the above mentioned examples with the rigid Wahhabi interpretation of Sharia found in Saudi Arabia (and to an even greater extent in ISIS controlled territory).  Though certainly among the most strict forms of legal jurisprudence in the world, even this has been somewhat mis-characterized.  For instance, though the strictest interpretation for the crime of theft (in the Wahhabi tradition) is the removal of a hand, it is often forgotten that this punishment is almost never carried out in Saudi Arabia.  And to prove adultery, for instance, requires at least four witnesses to the act itself.  This is an intentionally difficult burden of proof, which is often the point of the more strict interpretations. 

Still, such punishments are certainly considered cruel and unusual.  Thus, they are almost all completely incompatible with America's case law system.  Any judge with even a basic understanding of American jurisprudence knows that most interpretations of Sharia law (in addition to other less-common forms of legal precedent) would be subordinate to proven and established legal methods of American jurisprudence.  Furthermore, the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the use of religiously based legal interpretations when they directly contradict American laws and legal precedent.

Don't Worry, This Is Still The Ultimate Law Of The Land

What does "Sharia" actually look like in America?  Typically it takes the form of local councils or private courts which can use some interpretations of Sharia precedent (obviously not the extreme stuff) in family and personal court cases.  In this way, there seem to be a couple limited areas in which some interpretations of Sharia could (theoretically) apply.  For the most part, this would take the form of private civil disputes involving Muslim family members or two Muslim parties.  In these cases, councils would be convened to use established precedents of inheritance, divorce, or other personal matters to resolve disputes (but only if both parties consent to this process).  This is, by and large, the only real possibility of Sharia law being enacted in the United States.  Finally, it should also be noted that Christian and Jewish courts have also operated within the bounds of the American legal system for decades.  They have already established how religiously based legal systems can work within the American system (and have mostly defined the limits of such inclusion).

Most Muslim Countries Only Apply Sharia In Civil Matters

In all, the "battle" over Sharia law in America is predominantly meant to fan the flames of Islamophobia and fear of a perceived loss of "Christian" values in this country.  Almost nobody is seriously considering a Wahhabi-style legal system where apostates are stoned in the street.  However, there may be some room for religiously based precedents to influence private matters between consenting parties in a case (where many would argue the government has no place anyway).  Most importantly, let's remember that the people living in or migrating to the United States from Muslim countries are usually trying to escape the more oppressive forms of Sharia in their homeland, not trying to bring it with them. 

TL;DR: Sharia encompasses a very wide variety of laws and rules and cannot be reduced into one coherent system.  There is absolutely no chance of it taking over the American legal system.

Why Are We So Quick To Want To Go To War?

“Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die.” -Herbert Hoover

The terror attacks this past week in Paris have dramatically reignited the lingering debate over the best course of action for defeating ISIS (which has been embedded in sections of Iraq and Syria for over a year).  While President Obama seems intent on "staying the course" regarding the current strategy (to provide military and intelligence support for allied groups already living in the region), many other politicians have begun calling for a much more direct confrontation with the so-called "Islamic State."  The desire to avenge those killed in Paris (not to mention Beirut and Baghdad, which few seem to mention) is understandable.  As is the frustration with the slow progress of the current strategy.  But does one major successful attack on a European city truly justify another massive armed intervention in Iraq?  This week's post will examine a few theories to try to understand why Americans seem so trigger happy in regards to the use of military force. 

Obama Defending His Strategy After The Paris Attacks

As much as we may not like to admit it, it should come as no surprise that there is a large cultural divide between the American population and its military.  Those whose lives involve boring commutes, mundane work, and uneventful evenings will probably never truly understand what it is like to be in combat (or to sign away your rights for five years).  On the other hand, those who have spent their entire adult life in the military can sometimes be vastly out of touch with America's rapidly changing society.  Most people seem to either blindly glorify the military or blindly vilify it, while portrayals of veterans seem to either show them as infallible heroes or damaged victims of combat.  Neither of these views are helpful.

