What should we do with/about Iraq

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Since this topic has been mentioned in a number of posts recently and since non of our politicians, pundits or anyone else on this board seems to have delt with this issue directly in some time...let's have at it.

 

What I mean is given potential options:

1. Stay and stick it out.

2. Leave immediately.

3. Start a withdrawl, but leave special forces.

4. Bomb the heck out Iraq before leaving.

5. Divide Iraq in 3s and set up separate governments.

6. And any other scenarios anyone can think of,

 

What are to pros and cons and what do you view as the likely reactions of the players as a result? Give a prediction of the outcome.

[IBTG81]

Since this topic has been mentioned in a number of posts recently and since non of our politicians, pundits or anyone else on this board seems to have delt with this issue directly in some time...let's have at it.

 

What I mean is given potential options:

1. Stay and stick it out.

2. Leave immediately.

3. Start a withdrawl, but leave special forces.

4. Bomb the heck out Iraq before leaving.

5. Divide Iraq in 3s and set up separate governments.

6. And any other scenarios anyone can think of,

 

What are to pros and cons and what do you view as the likely reactions of the players as a result?  Give a prediction of the outcome.

612267[/snapback]

 

6.

 

Leave slowly, and start the transfer to Syria. After we destroy them, it's on to Iran.

 

Is it going take a long time and cost a lot of money? Yes.

 

But it needs to be done.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Since this topic has been mentioned in a number of posts recently and since non of our politicians, pundits or anyone else on this board seems to have delt with this issue directly in some time...let's have at it.

 

What I mean is given potential options:

1. Stay and stick it out.

2. Leave immediately.

3. Start a withdrawl, but leave special forces.

4. Bomb the heck out Iraq before leaving.

5. Divide Iraq in 3s and set up separate governments.

6. And any other scenarios anyone can think of,

 

What are to pros and cons and what do you view as the likely reactions of the players as a result?  Give a prediction of the outcome.

612267[/snapback]

 

Does "nuke it and start over" fall under #4 or #6?

 

I...honestly don't have an answer. Three years ago I might have (and it would have been: "Treat Muslims like Muslims, not horribly misguided Americans in need of remedial reeducation.") Now? We're !@#$ed if we leave, and !@#$ed if we stay. Either one's ultimately a drag on the economy and going to kill Americans...the real difference is the certainty of the immediate impact if we stay balanced against the abstraction of future impact if we leave now.

 

And one of the big problems in analysis is: Iraq policy doesn't exactly exist in a vacuum. Whatever we do there directly impacts the attitudes of Europe and the Middle East and has long-term repercussions most of us (and most anyone in the media, outside of maybe Tom Friedman) don't really comprehend (quick: of all the options you listed, tell me how each one affects North and South Korean attitudes towards North Korea's nuclear program. And given the fashionable European anti-Americanism and Chirac's continuing attempts to drive the EU and China closer together, what are the implications for Taiwan 10-15 years from now?)

 

It's easy to complain about "Iraq". It's a lot harder to realize that Iraq is a small part of a greater whole, and consider it accordingly.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Does "nuke it and start over" fall under #4 or #6?  Possibly?....

 

It's easy to complain about "Iraq".  It's a lot harder to realize that Iraq is a small part of a greater whole, and consider it accordingly.

612294[/snapback]

 

Agreed, but heck this group probably can do as well as what Washington is doing with the issue on both sides. I am sure some will even mimic the partisan rancor. Just wondering if we could discuss it any more intelligently? Enjoyed your post, still, what could be done to address those oncerns including using a preemptive strick against North Korea as we leave Iraq?

[Lori]

First thing I'm going to do is give y'all a link to an article I just finished reading:

Foreign Affairs magazine: Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon

 

The title's kind of weird, because the entire point of the article is that the situation in Iraq is anything but a replay of Vietnam. According to author Stephen Biddle, we're not EVER going to "win the hearts and minds" of the Sunni 'insurgents', and continuing to train and equip a mostly Shi'ite and Kurdish military/police force may actually be one of the worst things we could do.

