The public key findings (pdf) of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq are now out.
A very short version:
- Iraq is a total brutal mess.
- The situation there will get worse.
- Keeping or removing the U.S. troops does not make any difference to Iraq.
- If certain things happen, Iraq will go down the drain even faster and end up partitioned, in a genocidal war or total anarchy.
The points in the NIE are arranged in a bit confusing or, one might say, obfuscating way. I have rearranged them for clarity here without (I hope) manipulating their meaning
(direct quotes from the NIE are in italic.)
It starts off with three points:
- Iraq is a serious mess. The state is weak and everybody is willing to kill everybody.
- Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measurable
progress during the term of this Estimate, the coming 12 to 18 months,
we assess that the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006. - If the Iraqi Security Forces were better, there could be a chance
for a political process. But even then that process would be very difficult.
In detail the NIA then assesses:
- The Shia do not want to give up their new won power and do not trust the U.S.
- The Sunnis do not accept their loss of power.
- The Kurds want Kirkuk which means more trouble between them and the Arabs.
- Forget the Iraq Security Forces – they are sectarian, undertrained and unequipped.
- Al-Qa’ida in Iraq and Jaysh al-Mahdi (Sadrists) are accelerators in the deterioration.
- The refugees are a real problem.
- It is not a "Civil war" but:
[T]he term “civil war” accurately describes key elements
of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian
identities, a sea change in the character of the violence,
ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.
- Iran supports some Shia groups
- Syria houses Baathists and lets insurgents enter Iraq
- Sunni Arab states are not helping a bit but consider support for Sunnis in Iraq
- Turkey wants to eliminate the PKK in northern Iraq
- but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability
There is nothing mentioning or arguing for a "surge". But, says the
NIE, the coalition (i.e. the U.S troops) is stabilizing the situation.
Removing those troops would make things worse, they say, because:
- massive casualties and displacement might occur
- Al-Qa’ida in Iraq would reside in Anbar
- there would be more violence and more political strife
- Kirkuk would be fought over and
- neighbors might intervene
The situation could be solved, says the NIE, if:
- the Shia would give up some power,
- the Sunnis would accept their power loss,
- the Kurds stopped insisting on Kirkuk and
- the Iraqi Security Forces were getting better
A number of things could happen that would the mess worse very quickly:
- sustained mass sectarian killings
- the killing of a religious figure
- the Sunnis leaving the government
If such happens there are three possible outcomes:
- de facto partition
- a Shia strongman takes over
- total anarchy
In total, this sounds realistic to me. Iraq will get worse and there is not much anyone can do.
But certainly I would like to know more about the assessment of the role of U.S. troops today and how a "surge" or a removal of the troops would make a difference. General Casey and Abizaid were against a surge as were the Chief of Staffs.
What do they know?
I believe the real, secret NIE supports their standpoint by assessing that the surge will make things worse.
And who inserted that Shia strongman into the NIE?
Let the leaks start …