Neither Is This

In The New American Militarism, Andrew Bacevich discusses how this divide is causing serious damage to America's domestic and foreign policy.  In conflicts since the beginning of the Cold War, the American public is increasingly becoming detached from the effects of warfare.  In essence, the American public doesn't understand the true effects of war anymore because the population no longer feels the effects of war.  When America entered the Second World War, for instance, the population experienced constant reminders of the war in daily life.  The draft, rationing, and community war planning organizations all reminded people that war had real and measurable effects for everyone involved.  Nearly every society in history has experienced warfare as a major, life changing event.  Now, as a nation we no longer feel the effects of war in daily life.  The invasion of Iraq commenced without any of these reminders (nobody was drafted, taxes remained the same).  As a result, few people felt any real consequences of the Iraq war besides possibly knowing someone in the military.  Since people don't see the consequences of war anymore, people might become quick to jump to a military solution for global problems.

Go Read It!

The other issue Bacevich mentions is that the American public is quick to forget previous military failures, only taking as cannon the successes of previous military campaigns.  The public tends to cling to reminders of past "stunning" military successes like the Second World War or the First Gulf War, thinking that marching an army into the enemy's capital will mean a clean and decisive military success.  Why bother with long and boring diplomacy when smashing the enemy to bits works better? (In most cases it doesn't.)  Fortunately, the harsh lessons of the Iraq war has helped change this mentality.  However, many people believe that just because the United States has by far the most powerful and advanced military that this guarantees victory.  As Bacevich argues, we assume that our dominant military position is a measure of our inherent greatness as a nation and an affirmation of our values (which we believe should, inherently, be imposed on the world).  On a conventional battlefield this power would likely translate into success, but modern unconventional battles (and especially the fight against ISIS) require far more than just raw power.

How Did That Work Out Again?

This isn't to say that everyone in favor of large-scale military action is ignorant of the horrors of war or the appropriate applications of force in achieving policy goals.  There are a number of senior military officials who support large scale operations to eliminate ISIS.  These individuals understand the sacrifice inherent in warfare.  America's military personnel typically aren't sadists.  They realize that sometimes violence is needed in order to protect the innocent and bring about order.  Nearly everyone recognizes that it will take violence to uproot ISIS from its strongholds, the question is whether the Americans, Arabs, Turks, Kurds, or some combination of these should be the ones to do it. 

In this decision, the American public ought to be very careful and judicious about decisions to go to war.  We are quick to "like" a picture of a soldier's homecoming or say "Thank you for your service" to someone in uniform on Veteran's day.  But do we really understand what that service means?  Months of training, years of living each day on the government's schedule, (not to mention the physical and psychological pain of death or injury sustained from combat) are all wrapped up in the soldier's experience.  We go out of our way to show how much we love the soldiers, but then ignore their needs once they return.  It would be disingenuous to engage in these (self-congratulatory) acts of Facebook patriotism while still voting every time to send these people into battle at every opportunity.  If we presume to have the power to make a decision as complex and dangerous as going to war, shouldn't we at least be able to name the current leader of ISIS?

Hint: It's This Guy

In all, the beauty of American democracy is that the average citizen gets to have some input (albeit indirectly) into decisions like sending its military into combat.  But this is also its curse.  When contemplating a decision like going to war, we ought to remember that war has real and profound effects on both the soldiers fighting it and the people caught in the middle.  This isn't a decision to be made just because we are upset about our allies being attacked or because some have grown impatient regarding the current strategy.  Instead, this decision should be made after careful considerations of all of the benefits and drawbacks of a large-scale sustained commitment.  There are several different courses of action to take against ISIS, so we ought to investigate all of them before immediately jumping to the most interventionist.  You wouldn't presume to tell a cardiologist the best treatment for coronary artery disease, so we shouldn't presume to know how to "solve" the situation in Syria and Iraq without learning about it first. 

TL;DR: The American public hardly feels the true effects of war anymore, making it easy to send someone else to war when some have never had to personally endure it.

The Grand Delusions Of Sykes-Picot

This week's post comes to us from friend and colleague Stephen Howard.  Stephen is a recent graduate of Political Science and International Relations at South Dakota State University.  His primary emphasis includes the modern Middle East.

