Iraqi Shiite Turkmen fighters take part in an intensive security deployment in the town of Taza, south of the northern oil city of Kirkuk, June 19.

Why America should let Iraq resolve its own crisis

The US already destroyed the political, economic, and social infrastructure of Iraq. There is no way it should attempt to re-enter this agony. This is not some jihadi apocalypse. In fact, ISIS is establishing the groundwork for what is emerging as a likely federalist structure of Sunni Arab, Shiite Arab, and Kurdish regions – the only way Iraq can survive for the foreseeable future.

The astonishing ability of the militia forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to take over several Iraqi cities reveals more about the dismaying weakness and divisions within Iraq than it does about the military prowess of ISIS. Yet this is not some jihadi apocalypse. ISIS as a strategic military force in Iraq is not to be feared. What is to be feared is the ideological defection of large numbers of Sunnis who will no longer fight for the state they see as no longer theirs.

The reasons for Sunni alienation are well known. They were the supreme losers after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, overthrew Saddam Hussein, destroyed the ruling Baath party – the bulwark of Sunni control – and dismantled the Iraqi military. The oppressed Shiite majority took over the state, determined never again to be relegated to political weakness. Sunni Iraqis spearheaded armed resistance against the decade-long US occupation – along with some Shiite forces. In a country driven by fierce nationalist sentiments, even secular former Baathists made common cause with Sunni Islamists and jihadis to expel the US occupiers. We are now reaping the whirlwind of destruction.

The Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki could have built a new national consensus based around a broader “Iraqi nationalism,” but the newly ascendant Shiites always feared the Sunnis would try to reverse the political equation and seize supreme power again. Saudi Arabia’s open contempt for new Shiite power in Baghdad reinforced Shiite fears, particularly when Riyadh went all out to back even the most radical Sunni forces to overthrow the (nominally Shiite) Assad regime in neighboring Syria.

In his own paranoia and penchant for Iraqi-style strongman rule, Mr. Maliki further alienated Sunnis by excluding them from positions of power in Baghdad. The new Iraqi army became essentially an instrument of Shiite power operating with a heavy hand in Sunni areas. Today the presence of Sunni jihadis enables Maliki to link all Sunni political activism with “terrorism.”

Most Iraqi Sunnis have little sympathy for the extremist ideology and tactics of the ISIS and its jihadi predecessors. But they also see it as a key instrument for restoration of Sunni power – if not to rule the country, at least to maintain a powerful traditional voice in governance. If the stunning rise of ISIS upsets Maliki and his government, all the better, say the Sunnis: Perhaps Maliki will see reason and embrace a more inclusive government. In the meantime, ISIS operations establish the groundwork for greater Sunni regional sovereignty in what is emerging as a likely three-way federalist structure of Sunni Arab, Shiite Arab, and Kurdish regions – the only way Iraq can survive intact for the foreseeable future.

There is no way Washington should attempt to re-enter this Iraqi agony again. The US already destroyed the political, economic, and social infrastructure of Iraq, turning it into an anarchic free-for-all of every clan for itself. We in the West try to deny the ugly consequences of our own actions by shrugging our shoulders and noting that Iraqis are, after all, “eternally tribal.”

But who do you turn to when the proverbial excrement – the destruction of your country – hits the fan? Most people revert to their core social identities – their clans, tribes, sectarian or regional groups – the only ones that can provide security against anarchy and enemies. There is no longer any state to provide protection. And you do not dare turn your security over to an untested, untrusted new state structure for a long, long time.

There are in fact two regional players with some clout and credibility in the region – Turkey and Iran. They maintain a modest rivalry. But Turkey does not seek to be the “champion of the Sunnis.” Nor does Iran simply seek to be the “champion of the Shiites.” Iraqi Shiites are grateful for Iranian support in time of crisis, but they are an ancient and proud Arab people; they are not Iranian and will resist Iranian efforts to dominate them.

Both Turkey and Iran clearly share a desire for a united Iraq under some sectarian balance. Neither Turkey nor Iran want jihadis to rule Iraq, or even the Sunni regions. Turkey does want greater acknowledgment of Iraqi Sunni rights. Actually, Iran wants the same – once the jihadi threat has passed – because an unstable Iraq wracked by civil war does not serve Iranian interests either.

The single most destructive regional power at this point is Saudi Arabia and its satellites who bankroll the extremist Sunni jihadis in both Syria and Iraq. Its blatantly sectarian stance has everything to do with Gulf geopolitics and little to do with Shiism as such: Iran would be a rival to Saudi Arabia even if it were Sunni to the core.

Iraq, perhaps with help from its two neighbors, must come to terms with its own internal crisis. It can do so; sectarianism as a guiding obsession is not written in stone. Strong sectarian identity currently reflects the insecurities and fears of a complex society in chaos and political and social transition. US intervention, already once disastrous, can only delay the day when Iraqis must deal with each other again. We cannot fix it. Television images of ISIS aside, the problem belongs to the region more than it does to us.

Graham E. Fuller is the former vice chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council.

© 2014 The WorldPost/Global Viewpoint Network, distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Hosted online by The Christian Science Monitor.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Why America should let Iraq resolve its own crisis
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today