Ocotillo
11-29-2006, 09:09 PM
Iraq - A modest proposal
There have been countless words written and exchanged regarding the wisdom of whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, the management of the war and the occupation, what the goals are to be accomplished, should we stay, should we go, etc… Both parties are divided on what to do about Iraq and the range of opinions ranges from beginning to withdraw in 4 months to adding another 20,000 troops for one last shot at trying to start that Democratic Republic in the middle east.
Any discussions of how we got into the mess we are in today are valid and need to be explored but the intent of this post is not to get into should we have gone into Iraq or not but to address that now that we have 145.000 boots on the ground over three years after the initial invasion, where do we go from here? Finally, let me say I am hardly an expert on middle eastern affairs nor have I conducted research into this matter and confess that there will likely be holes in this “plan” that people who are more knowledgable than I am could shoot holes in. My understanding of the culture and issues are simply based on my cursory reading of events that have occurred since the invasion in 2003.
The Players:
1. United States
2. Coalition Partners
3. Iraqi Shiites
4. Iraqi Sunnis
5. Kurdish Iraqis
6. Iran
7. al Quada
8. Syria
9. Turkey
10. Jordan
11. Saudi Arabia
12. Kuwait
13. the United Nations
From the American perspective, the following points/goals should be considered:
1. What is in our national interest?
2. What is the morally correct thing to do?
3. What is best for the people of Iraq?
4. What promotes regional stability?
We know there is an adversarial relationship between Sunnis and Shiites to say the least. Of course, Iran is Shiite and the most of the other muslim nations in the middle east are Sunni. It appears few things unite these two factions of Islam beyond contempt for Israel and the West. The old adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend…….. This is evident by Syria and Iran both contributing to our woes in Iraq. Iran in the form of supplying weapons and supporting the Shia in Iraq and Syria allowing their borders to be a sieve for foreign fighters trying to get into the country. I see no problem in talking with the Syrians and the Iranians. I would hold out more hope of having productive meetings with the Syrians and perhaps we could even begin to drive a wedge between the two. If Iraq dissolves into chaos beyond simply the Baghdad area both countries would be flooded with refugees and that would not be desirable to them so they have some skin in the game too.
The civil war that is going on now is the Shia vs. Sunni with the Kurds mostly on the sidelines. The Shia comprise 60% of the population with the Kurds and Sunnis accounting for 20% each. Under Saddam, the Sunni minority ruled with an iron fist over the other two groups. Now as the elected government tries to construct a government that is acceptable to all parties, the civil war is growing. The fighting is mostly in the Baghdad area although it is not limited to the capital. The logic behind this is it is the most populated city and the most diverse. The other areas of the country don’t see as much sectarian violence because they are not as integrated.
Rogue cleric Moqtada al Sadr is fast becoming the most powerful figure within the most powerful group within the country. Sadr controls militias that show signs of being more powerful than the Iraqi army and police controlled by the elected government. The Sunnis have a ton to lose and are the force behind the insurgency and cooperate with al Quada due to the weakness of their position.
Some have advocated letting the country to break up into three smaller countries reflective of the three groups. The fallacy of this idea is the Sunnis get nothing. There is no oil in Anbar and other Sunni areas of Iraq.
What I advocate is a variation of the above. Rather than split the country into three countries, split it into two countries. One Shiite country in southern Iraq and a Sunni/Kurdish country in the northern half could be established. Bear with me for a moment. I know there are challenges to this and they may not be surmountable.
In my scenario, the Americans would withdraw to the Kurdish area of Iraq initially this would be the first step to a withdrawal from the country. The Peshmerga militia could serve as a de facto military for the new country. The Sunnis in this scenario get the benefit of northern Iraqi oil. They would have an actual voice in a democracy as they and the Kurds have about the same number of population. Other Sunni nations would be called upon to help with military presence in the newly formed country which would have to commit to not interfering with sovereign Turkey and Iran despite their Kurdish populations.
The Americans should commit to the nations of the region that they have no desire to have a permanent presence in Iraq nor any other middle eastern muslim nation. We also will let them know in no uncertain terms that our interest in our own security and if they do not cooperate with us in fighting terrorists, we will take action as we see fit to apprehend or kill terrorists that they are harboring in their countries.
The Shia would be left to their own device in southern Iraq. Likely, they will have a theocracy that uses Sharia law and is allied with Iran. That is a price we will have to pay as there are no perfect solutions to this mess.
The two obstacles to making this work that I am aware of is what to do about Baghdad. Would the city be divided like Jerusalem or Berlin was or would it be absorbed into one of the new nations and if so, which one? That alone could be the deal breaker.
The other sticking point is convincing the Kurds and Sunnis to work together. What we envisioned for Iraq might actually work in such a country though since the power would be evenly divided.
I just don’t see any easy solutions for Iraq. Even if we stay there for a decade or more, once we leave, the void will be filled by whoever has the power at the time we leave.
Well, I threw this slop together so that you fellow posters, both right and left, could pick it apart. Or maybe, it just might provoke some thought and new light on the issue.