Literally Drawing Lines In The Sand

In a recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine, multiple foreign policy analysts discussed the diminishing influence of the United States in Middle East politics.  They also debated whether this is in response to the U.S.-China relationship, the cost-benefit relationship the U.S. has with the Middle East, or some other change in its grand strategy.  As each author points out, this refocusing on other regions of the world is not a fantasy; American influence is truly waning, and policymakers and statesmen around the world need to start considering the impact of a U.S. withdrawal on the future of Middle East states. Most of these articles also presented prescriptions on how to best cope with this new reality. One of the articles by Ali Khedery, Iraq in Pieces, brings up a solution that has long been discussed in the west: the dissolution of the "Sykes-Picot borders" in favor of more ethnic/religious realities. He advocates not exclusively for the dissolution of conventional borders, but more generally for the devolution of powers from the central government of each state to the multitude of nations that inhabit them. In this ‘power sharing’ agreement, each nation would hold sway over the territory they nominally control in the state.  This would divide both Iraq and Syria among sectarian and ethnic lines in hopes of alleviating the Sunni/Shia/Kurd divide within each state. This is a solution, though, which will only further destabilize the region.

Looks About The Same 100 Years Later

Since shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, this idea of separating Iraq into three distinct entities has been floating around Western foreign policy circles. This seems only natural, as Iraq is at the end of the day an artificial construct which was created by the ill fated Sykes-Picot agreement nearly one hundred years ago (and was originally imposed by British and French imperialism). This was done with little regard for the people who lived there or their customs.  Instead, this process was used predominantly to give the imperial powers who controlled the area the best ability to govern. Giving the territory back to each ethnic group who inhabited them originally seems to make some sense in this context, but almost everything has changed in the one hundred years since then.

Westerners still have the idea that any stable state is generally a nation-state, and the rest of the world needs to copy this model in order to advance. But this idea stems from the homogeneous nature of Europe’s states which emerged after hundreds of years of war, forced migration, and state sponsored ethnic purges. The states themselves were only formalized by the Treaty of Westphalia around 300 years ago now, and the distinct nations within them only emerging during the Napoleonic Wars. These ideas, while not exclusive to Europe anymore, are not always the de-facto way states are formed around the rest of the world. A single state can easily now have more than one "nation" in it as China, Russia, Nigeria, and even the United States have shown. Imposing the nation-state on states or nations who have been politically defined for one hundred years is now no better than a second re-imposition of Sykes-Picot under similar circumstances. 

Blame The French!

The first major problem with dividing Iraq or Syria is the demarcation of borders, and the ‘nation-state’ problem. It is true that over the past ten years, each region in Iraq and Syria has become more homogeneous and defined due to violence and migration.  However, there are still considerable minority populations of Sunni and Shia living in opposite dominated areas, to say nothing of the other minorities who inhabit these areas. If Iraq or Syria were to be split into autonomous nation-states in the way Europe has done, or even self-governing regions within the Iraqi/Syrian state structure, these minorities would be trapped in areas of governance in which they have almost no representation (think about being a Democrat in rural South Dakota, or a Republican in St. Paul).  Additionally, government policies would have every reason to discriminate against them.  As Hannah Arent famously described of the Jews prior to WWII, they were a nation without a state. They then belonged to none of the nation-states that dominated Europe, as they could not belong to the ‘French’, ‘German’, or any other state without claiming nationality of the same. I don’t need to describe what this led to for the Jews, with nowhere to go but everyone wanting to get rid of them. 

*A Rough Approximation

 The same problem persists today with the Roma people, showing the nation-state has yet to solve its problem of inherently discriminatory policies.  In short, these would be the autonomous regions created within Iraq and Syria, and the same problems which plague the Europeans would plague the Arabs and Kurds as well. It is not enough to say that if they don’t like where they live they can migrate- the people of Syria don’t like living in civil war but neither the West or East seem to care enough. States are inherently selfish, and accepting refugees is a task that most would rather not choose if they had the opportunity. These disenfranchised people are the perfect recruitment targets for groups like self proclaimed Islamic State, Al Qaeda, and other non-governmental militant organizations.

The Roma People Of Europe

The second major problem is simply "realist" International Relations theory: raison d’etat (reasons of state). This term is better suited to reasons of "nation" in this case, but the principal is the same. Coined by Cardinal Richilou nearly three hundred years ago, this raison d’etat means that a state must do what it can for its own existence, since its existence is never assured. A state, then, has no friends, it only has opportunities and threats (hence "realist). This happens for two reasons. One, if a state or nation is perceived as weak or forgiving on the international scene, it will be taken advantage of. This is because, as political analyst John Mearsheimer discusses in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, states can never be assured of the intentions of others, all have some offensive capability and they will always be looking to exploit and capitalize on weakness in order to preserve their own security. The second reason stems from that old and hated book, The Leviathan.  In it, Thomas Hobbes creates the first idea of a social contract. Essentially, the ruler of any state is granted his power ultimately from the people of that state and is responsible only to them. Because this social contract is not created with any other state or nation, the ruler has a mandate to work for the improvement of his/her people, even if it comes at the cost of someone else.  Drawing "lines in the sand" between rival factions would only further increase the instability inherent in these political realities.

