fight amongst yourselves

Gorgeous George might have been pushy last week, but that’s not to say more formally respectable politicians aren’t thinking along the same lines. We all know about this:

The authenticity of the memo has been confirmed by the British Defence Secretary John Reid, who signed it. He has called it an "scenarios" document, but it was prepared for the cabinet committee on defence and foreign policy and it demonstrates how seriously the British government is considering how to reduce its commitment. These are the hopes:

• British troops could be reduced from 8,500 now to 3,000 by the middle of next year.
• US troops could be cut from 176,000 to 60,000.

Some confirmation from the American end here. And then there’s this, from last Friday. As ever, the Italians are more frank about things:

Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli of the right-wing Northern League party said on Friday the time had come for the United Nations to begin discussing "the progressive withdrawal of troops, beginning with our contingent, perhaps by September."

"It's evident that after New York, Madrid and London, Italy represents the most probable next objective of the terrorists," he said.

"The time has come to begin to think also about our house, and to use the same resources currently committed in Iraq to prevent and combat possible attacks on our territory."

So that’s the three countries with the largest troop contingents in Iraq discussing major withdrawals. It beggars belief somewhat that all this has nothing to do with last Thursday, though I doubt it’s a panic measure. It may be a change of strategy, perhaps along these lines:

As the offensive strategy of the Bush administration has demonstrated, when we choose to engage centers and sources of disorder, attacking them militarily or demanding reforms inconsistent with their cultures, we provide an external threat against which they can unite. Conversely, if we isolate ourselves from them, we will help them focus on and thus accentuate their internal contradictions. This is a classic case of inaction being a form of action...

In Terror’s Mask: Insurgency Within Islam, Michael Vlahos argues that what we are seeing in the Islamic world today follows an age-old pattern. Purist elements arise that accuse existing Islamic governments of straying from Islam; they triumph, only to find that pure Islam cannot govern; attempting to make things work, they also become corrupt; and new purist elements gather to bring about their overthrow. This cycle could work to America’s advantage if she isolated herself from it, because it focuses Islamic energies inward. As Boyd would say, it tends to fold Islam back on itself.

This William Lind piece is worth reading as a whole. It’s unbelievably nasty, but designed to be plausible from the point of view of a government that’s run out of options.

Now, the original flypaper theory fell into the “some bollocks” category, ie it was some bollocks made up to explain why the fact that the Occupation was failing was all part of a cunning plan. Now maybe something like this is actually being put into operation. A troop drawdown would leave Iraq as a zone of contention between insurgents of varying nationalistic and jihadi flavours, official Iraqi government troops, corporate mercenaries, semi-official shi’ite formations and death squads, tribal militias and straightforward criminal gangs. Plenty there to occupy the busy jihadi, especially if the actual occupiers aren’t as visible as they once were. Liberty and democracy for Iraq? Forget it. If Locke won’t work, give em as much Hobbes as they can handle.

Comments

[Devil's Kitchen]

The Italians are thinking of cutting and running as soon as things look a bit threatening? Who'da thunk it...?