There have been countless words written and exchanged regarding the wisdom of whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, the management of the war and the occupation, what the goals are to be accomplished, should we stay, should we go, etc… Both parties are divided on what to do about Iraq and the range of opinions ranges from beginning to withdraw in 4 months to adding another 20,000 troops for one last shot at trying to start that Democratic Republic in the middle east.
Any discussions of how we got into the mess we are in today are valid and need to be explored but the intent of this post is not to get into should we have gone into Iraq or not but to address that now that we have 145.000 boots on the ground over three years after the initial invasion, where do we go from here? Finally, let me say I am hardly an expert on middle eastern affairs nor have I conducted research into this matter and confess that there will likely be holes in this “plan” that people who are more knowledgable than I am could shoot holes in. My understanding of the culture and issues are simply based on my cursory reading of events that have occurred since the invasion in 2003.
The Players:
1. United States
2. Coalition Partners
3. Iraqi Shiites
4. Iraqi Sunnis
5. Kurdish Iraqis
6. Iran
7. al Quada
8. Syria
9. Turkey
10. Jordan
11. Saudi Arabia
12. Kuwait
13. the United Nations
From the American perspective, the following points/goals should be considered:
1. What is in our national interest?
2. What is the morally correct thing to do?
3. What is best for the people of Iraq?
4. What promotes regional stability?
We know there is an adversarial relationship between Sunnis and Shiites to say the least. Of course, Iran is Shiite and the most of the other muslim nations in the middle east are Sunni. It appears few things unite these two factions of Islam beyond contempt for Israel and the West. The old adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend…….. This is evident by Syria and Iran both contributing to our woes in Iraq. Iran in the form of supplying weapons and supporting the Shia in Iraq and Syria allowing their borders to be a sieve for foreign fighters trying to get into the country. I see no problem in talking with the Syrians and the Iranians. I would hold out more hope of having productive meetings with the Syrians and perhaps we could even begin to drive a wedge between the two. If Iraq dissolves into chaos beyond simply the Baghdad area both countries would be flooded with refugees and that would not be desirable to them so they have some skin in the game too.
The civil war that is going on now is the Shia vs. Sunni with the Kurds mostly on the sidelines. The Shia comprise 60% of the population with the Kurds and Sunnis accounting for 20% each. Under Saddam, the Sunni minority ruled with an iron fist over the other two groups. Now as the elected government tries to construct a government that is acceptable to all parties, the civil war is growing. The fighting is mostly in the Baghdad area although it is not limited to the capital. The logic behind this is it is the most populated city and the most diverse. The other areas of the country don’t see as much sectarian violence because they are not as integrated.
Rogue cleric Moqtada al Sadr is fast becoming the most powerful figure within the most powerful group within the country. Sadr controls militias that show signs of being more powerful than the Iraqi army and police controlled by the elected government. The Sunnis have a ton to lose and are the force behind the insurgency and cooperate with al Quada due to the weakness of their position.
Some have advocated letting the country to break up into three smaller countries reflective of the three groups. The fallacy of this idea is the Sunnis get nothing. There is no oil in Anbar and other Sunni areas of Iraq.
What I advocate is a variation of the above. Rather than split the country into three countries, split it into two countries. One Shiite country in southern Iraq and a Sunni/Kurdish country in the northern half could be established. Bear with me for a moment. I know there are challenges to this and they may not be surmountable.
In my scenario, the Americans would withdraw to the Kurdish area of Iraq initially this would be the first step to a withdrawal from the country. The Peshmerga militia could serve as a de facto military for the new country. The Sunnis in this scenario get the benefit of northern Iraqi oil. They would have an actual voice in a democracy as they and the Kurds have about the same number of population. Other Sunni nations would be called upon to help with military presence in the newly formed country which would have to commit to not interfering with sovereign Turkey and Iran despite their Kurdish populations.
The Americans should commit to the nations of the region that they have no desire to have a permanent presence in Iraq nor any other middle eastern muslim nation. We also will let them know in no uncertain terms that our interest in our own security and if they do not cooperate with us in fighting terrorists, we will take action as we see fit to apprehend or kill terrorists that they are harboring in their countries.
The Shia would be left to their own device in southern Iraq. Likely, they will have a theocracy that uses Sharia law and is allied with Iran. That is a price we will have to pay as there are no perfect solutions to this mess.
The two obstacles to making this work that I am aware of is what to do about Baghdad. Would the city be divided like Jerusalem or Berlin was or would it be absorbed into one of the new nations and if so, which one? That alone could be the deal breaker.
The other sticking point is convincing the Kurds and Sunnis to work together. What we envisioned for Iraq might actually work in such a country though since the power would be evenly divided.
I just don’t see any easy solutions for Iraq. Even if we stay there for a decade or more, once we leave, the void will be filled by whoever has the power at the time we leave.
Well, I threw this slop together so that you fellow posters, both right and left, could pick it apart. Or maybe, it just might provoke some thought and new light on the issue.