A little more than a week ago, the administration leaked word that some Bush administration officials support something called the “80 percent solution” in Iraq. Basically, the plan is to take sides in the civil war, and back the Shiite majority over the Sunni minority.
By any reasonable estimation, it’s a very bad idea. For one thing, if we’re going to take sides and give up on Bush’s vision of a unified Iraqi government, we might as well leave and instead of helping with the massacre of 20% of Iraq’s population. For that matter, it’s the ideal way to alienate the region’s Sunni governments (including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan).
When the WaPo first reported that the administration was taking this approach seriously, it was not altogether clear who actually supported the idea. Now we know. Take a wild guess who thinks this is wise.
On the political front, the administration is focusing increasingly on variations of a “Shiite tilt,” sometimes called an “80 percent solution,” that would bolster the political center of Iraq and effectively leave in charge the Shiite and Kurdish parties that account for 80 percent of Iraq’s 26 million people and that won elections a year ago.
Vice President Cheney’s office has most vigorously argued for the “80 percent solution,” in terms of both realities on the ground and the history of U.S. engagement with the Shiites, sources say. A source familiar with the discussions said Cheney argued this week that the United States could not again be seen to abandon the Shiites, Iraq’s largest population group, after calling in 1991 for them to rise up against then-President Saddam Hussein and then failing to support them when they did. Thousands were killed in a huge crackdown.
First, wasn’t Dick Cheney the Secretary of Defense in 1991? What, is he feeling guilty now?
Second, who else could be behind such a bad idea?
According to today’s WaPo, the Bush administration doesn’t much care about the ISG report, and instead is focusing on three possible options to “redefine the U.S. military and political engagement” in Iraq.
The first involves sending up to 30,000 additional troops in the short term to “secure Baghdad.” The second would step back from Iraq’s civil war and begin focusing attention on al Qaeda in Iraq. And the third is Dick Cheney’s “80 percent” approach.
Matt Yglesias’ point from a week ago is still persuasive.
What we’re seeing here is the “perverse desire to win” of musical fame. Insofar as you want to obtain “victory” in Iraq, it becomes necessary not to devise a strategy to accomplish our goals, which can’t be done, but rather to define a set of goals such that they can be accomplished. Hence the appeal of an “80 percent strategy,” a.k.a. James Kurth’s “Crush the Sunnis” plan. But even if we could make this “work” (which is at least possible though, I would argue, actually pretty unlikely) what would we thereby achieve? Certainly not the Iraqi model of pre-war dreams. Indeed, it seems to me that in this case more rubble would bring more trouble, as the cross-national Sunni Arab majority comes to agree with Osama bin Laden that the United States is waging vicious war against them and theirs and that every good Muslim’s duty is to fight back.
I still find it hard to believe Cheney or anyone else could seriously believe taking sides in Iraq’s civil war would be a good idea, and yet, here we are. The Bush gang never ceases to amaze, do they.