Read it and see what you think...

 

Some Cliff Notes replies to your options (as my curfew is fast approaching):

1. Stay and stick it out.

- You won't like this, but that seems to be the "least bad" option right now.

2. Leave immediately.

- Result: immediate, full-scale civil war with significant atrocities committed by both sides.

3. Start a withdrawl, but leave special forces.

- Not sure what that would accomplish.

4. Bomb the heck out Iraq before leaving.

- Pointless. The only effect would be further increasing anti-U.S. sentiment worldwide.

5. Divide Iraq in 3s and set up separate governments.

- Possibly not a bad short-term solution, but would most likely lead to civil war in the long run. And in the meantime, who patrols the new 'borders'? There's also a question of what happens to the minority sects in each region... potential genocide, is my guess.

More tomorrow.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

First thing I'm going to do is give y'all a link to an article I just finished reading:

Foreign Affairs magazine: Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon

 

The title's kind of weird, because the entire point of the article is that the situation in Iraq is anything but a replay of Vietnam. According to author Stephen Biddle, we're not EVER going to "win the hearts and minds" of the Sunni 'insurgents', and continuing to train and equip a mostly Shi'ite and Kurdish military/police force may actually be one of the worst things we could do.

Read it and see what you think...

 

Some Cliff Notes replies to your options (as my curfew is fast approaching):More tomorrow.

612342[/snapback]

Neat, didn't know the magazine was still in publication, still have some old copies from my high school days.

[KRC]

1. Stay and stick it out.

This is my first choice. You cannot leave something just because it is difficult. We started it, we stay until the Iraqi government can take control of everything. The Iraqi government will dictate when we start leaving. At least, that is my preference.

 

 

 

2. Leave immediately.

Dumb move, IMO. Iraq cannot govern itself yet, nor provide what the citizens need. They need help. It should be a gradual turnover.

 

 

3. Start a withdrawl, but leave special forces.

We start withdrawing when Iraqi forces (police and military) can assume control of the functions we are currently providing. This will be done slowly and at the pace the Iraqi government dictates. I do not think the country is ready for a withdrawal, yet. We need to stick around a little longer.

 

 

 

4. Bomb the heck out Iraq before leaving.

Nope. Not a smart move and you will create more problems.

 

 

 

5. Divide Iraq in 3s and set up separate governments.

Again, nope. What I would see happening with this is one or two of the countries will gang up on the smaller of the three and take over. Once they do that, then the remaining two will fight it out. I think you need to leave the country intact.

 

 

 

6. And any other scenarios anyone can think of,

612267[/snapback]

I think you pretty much covered most of the major scenarios. It is pretty clear what my opinions are on this. We stick around until the Iraqi government tells us that they can control things. We withdraw at a slow pace. As the Iraqi government can take control of a function, we turn it over to them and shift forces to another area of concentration. Once we see Iraq taking over enough functions that we have too many people there, then we start to withdraw. There is no set timetable and there should be no set timetable. It happens when it happens.

 

I am glad you brought this topic up. It is too bad that nobody else thought of doing it. I see good discussions coming out of this.

[KRC]

quick: of all the options you listed, tell me how each one affects North and South Korean attitudes towards North Korea's nuclear program.

612294[/snapback]

 

Enjoyed your post, still, what could be done to address those oncerns including using a preemptive strick against North Korea as we leave Iraq?

612305[/snapback]

 

You guys are toying with me now, aren't you?

 

Sounds like another good thread topic: Options for the North Korean situation. I'll put something together.

[Ghost of BiB]

Hard to answer, as I don't have enough specific detail on internals right now. Also, I would have done a few things quite differently to start, but that would be spilled milk now. All options are bad, so it's a matter of figuring out something the least destructive. My thoughts now are based on now, not really on what I'd like to see.

 

1. I would not cut and run just yet. I would change the tone and composition of my "occupation" force. Full court press to get Iraqi security and police up to speed, don't waste a dime here. Get the friggen lights working.

