The NIE: Catastrophuck

Those opposed to the war are constantly demanded of: "So, do you think the world would be a safer place if Saddam were still in power?"

Now, instead of being cowed into silence or a "No, but..." response, I think we can reply, with the utmost confidence: "Yes. Yes, indeed."

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — A much-anticipated assessment of Iraq by America’s intelligence agencies describes a worsening cycle of chaos in the country, and predicts that the sectarian strife will continue to fracture the country without bold actions by Iraqi politicians.

And even if violence is diminished, prospects for a political reconciliation in the country are dim “given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene,” the assessment warns.

The assessment, titled "Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead", begins with this blunt conclusion:

"Iraqi society’s growing polarization, the persistent weakness of the security forces and the state in general, and all sides’ ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism.

"Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measurable progress during the term of this estimate, the coming 12 to 18 months, we assess that the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006."

The term “civil war” accurately describes key elements of the conflict, including “the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities,” the report says, but the overall struggle is more complicated. The report points to a lethal stew of Iraqi-on-Iraqi bloodshed across and within ethnic lines, Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks, “and widespread criminally motivated violence.”

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates called the term “civil war” a “bumper-sticker answer” that oversimplified the reality of overlapping conflicts. “I believe that there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq,” he said at a Pentagon briefing today, citing Shia-on-Shia strife, principally in the South; sectarian violence, largely in Baghdad; the Sunni insurgency, and attacks by Al Qaeda.

The assessment contains the consensus judgments of the 16 agencies that make up the intelligence community and is sure to fuel the debate within Congress and between some lawmakers and the White House over what to do.

It goes on to say that a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces would lead to even greater carnage. In other words, it is well and truly hopeless according to the combined brain power of our Intelligence community, unless a few ponies show up, and soon.

[T]he assessment says that some developments “could” help to reverse the downward spiral: broader Sunni acceptance of the political structure; concessions by Shiites and Kurds to “create space” for Sunni acceptance, and “a bottom-up approach” to help mend frayed tribal and religious relationships.

And I'm sure Bush and his "Half glass full" partner, Dick Cheney, will seize on that last bit, along with enablers McCain and Lieberman. Except the Shiites aren't likely to give back the power they've only just attained, the Sunnis aren't going to subsume their hatred for the majority Shiites or the Americans who gave the Shiites that power, and the Kurds aren't likely to willingly give back the autonomy they've grown used since the last Gulf War. Oh yeah, and Kurdish factions aren't likely to stop fighting each other in the north, nor are the Shiite factions likely to stop battling each other in the south.

All of this obvious, predictable, and once avoidable. And all of it something that two or three more Friedman Units are unlikely to solve.