Turns Out, Joe Biden Was Right About Dividing Iraq

The former senator took a lot of grief for saying the country should be partitioned. He’s going to have the last laugh.

Iraqi men inspect the site of a blast that took place the previous day outside a cafe in Baghdad's Bayaa neighborhood on November 21, 2013. A wave of attacks, most of them car bombs targeting Shiite neighbourhoods of Baghdad, killed 33 people on November 20, in the latest bout of deadly violence to hit Iraq. 
AFP/Getty Images
James Kitfield
See more stories about...
James Kitfield
Jan. 30, 2014, 4 p.m.

In his new book Duty: Mem­oir of a Sec­ret­ary at War, Robert Gates mem­or­ably im­pugns Joe Biden’s judg­ment as “wrong on nearly every ma­jor for­eign policy and na­tion­al se­cur­ity is­sue over the past four dec­ades.” Cent­ral to his ar­gu­ment is Biden’s op­pos­i­tion to the “troop surge” that Pres­id­ent Bush and then-De­fense Sec­ret­ary Gates launched in 2007 to bol­ster a shaky gov­ern­ment in Bagh­dad and save Ir­aq from a sec­tari­an civil war.

Biden, then a sen­at­or, cham­pioned a more fed­er­al sys­tem ex­pli­citly al­lowed by the Ir­aqi con­sti­tu­tion (at the in­sist­ence of the Kur­ds), de­volving power from the cent­ral gov­ern­ment in Bagh­dad to the provinces. Al­though Biden denied it at the time, his pro­pos­al would al­most cer­tainly have led to the de facto soft par­ti­tion of Ir­aq in­to three autonom­ous re­gions dom­in­ated by Shiites, Sun­nis, and Kur­ds. A sim­il­ar ap­proach in the 1990s patched to­geth­er Bos­nia out of the de­trit­us of the Balkans civil war between Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. In a 2007 op-ed, Biden warned, “If the United States can’t put this fed­er­al­ism idea on track, we will have no chance for a polit­ic­al set­tle­ment in Ir­aq and, without that, no chance for leav­ing Ir­aq without leav­ing chaos be­hind.”

He was ahead of his time. “Biden got it dead right, and I still think trans­ition­ing to a fed­er­al power-shar­ing ar­range­ment is the only way to stop the killing and hold Ir­aq to­geth­er,” says Leslie Gelb, former pres­id­ent of the Coun­cil on For­eign Re­la­tions, who wrote the op-ed with Biden.

In­deed, Ir­aq today is in danger of slip­ping back in­to civil war. From the mo­ment the last U.S. troops left in late 2011, Prime Min­is­ter Nuri Kamal al-Ma­liki and his Shiite-led gov­ern­ment set about ruth­lessly con­sol­id­at­ing power. They ordered the ar­rest of polit­ic­al op­pon­ents, in­clud­ing the Sunni vice pres­id­ent, who was charged with murder and fled the coun­try. The Sunni tri­bal sheikhs be­hind the “An­bar Awaken­ing” — whose de­cision to turn against the Sun­nis of al-Qaida in Ir­aq and fight along­side U.S. forces was crit­ic­al to pulling Ir­aq back from the abyss — have been sys­tem­at­ic­ally mar­gin­al­ized. Prom­ises of gov­ern­ment salar­ies and the in­cor­por­a­tion of their mi­li­tias in­to the Ir­aqi se­cur­ity forces were nev­er fully honored. Last year, the mil­it­ary launched a bloody crack­down on mostly peace­ful Sunni demon­stra­tions, killing 38 pro­test­ers and spark­ing a pop­u­lar re­volt.