2. Full court press to engage other governments in the ME to assist in the reconstruction process, especially in influencing the religious leadership. I would include Syria and Iran overtly, to help prevent them from screwing crap up covertly. Publicly foster through the mosques the ideas of restraint. This would work a lot better if it looked like an regional show rather than an American one.

3. Accept the fact I'm going to have a religious government, hoping for some secular attitudes. As far as the US is concerned, if it's a moderate government willing to work in our interest to some degree, who cares?

4. Maybe modify the three state concept into one country with a three state confederation. This confederation operates autonomously in matters of religious law and custom, but is aligned and allied towards common national issues such as defense but more importantly oil revenue sharing. Civil rights will be a sticking point, especially with women's issues. Most women haven't covered their faces there for a while, and probably don't want to start now. This is probably unworkable as everyone is pretty inter-mixed to a degree right now anyway.

5. Maybe the hardest part, but engage the rest of the world diplomatically as much as possible to quit doing sh-- to screw stuff up.

 

I'll think of more, but this might be able to give the year or two of breathing room to help get things more settled down. I think we've also made an ally in the region that doesn't want us for one. There is probably going to have to be some sort of a defense support package should someone else in the region get froggy before Iraq is ready.

 

A lot of this crap is their own fault. I know, I know - it wouldn't be an issue if we hadn't invaded, but that's water under the bridge for everyone now. I keep going back to engaging the politicals and the religious types from within the middle east. Some way needs to get found to get them to stop fighting themselves. It will be difficult, but not impossible to build a better framework where everyone has the impression they are being treated more or less fairly.

 

Keep in mind, like so many others, Iraq really hasn't been a country long. I keep hearing "We are only 200 years old, and Iraq has been around thousands of years"

 

No, Iraq came about in the 20th Century, after WW1.

 

It's time to become pragmatic, and to quit blowing idealistic smoke up people's asses. We stuck ourselves into a muslim/ethnic mess in Bosnia. What worked there?

[chicot]

Since this topic has been mentioned in a number of posts recently and since non of our politicians, pundits or anyone else on this board seems to have delt with this issue directly in some time...let's have at it.

 

What I mean is given potential options:

1. Stay and stick it out.

2. Leave immediately.

3. Start a withdrawl, but leave special forces.

4. Bomb the heck out Iraq before leaving.

5. Divide Iraq in 3s and set up separate governments.

6. And any other scenarios anyone can think of,

 

What are to pros and cons and what do you view as the likely reactions of the players as a result?  Give a prediction of the outcome.

612267[/snapback]

 

6. Set a definite timetable for withdrawal - no ifs, no buts - "we are leaving by such and such a date". That will give a big incentive for the so-called Iraqi "government" to actually start making some real decisions instead of their endless dithering, because they would be facing the very real prospect of losing power (possibly their lives) if they don't sort things out before then.

[Ghost of BiB]

6. Set a definite timetable for withdrawal - no ifs, no buts - "we are leaving by such and such a date". That will give a big incentive for the so-called Iraqi "government" to actually start making some real decisions instead of their endless dithering, because they would be facing the very real prospect of losing power (possibly their lives) if they don't sort things out before then.

612450[/snapback]

 

That crossed my mind, but it's too risky. I think that would also step up the tempo of outside interference and cause people inside, like Al Sadr to really dig in their heels. The government doesn't have the tools yet to enforce their legitimacy. So unless you draw a line in the sand dated 2205, it might create more problems than solve.

[RI Bills Fan]

Unfortunately, the idea that we have a choice at this point appears (to me) to be wishful thinking. We created this situation by (Rightly or wrongly, which isn't the issue here) removing the only "Strongman" who had both the political powerbase and the necessary enforcement infrastructure to rule that madhouse. We now must "ride the tiger" until the next jockey is sufficiently prepared. Any attempt at a "dismount" in the near future will only get the new jockey quickly eaten.

 

The real questions seem to be:

 

What can we change policy-wise that will help make the new jockey's ride possible?

 

Is there a way to prop up the current government to the point where the country will become stable enough to permit a withdrawal without that action causing greater escalations in sectarian violence?

