Of Bombs & Air Strikes

(Source: Associated Press via Wall Street Journal)

What looks like a dust storm or the desert tracks of a very fast vehicle is actually the result of air strikes by American fighter jets on Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIL) militants not far from Erbil, Iraq. Friday's limited strikes resulted in limited damage, but also intend to send a warning message. However, without clearer objectives - what do the strikes intend to do? - the strikes will fail to resonate. In fact, they could spur the militants to redouble efforts or even drag American forces into a protracted, albeit likely arms-length, engagement.

Is the United States concerned with the exploding humanitarian disaster in Iraq? Among other minorities being displaced, both as refugees and internally, the Yazidis have gained special attention due to being surrounded by IS fighters (see map below). American aircraft dropped humanitarian supplies - water and food - to the besieged minority. Was this a tactical move? How does this specific situation differ from what IS militants have done elsewhere in Iraq, or Syria for that matter? The "why now" question is one that American officials would be hard-pressed to have a good answer for. There is a humanitarian disaster throughout the Middle East, perhaps one of unprecedented scale, that the United States and much of the West has thoroughly ignored.

On the other hand, is the collapsing political situation the greater worry? IS controls a large share of Iraq today and atrocities perpetrated by its rank and file are making for gory headlines. The map below offers a glimpse into the scale the Iraqi government is faced with.

(Source: Associated Press via Wall Street Journal)

Recent reports express concern over IS control over the Mosul Dam, which could wreak havoc downriver if compromised. Such control over water in the delicate region could impact IS' primary target - Baghdad. The complications multiply very quickly. Whether limited air strikes will do anything to change the situation on the ground is questionable. In 1999, the United States conducted a 78-day air campaign to make an impact on the ground in Kosovo. Are a few missiles and bombs here and there going to change much?

Is the United States simply grasping at straws to ensure its legacy? Should IS continue its advance into Kurdistan, will the United States assist, or abandon the Kurds as it has in the past? These are all critical questions that help answer the larger question - what is the objective here?

Growing Pains in Iraq: Reconciling Federalism

Few people believed that Iraq was magically reborn following the departure of the remaining U.S. troops from Iraq in late 2011. After all, that withdrawal was years in the making, both politically and militarily. Even then, there was debate over how Iraq would be shaped, in 2012 and beyond. It was surmised that a Sunni-Shia rift would continue, fueled in part by insurgents pushing the boundaries of Iraqi security forces. At the same time, concerns about Iraq's president Nouri al-Maliki's (who is Shia) leadership also existed, in light of clear pro-Shia favoritism.

It seems that "messy democracy" is the favorite description of Iraq over the years; however, this description is really just an easy way to not say anything at all. It's a way to say Iraqi democracy is not the democracy of Norway (ranked #1 in the Democracy Index), but is also not the democracy of Zimbabwe (ranked #148). It is clear that Iraq is somewhere in the middle (#113 in 2012). But what direction is that democracy headed toward - Norway or Zimbabwe?

This is not a question that has an easy answer. Iraqi federalism has been discussed over and over gain. How will the country look? It has been debated whether Iraq can even hold itself together as a single unified country, given its history, colonially drawn borders, and somewhat diverse populations. What power-sharing structures will exist? That entails whether Iraq function as an open democracy where one viewpoint transitions power to another bloodlessly, or would a constitutional requirement for a constant mix of viewpoints be necessary. As well, the level of autonomy given to individual provinces - should Iraq even be a federation or a confederation? And in the end, who will fight who over what, and will that fighting be political or physical? To gain some insight into some of the issues that prevail today, from insurgent fighting in the West to Kurdish self-determination in the North, it helps to take a look at the political and religious boundaries in Iraq:

Religious makeup of Iraq (Source: NPR)

Political makeup of Iraq (Source: Wikipedia)

One province stands out in a grand manner: Al-Anbar in the West. On the one hand, al-Anbar is far larger than any other political division in Iraq, taking up as much as a third of the country. On the other hand, the province is sparsely populated and includes significant desert acreage. 

Al-Anbar is also the source of some of the worst fighting during the Iraq War, including the First Battle of Fallujah and the Second Battle of Fallujah. More recently, it is the location of Sunni protests, and the takeover of Iraqi cities (Ramadi, the capital of Al-Anbar, and, to some extent, Fallujah) by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which is associated with al-Qaeda.

In the past, gerrymandering was a possibility. This likely would have been an option early on when the politics of Iraq were still up for debate. However, with a Shia-led government that seemingly continues to clamp down on Sunni politics, this idea is likely off the table, or we will end up with the worst of American democratic traditions married to military conflict.

Within federalism, there exists some level of equality on a national scene, at least in the sense that everyone can, at some point, attain a leadership role and participate in national politics. Without that, there is no purpose to being part of a federalist structure. Both alienating a component of the national population and simultaneously allowing the growth of their own sub-state cannot lead to a solution.

It will take crucial and careful leadership to lead Iraq out of its federalist quagmire. It can't hurt to use the American example here as well: the United States operated under the Articles of Confederation between 1777 (informally) / 1781 (formally) until 1789, when the Constitution took effect. It took years to figure out a better way for the system to operate, and it may take years in Iraq. Focusing on the politics, and the compromises that come with politics, while avoiding warfare and open conflict, are key tenets that could lead to Iraq reconciling its federalism for a lasting state.