First Thing's First I'm A Realist.

So where will these realist conflicts come from?  Primarily, resources and territory. Any government worth its salt will try to gain as much access natural resources as possible, even at high cost, for the presumed benefit it will give them. In the case of Iraq, this will come not only from oil, but from the oil infrastructure as well. A single refinery or oil well can be the cause of enormous strife. Arable land (yes there is some of that in Syria and Iraq), other infrastructure systems, and cities, all can be major sources of conflict.  But conflict will also come from the external forces which will drive these nations apart.  Mainly, the question of "who will dominate who?" in the region.  For instance, an Iranian backed Shia nation will naturally compete for power with a Saudi backed Sunni nation. This is something which already occurs today, but not within the framework of competing states. Instead of a low-grade war for influence over the central government, this would have every opportunity to turn into all-out war between internationally recognized nation-states with the possibility of drawing the Saudis and Iranians to war against each other. Consider the case of Yemen, where a internal civil war was taken advantage of by BOTH sides and made into a sort of proxy war. This is even more surprising since the Iranians do not even have a real stake in this issue.  The funding they provide for the Houthi rebels is, as described by Farea al-Muslimi “...the cheapest middle finger [Iran] could give to Saudi Arabia”. With strategically important nations like Iraq or Syria at stake, you can bet your life savings that both sides will be much more invested in the outcome of a conflict.

The Conflict In Yemen

The third major problem with separating each ‘nation’ within Iraq is that it hurts any chances of a true state leader emerging. As stated before, each national leader would be judged based on the nation's interests, and this leader has every reason to not care about anyone else’s interests. Creating homogeneous states means that the leaders have to cater to a smaller and smaller portion of the people, eliminating any need to compromise on issues.  Leaders with no need to compromise become nothing more than populist demagogues, who have no real governing capability and thrive off of conflict (which is, after all, the best motivator). It will be in the interests of these leaders to maintain conflict with their neighbors in order to take advantage of that one thing they are good at- riling the masses into stupidity.

Lastly, and as this blog has previously pointed out in a different context, though the current crisis has congealed each nation into multiple seemingly insoluble masses within a single state, the religion and ethnicity which defines them are only being used for political purposes by opportunists in and around each nation. If these nations were to be given their own state or self governing capability, the seemingly insoluble masses would dissolve among further tribal, regional, or philosophical lines- each being used by the same opportunists to aggrandize their own power. Consider the situation in South Sudan.  After the Christian south declared independence from the Muslim north, the leaders proceeded to divide their new state through further civil wars based on clan ties. This was not the work of some popular opposition, but opportunists seeking to get more power at the expense of the lives of their fellow countrymen. This is the situation which would befall the new self-governing regions in Iraq and Syria (and has ALREADY occurred in Kurdish controlled regions).  The only way to prevent it would be to create the three self governing regions on the template of a dictatorship which tolerates no dissent. This is obviously not ideal either.

The Many Divisions Of Kurdistan

In all, the dissolution of Sykes-Picot is dangerous, and compounds the problems it is intended to solve. A stable, solid Iraq is still seemingly the best option then, especially if the United States is to leave (or at least be less present in) the Middle East. This does not mean that the status quo is a viable option either.  My hat is honestly off to Mr. Khedery for at least suggesting a solution, even though I believe it is wrong. I personally have no solution, or at least no viable solutions. To whomever may read this, let me extol the necessity of formulating a full solution which helps the region in the long term, and acts not just as a short term panacea to allow for less U.S. involvement. It is the people who read blogs like this who need to stop sniping and start building (yes, I know I am being hypocritical). Don’t abandon the people or state of Iraq, Syria, or any other state seemingly thrust into an uncorrectable trajectory. As long as there are minds working at the problem, there will always be hope.

Executive Summary:
Getting rid of Sykes-Picot will only further exacerbate problems in the Middle East, and do nothing to solve U.S. problems in the region.