 

Can a democratically elected government ever be effective in ruling a country in that region without being co-opted as an arm of the Mullahs?

 

If not; which of the current Religious Leaders is the best choice for us to (covertly) back? Which one would be both strong enough and willing to (with the right inducements) help stabilize the new government AND be a prime mover in quelling the sectarian violence?

[chicot]

That crossed my mind, but it's too risky. I think that would also step up the tempo of outside interference and cause people inside, like Al Sadr to really dig in their heels. The government doesn't have the tools yet to enforce their legitimacy. So unless you draw a line in the sand dated 2205, it might create more problems than solve.

612458[/snapback]

 

I doubt that the government will ever have the tools to enforce their legitimacy and their legitimacy will always be questioned as long as they have to rely on foreign support to maintain it. Also, theoretically at least, this should be the call of the Iraqi parliament and not of the US since they have stated they will leave when asked. In the last parliament, some 40% or so were in favour of setting a timetable for the end of the occupation. With increased Sunni representation now, this may well have grown to a majority. As for Al-Sadr, he may actually be one of the few people who can help to unite Shiite/Sunni divisions, as, as well as his Shiite powerbase, he is also well respected by many in the Sunni community.

[Ghost of BiB]

Unfortunately, the idea that we have a choice at this point appears (to me) to be wishful thinking. We created this situation by (Rightly or wrongly, which isn't the issue here) removing the only "Strongman" who had both the political powerbase and the necessary enforcement infrastructure to rule that madhouse.  We now must "ride the tiger" until the next jockey is sufficiently prepared. Any attempt at a "dismount" in the near future will only get the new jockey quickly eaten.

 

The real questions seem to be:

 

What can we change policy-wise that will help make the new jockey's ride possible?

 

Is there a way to prop up the current government to the point where the country will become stable enough to permit a withdrawal without that action causing greater escalations in sectarian violence?

 

Can a democratically elected government ever be effective in ruling a country in that region without being co-opted as an arm of the Mullahs?

 

If not; which of the current Religious Leaders is the best choice for us to (covertly) back? Which one would be both strong enough and willing to (with the right inducements) help stabilize the new government AND be a prime mover in quelling the sectarian violence?

612465[/snapback]

 

All of which I'm sure people are busy scratching their heads over. I see the highlighted part as a potential bomb, as that is a lot of the Iranian model, and they are impossible to deal with.

 

I also question how much of this is TRULY sectarian in terms of ideology, as opposed to fear of payback and fairly sharing state revenues? Could some of this be fixed by specifically addressing those two, and once again - bring in other countries from within the region to help mediate? Shia to Shia, Sunni to Sunni. Of course, everyone would have to be watched like a hawk, and some clear ground rules followed. But, this is also very much in their interest.

 

I'm wondering, probably insanely, if bringing Iran into the process somehow could help us with our Iranian problems as well.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

First thing I'm going to do is give y'all a link to an article I just finished reading:

Foreign Affairs magazine: Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon

 

The title's kind of weird, because the entire point of the article is that the situation in Iraq is anything but a replay of Vietnam. According to author Stephen Biddle, we're not EVER going to "win the hearts and minds" of the Sunni 'insurgents', and continuing to train and equip a mostly Shi'ite and Kurdish military/police force may actually be one of the worst things we could do.

Read it and see what you think...

 

Some Cliff Notes replies to your options (as my curfew is fast approaching):More tomorrow.

612342[/snapback]

 

Not bad for an article written by an organization controlled by the illuminati.

 

</sarcasm>

 

In all honesty, though, good find.

[RI Bills Fan]

All of which I'm sure people are busy scratching their heads over. I see the highlighted part as a potential bomb, as that is a lot of the Iranian model, and they are impossible to deal with.

 

I also question how much of this is TRULY sectarian in terms of ideology, as opposed to fear of payback and fairly sharing state revenues? Could some of this be fixed by specifically addressing those two, and once again - bring in other countries from within the region to help mediate? Shia to Shia, Sunni to Sunni. Of course, everyone would have to be watched like a hawk, and some clear ground rules followed. But, this is also very much in their interest.

