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.
Actually, that may not be true. There are no currently producing wells, but one breakup scenario I read had the other two regions subsidizing Sunni oil exploration for a decade or so.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.
Uhm, sorry to break it to you, but about 40% of America does not care about the last three ... this is a lost cause.
Horizontal drilling, if oil is the goal of each group.
Which will be followed by production capabilities, which will be followed by refining capacities, which will be followed by distribution abilities.................etc.
Or, you have a have this point of view. How are the people who have done so
much to make us fail going to help solve the problem. It is their baby now, they
made it so by all the years of telling everyone we were so wrong.
Iraq is Dems’ tar-baby
By David Keene
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
An old Democratic friend of mine stopped by the Monocle last week and while there ran into a Democratic senator of long acquaintance. The Senator was, of course, quite pleased with the outcome of the election and is looking forward to the perks and responsibilities that go with being in the majority.
The two talked for a few minutes, but the Senator was more than a little taken aback when my friend asked him what he and his fellow Democrats intend to do with the war they managed to acquire with their new majority. "What do you mean?" he said. "Iraq is Bush's war and his problem." "Oh, no," my friend responded, "it was his war until Nov. 9, but your party ran condemning the war, Bush's management of it and promised to end it in one way or another. Now, you guys are going to have to come up with a plan because you are in the majority and with the majority comes responsibility … especially on problems voters believe you promised to solve."
It was a sobering thought and the senator was momentarily speechless, but then got very, very cautious and assured my friend that most Democrats believe it would be dangerous to do anything precipitous. Fortunately, there was no one from MoveOn.Org at the next table.
To be fair, my friend overstated the degree to which Democrats have to single - handedly solve the Iraq problem, but voters are not likely to long tolerate their pre - election act of attacking Bush at every turn while offering nothing, or less than nothing, in the way of a realistic alternative.
After all, while there was more to the election than the war, most of the 20 percent or so of those who voted and said the war was their No. 1 concern voted this year for Democrats because they don't like the way things have turned out for us in Iraq and are hoping for better.
It is true that many of the Democratic Party's ideological allies and financial supporters seem to actually believe that the problem is nutcases who would pervert their religion to justify terror, torture and genocide, all on account of the U.S. They would argue, one suspects, that since it is our presence in the region that "creates" terrorists, all we have to do is leave and the problem will vanish.
This reasoning may be persuasive within the fever swamps of the left, but most elected Democrats tend to be more realistic and few of them share this view of a world that would be a better place but for us. Moreover, as politicians they have to worry about what might happen if they "get us out of Iraq" and the forces we are fighting there decide to take us and our friends on elsewhere, or the Iranians and others look at the debacle there as evidence of our lack of will to oppose whatever it is they decide to do with their nuclear weapons once they develop them.
Some of them are hoping former Secretary of State Jim Baker's Iraq Commission will save their bacon as well as Bush’s by coming up with a magical strategy and end game that will both work and satisfy their base. That, however, doesn’t seem likely given the intractability of the problem and the vehement insistence on the left that the war has to be ended now or that we at least begin withdrawing or "redeploying" troops soon.
Some Democrats in Congress are already responding by rejecting the idea that anything but getting out matters. They dismiss the importance of whatever might happen there after we leave and seem to buy into the notion that everyone will be so happy that we're out that no one will blame them for "losing Iraq" or for the acts of an emboldened terrorist movement.
Others are trying to satisfy their base by suggesting that all we have to do is seek support from our allies or the U.N., as if the Bush administration hasn't tried. Still others suggest that we do more to "train" the Iraqis but blanch at the thought that this course could require committing more U.S. forces, at least in the short term.
And then, finally, there are those who denounce the Bush administration's "imperialist empire - building" on the one hand, while suggesting that what "we" ought to do is sit down and redraw the map of the Middle East along more "rational" lines.
The lack of any unified Democratic stance on a crucial national security and foreign policy issue — on which the party's candidates ran and won control of Congress — means that my friend is at least partially right.
Iraq is many things, including a tar - baby that congressional Democrats are going to find as difficult to get away from as the Republicans they so gleefully beat up over the last few years.
David A. Keene is the chairman of the American Conservative Union and a managing associate with the Carmen Group, a Washington, D.C.-based governmental-affairs firm.
Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
================================================== ===========
Or you might just say: Some dimm-o-craps just wished they were still in the
minority so they could criticize with immunity. Like many on this board!
While we could go on ad-nauseum regarding what got us there, this does make a good point about what we are going to do about getting out. With winning the majority, the Dems have placed themselves in the position of being part of the issue, albeit an inherited one. They have as much of a responsibility to deliver a successful resolution as does the administration, and that expectation from voters is probably compounded by the campaign promises.
I would love nothing more than for there to be an equitable, sensible resolution that gets us out of Iraq. And I have no issue with giving Dems credit for making it happen, if they can do it. Right now I am not confident in either of those things happening.
"They have as much of a responsibility to deliver a successful resolution as does the administration,"
Total bull ing .
The Repug WH is 100% responsible for causing the US/Iraq disaster.
head said just before the election "full speed ahead" with current Iraq policy. dubya today has already rejected the Baker commission's recommendation for a gradual drawdown before the commission's report is official.
Based on the above, the Dems will have no effective say, and so NO responsiblity, for losing and disengaging from Iraq before dubya/ head leave office, either by term expiry or impeachment.
Reading comprehension, my friend.
The point of this thread was not about who is to blame for getting us there, but what is being done to get us out.
Also, I enjoyed your editorial license to not quote where I said their responsibility is an inherited one. That is a correct point, because they are now in control of the legislative branch of our government.
They cannot pretend that Iraq does not exist, nor can they ignore the need to develop viable options for resolution. After all, was this not one of the main platform planks on the election trail this last month?
I for one hope that are able to find a resolution. I will give them the justly deserved credit if they do. I said that before, but you conveniently left that out as well.
"They cannot pretend that Iraq does not exist"
No one should pretend that the Dems will have any effective input into, nor ANY responsibility for, shoveling up the pile of the WH has created in Iraq.
The WH has and will refuse to have any meaningful relationship with Congress, esp now the Dems are in charge.
head and the neo-cons wanted an Imperial, unchecked presidency, they started a war a means to impose that in-your-face imperialism, and they, even after failing murdersouly in Iraq, still intend to be fully responsible for Iraq.
Any attempt by Congress, esp a Dem Congress, to impose itself on the WH over Iraq has been and will be resisted by the WH.
why is it that every time you post, I envision a grainy 8MM video of a college campus protest from the 60's? Damn, take off the beret and lighten up on the rhetoric.
why is it that every time you post, I envision a grainy 8MM video of a college campus protest from the 60's? Damn, take off the beret and lighten up on the rhetoric.
Get use to it. He either posts an article or lame rant as you noted.
boutons is our resident wannabe communist. But like
I have said before he is very fluent in profane and
can reasonably handle the English language.
Listening to the radio today and Ambassador Galbreath who advocates a three way split speaking. He was involved in helping with the Iraqi consi ution.
Getting the Kurds and Sunnis together may be difficult from the Kurd side as well. Galbreath was saying the Kurds pretty much have their own country now in the north. The Iraqi army is not allowed there, there is a Kurdish army. The Iraqi flag does not fly, it is a Kurdish flag. They seem to be sitting on the sidelines letting the Sunnis and Shia slug it out and getting on with their lives.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
