EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- 'Masters of Austerity' Targeted as Blockupy Activists Shut Down European Central Bank
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Victory: Connecticut Becomes First State to Require GMO Labeling
Popular content
Today's Top News
On Iraq, the Candidates are Frozen in Time
WASHINGTON—Cool the rhetorical heat and you uncover a single goal that President Bush, congressional Democrats and the presidential candidates from both parties emphatically agree upon: Iraq, they say, must not become a "failed state."
You know the riff. A failed Iraq would become a "terrorist haven." It would be a magnet for mischievous players from throughout the Middle East. It would be another oozing sore in a region already seized with seemingly unsolvable crises. No, the Republicans say, we must keep American troops in the country indefinitely so that Iraq does not fail. No, the Democrats say, we must pull back so the Iraqis can pull themselves together and rescue themselves from this failure.
There's a problem with this unanimity: Iraq already is a failed state.
"Basically, Iraq is on a course to violent disintegration," says Pauline H. Baker, president of the Fund for Peace.
Along with Foreign Policy magazine, the Fund for Peace takes an annual look at nations that are most vulnerable to violence, ethnic strife, economic turmoil and social disintegration that are the markers of "failed states." Iraq now ranks second, behind only Sudan and its catastrophe in Darfur.
Iraq managed to beat out such violent, economically backward and poverty stricken nations as Somalia. And it did so with American help. To bring Iraq to the brink, we have invested half a trillion dollars in military spending alone, staffed the largest U.S. embassy anywhere and now have 150,000 U.S. troops on the ground.
Iraq's descent into violent chaos is known to anyone who watches the news. But it is rarely described, in our hackneyed politics, as anything other than a problematic surge in sectarianism or the handiwork of "insurgents." In fact, all of Iraq's social, economic and civic indicators are pointing down, according to the Fund for Peace analysis.
Consider the crises the report documents, but which do not make for good television footage: A food crisis has left half of pregnant women in Baghdad and 60 percent of schoolchildren anemic. The Iraqi government reports that "growing numbers of sick and wounded Sunnis" are abducted from hospitals when they seek treatment. In Basra, "doctors report that rotting piles of garbage left on the streets where children play are causing high rates of typhoid fever as well as fungal and bacterial skin diseases." There is no officially recognized count of Iraqi civilian casualties.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported on Monday that the Iraq crisis has contributed to the first upsurge in five years in the number of refugees worldwide. More than 2 million Iraqis are estimated to have fled the country since the U.S. invasion and another 2 million are believed to have been displaced from their homes but still living in Iraq. Then there are the bombings, the beheadings, the abductions and the other atrocities the U.S. military presence has failed to quell.
Our domestic political debate is frozen in time—a time before Iraq passed the point of no return. "Events on the ground have moved beyond it," Baker says.
The Bush White House and, for their part, the Republican presidential candidates, continue to push a military solution that already has been shown to be no solution. The Democrats, including the party's presidential candidates, want to withdraw combat troops but promote the notion that the factionalized and corrupt Iraqi government can somehow pick up the slack. This, too, is a fiction.
What if American politicians were still debating whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, whether inspections and sanctions were sufficient to control him or whether military action was the only answer? It sounds ridiculous now, because it is.
But so is the subterfuge that Iraq is not already a failure.
The Middle East contagion that has been the greatest fear of foreign policy experts is unfolding amid the U.S. military "surge." Iran already plays a major role in Iraq's affairs, Baker notes. Tensions between Turkey and the Kurds have reached the point of imminent conflict. The radicalism that is at the heart of civil strife among the Palestinians and in Lebanon is ascendant.
Baker's group suggests a "managed partition" of Iraq along sectarian lines as a long-term solution. Who knows, really, what would work?
We know what won't: Political pretensions that are mired in old-think, and that ignore a more awful reality.
Marie Cocco's e-mail address is mariecocco(at symbol)washpost.com.
© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

6 Comments so far
Show AllThe media is using the wrong "frame". What U.S. citizens know and understand are, cowboys and indians, or Wounded Knee and Little Big Horn. Where is Custer now that we need him?
this news was top of the page lead story on Wash Post On-line a day or so ago, so occasionally the MSM can put front & center the real news.
3 of the top 6 or 8 "failed" states are victims of the US GWOT: iraq, afghanistan, & somalia.
it's sad that this author concludes that we may need to partition the country. how many C-Ders think the US should have any say in partitioning iraq?
How about we try this. We keep our noses out of it. Lets not listen to Baker or any other Bushist. Lets involve Iran and Syria and Moqtada and Sistani. Let them sort it out. Bring the murderous american marines out of there. Every single one of them including the contractors and mercenaries. Trust me, you will be doing the Iraqi people the greatest favour !
Why does America and its various "think tank" organizations believe that they have the answers? They are the problem. Every single event in the Middle East that is presently occurring can be directly traced to America's wonderful "GWOT," its warmongering politicians and its belief in its exceptionalism. Take a bow exceptional America, you have opened Pandora's box and have no clue that you should just leave bad enough alone. Get out and stay out of world affairs until you grow up, start reading world history and realize just what your "policing" of the globe and corporate greed is doing to humanity, not just the Middle East. If it entails firing your whole governmental structure, so be it. The world does not need a super bully. You have your borders and your sovereignty intact (your walls included), so respect others'.
This fiasco of your seven years' regime does not reflect well with the rest of us. Yankees, go home and do not believe what your mainstream media spews at you.
Please. The last seven years only exhibited the natural progression of American policy that has been single -minded for at least 35 years, probably longer. That many years ago is when we began importing more oil than we produced domestically. Our economy completely depends on the supply of abundant cheap oil. Our situation, though not unique among the large industrial nations of the west, will have catastophic consequences for the world if our economy stumbles and falls. All the politicos know this and will continue to support active intervention in the oil producing regions of the world until the oil is gone.
I'm guessing that many more have died on the African continent (by several orders of magnitude) during the same period owing to factional, tribal, environmental and economic stresses, than in the Persian Gulf region. Where is the outrage and determination about that? It's not just Bush, it's all of us.
Marie Cocco is right on the money: Long ago we should have been willing to admit that we had created a wholly unnecessary humanitarian crisis of massive proportions and that solving that crisis takes a front seat to our own, inflated security concerns.
This should have been obvious to even the most oblivious of "compassionate conservatives."