 

I'm wondering, probably insanely, if bringing Iran into the process somehow could help us with our Iranian problems as well.

612474[/snapback]

 

I don't see that as workable, largely due to the current political climate. Although it wouldn't be the first time we worked a backdoor project with a country while the headlines concentrated on our disagreements with that country over another issue.

 

Still, as you just stated, the Iranians are impossible to deal with, so how could we trust them not to co-opt the process to their own ends? wouldn't that just be setting up Iraq as a "puppet state" of the Iranian Mullahs? How long would it take them to see that it could be a long term benefit to them to keep the tiger enraged and snarling (which I believe they are already covertly doing).

 

As distasteful as it may be I'd rather see someone like Al-Sadr, or Al Sistani(sp), becoming the "Power behind the Throne." At least (I Hope) an Iraqi Cleric would have the needs of his Iraqi Powerbase as his primary concern.

[Ghost of BiB]

I don't see that as workable, largely due to the current political climate. Although it wouldn't be the first time we worked a backdoor project with a country while the headlines concentrated on our disagreements with that country over another issue.

 

Still, as you just stated, the Iranians are impossible to deal with, so how could we trust them not to co-opt the process to their own ends? wouldn't that just be setting up Iraq as a "puppet state" of the Iranian Mullahs? How long would it take them to see that it could be a long term benefit to them to keep the tiger enraged and snarling (which I believe they are already covertly doing).

 

As distasteful as it may be I'd rather see someone like Al-Sadr, or Al Sistani(sp), becoming the "Power behind the Throne." At least (I Hope) an Iraqi Cleric would have the needs of his Iraqi Powerbase as his primary concern.

612488[/snapback]

 

Do they see themselves as Iraqis first? Or as Sunnis-Kurds-Shias first? I think the latter, could be wrong. But for that reason, I don't see the value in backing one or another. As for the highlighted part, of that there is no doubt.

 

As to the highlighted parts, there's little doubt that's what they are doing already, so why not try to find a mechanism to make them an overt part of the process, where they can be watched? I know it's really a wild shot, but we have choices of bad, worse, worse, bad and worse. As we can't go back to 2003 and start over, what new thing or combinations is going to work?

 

As for pulling out, I still go back to my basic question. Do we want a country with a foreign policy of pre-emption in world affairs? Or do we want a country where we observe and react to the ones we don't like? That's probably another thread, as it's general and not specific to Iraq. I'll start one and see what happens.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Do they see themselves as Iraqis first? Or as Sunnis-Kurds-Shias first? I think the latter, could be wrong. But for that reason, I don't see the value in backing one or another. As for the highlighted part, of that there is no doubt.

 

As to the highlighted parts, there's little doubt that's what they are doing already, so why not try to find a mechanism to make them an overt part of the process, where they can be watched? I know it's really a wild shot, but we have choices of bad, worse, worse, bad and worse. As we can't go back to 2003 and start over, what new thing or combinations is going to work?

 

As for pulling out, I still go back to my basic question. Do we want a country with a foreign policy of pre-emption in world affairs? Or do we want a country where we observe and react to the ones we don't like? That's probably another thread, as it's general and not specific to Iraq. I'll start one and see what happens.

612496[/snapback]

 

The multi-state solution worked in Yugoslavia.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'm wondering, probably insanely, if bringing Iran into the process somehow could help us with our Iranian problems as well.

612474[/snapback]

 

I always liked that idea from the "friends close, enemies closer perspective". Fundamentally, there's no real reason the US and Iran shouldn't pursue closer relations...

 

...except for the Israeli question. Everyone tends to forget that...as though US-Iran (or -Iraq, or -Pakistan, or what have you) relations exist in a vacuum.

[Ghost of BiB]

The multi-state solution worked in Yugoslavia.

612499[/snapback]

 

Which doesn't sit between Syria and Iran.

 

Everything going on right now in my mind is forcing an eventual serious confrontation with Iran. Whatever gets done has to weigh that possibility heavilly.