Bolstered by the vi­ol­ence next door in Syr­ia and a grow­ing Sunni dis­af­fec­tion in Ir­aq, al-Qaida has pre­dict­ably come storm­ing back in­to An­bar, re­cap­tur­ing the stra­tegic city of Fal­lu­jah. Al-Qaida’s strategy of slaughter­ing Shiite ci­vil­ians to spark a civil war is largely be­hind a 2013 wave of vi­ol­ence that killed nearly 8,000 Ir­aqis and wounded an es­tim­ated 25,000 — rep­res­ent­ing the worst vi­ol­ence since the U.S. troop surge. “There is a re­volt in the desert led by a young­er gen­er­a­tion of Sunni tri­bal lead­ers, who are pissed off and re­ject the older gen­er­a­tion’s failed out­reach to Ma­liki and the cent­ral gov­ern­ment,” says Robert Baer, a former CIA case of­ficer in the Middle East who re­mains in fre­quent touch with Ir­aq’s Sunni tribes. “Ir­aq is break­ing apart be­fore our eyes along the nat­ur­al sec­tari­an bor­ders of Kur­distan, Sunni-stan, and Shiite-stan, and that drift apart looks in­creas­ingly in­ev­it­able.”

The way to stop the vi­ol­ence may be sep­ar­a­tion. “Ir­aq is at a cross­roads, and I do think fed­er­al­ism could solve many of the prob­lems we face,” said Osama al-Nu­jay­fi, the Sunni speak­er of Ir­aq’s Coun­cil of Rep­res­ent­at­ives, speak­ing last week at the Brook­ings In­sti­tu­tion. The Kur­d­ish re­gion in the north is already largely autonom­ous and peace­ful, and at least two oth­er provinces (in­clud­ing the stra­tegic­ally im­port­ant and oil-rich Shiite re­gion around Basra in the south) have be­gun the con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­cess for gain­ing re­gion­al autonomy. To date, their re­quests to the elect­or­al com­mis­sion in Bagh­dad to hold loc­al ref­er­en­dums on autonomy, he said, have been ig­nored by the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment and fiercely op­posed by Ma­liki. “The gov­ern­ment has a double stand­ard, sup­port­ing some favored groups and op­press­ing oth­ers, and they are de­mand­ing their rights un­der the fed­er­al sys­tem spelled out in the con­sti­tu­tion,” Nu­jay­fi said. “If the gov­ern­ment does not re­spect the con­sti­tu­tion and the rule of law, then cit­izens will find al­tern­at­ives. That is very dan­ger­ous, be­cause some pro­vin­cial gov­ernors are already talk­ing about re­bel­lion.” (Stephanie Stamm)

Per­haps if the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion had not pre­cip­it­ously with­drawn U.S. troops in 2011, after fail­ing to reach a Status of Forces Agree­ment with Bagh­dad, Ir­aq might have com­pleted a more or­derly demo­crat­ic trans­ition with func­tion­al gov­ern­ing in­sti­tu­tions and sep­ar­a­tion of powers. (Al­though it’s pos­sible that Ma­liki saw U.S. troops as im­ped­i­ments to his con­sol­id­a­tion of power and that no agree­ment would have been ac­cept­able to him.) What’s in­creas­ingly clear is that Ir­aq failed to make the trans­ition to a demo­crat­ic polit­ic­al sys­tem and cul­ture, and, without a strong cen­ter, the sec­tari­an forces are once again pulling it apart.

A Ma­liki vic­tory in the April elec­tions, in­creased Kur­d­ish agit­a­tion for out­right in­de­pend­ence, or con­tin­ued ter­rit­ori­al gains by al-Qaida all threaten to ac­cel­er­ate that de­vol­u­tion. “Ma­liki gets the li­on’s share of the blame, be­cause his para­noia and ruth­less con­sol­id­a­tion of power have ter­ri­fied the rest of the coun­try,” says Ken­neth Pol­lack, a seni­or fel­low at the Brook­ings In­sti­tu­tion’s Saban Cen­ter for Middle East Policy and a former CIA Middle East ana­lyst. “But what’s done is done, and at this point it’s hard to see how you put Humpty Dumpty back to­geth­er again out of Ir­aq’s Sunni, Shiite, and Kur­d­ish parts. To make Ir­aq work prob­ably re­quires a shift of power from the cen­ter to the peri­phery.”

Which is what Biden was say­ing all along.

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
1 days ago

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.