What should we do with/about Iraq

[RI Bills Fan]

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]

 

Actually I think they would see themselves as Iraqi Sunni-Kurds-Shias. As oppsosed to just Sunni-Kurds-Shias. The question revolves around the Power-Base of the individual(s) chosen. His/Their Power-Base needs to be Iraqi rather than Iranian. Any attempt to use an outside power base as the force propping up the Iraqi Government will not change the situation IMHO, but instead will just serve to further escalate the problems.

 

And in response to your Basic Question; My preference is both. We need the ability to act pre-emptively when absolutely necessary but our primary response mode should be observe and react (militarially) only when no other options are available. Just by way of example Afganistan fits the first criteria and Iraq fits the second. (Read that any way you like, it is an example only! The debate as to whether or not we should have gone into Iraq is moot, we did, and now we must deal with the results.)

[Ghost of BiB]

Actually I think they would see themselves as Iraqi Sunni-Kurds-Shias. As oppsosed to just Sunni-Kurds-Shias. The question revolves around the Power-Base of the individual(s) chosen. His/Their Power-Base needs to be Iraqi rather than Iranian. Any attempt to use an outside power base as the force propping up the Iraqi Government will not change the situation IMHO, but instead will just serve to further escalate the problems.

 

And in response to your Basic Question; My preference is both. We need the ability to act pre-emptively when absolutely necessary but our primary response mode should be observe and react (militarially) only when no other options are available. Just by way of example Afganistan fits the first criteria and Iraq fits the second. (Read that any way you like, it is an example only! The debate as to whether or not we should have gone into Iraq is moot, we did, and now we must deal with the results.)

612531[/snapback]

 

I don't think I'm saying use an outside power base to prop anyone. If anyone has to be propped, everyone loses. I forgot to add in the Persian vs. Arab angle, too, seems like the least of the factors. But, as you say and as everyone realizes, Iran is totally not to be trusted, so I guess going down that road was dumb on my part. All in all, if there actually were some way to get the region more involved in moving Iraq to a coherent process, I think it might be helpful. I don't think we are going to get an American proxy in Iraq, I'm looking at mitigating the future.

[Ghost of BiB]

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.

612505[/snapback]

 

From our perspective, sure. The problem is the Iranians, who have a completely distorted view of not only us, but of themselves. I agree with Pollack on that, we basically payed little attention to them for years, but they operated under the idea we are and always were preoccupied with them.

 

I forget Israel not one bit. As melodramatic as it may sound, everything needs to play out with an eye on preventing a nuclear exchange between Israel and players yet to be named. Don't let the map distance fool anyone, lots of ties between Hammas and Iran.

[X. Benedict]

This going to sound like a cliche, but I think the choice that is the least bad is #1.

We are deeply invested in what was a gamble from the beginning, I agree with CTM that this can't be looked at in isolation, if you pull out unilaterally with nothing to fill the vacuum, lots of nasty things can develop throughout the entire region.

 

The nascent government may not be perfect, but hopefully it will be something. It may not be able to control the whole country, but it may be able to control some of it. This is a weak hand but it is preferable to controlling none of it.

 

I read the Foreign Affairs acticle and I think there is something deeply unsatisfying about it that my mind hasn't come around to grasping (perhaps it is the scope of the comparison). It is worth the read, however.

 

Edit: On the Foreign Affairs acticle, I read this a few weeks ago and re-read it today, and I think that the "communal civil war" notion tends to underplay the significance of the regional players. It also seems to be written from the perspective that the Sunni held provinces would emerge as the most detering forces and underplays the both the Shite militias and their ability to enforce law independent of the government. While the militias may be clearly sectarian, they have evolved to fill a security vacuum and are not as one dimensional in their concerns as just grabbing power, with Sistani they represent both a mechanism for some sort of urban security in the minds of the people, and in this light also have grown in their moral suasion. The article seems to think the Al'Sadr is a type of aboration and is not placed in the wider Shite context.

Edited February 27, 2006 by X. Benedict

[Taro T]

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]

As none of the options appear to be "good", I would prefer a course based on option 1. One thing this option provides is additional time to try and figure out how to proceed in a manner that will end up with a viable Iraq at the end of the process.

 

I also would like to see Saddam's trial get put in order instead of the circus it seems to be. Perhaps if the Kurds and Shiites saw that they really do not have to fear Saddam nor his top advisers returning to power, they may be a bit more willing to strike compromises with the Sunnis on matters of "national" security and how to divvy up oil revenues.

 

As to options 2, 4, 5, or 6; I see them creating many more problems than the current ones and am in no hurry to choose one of them.

[X. Benedict]

From our perspective, sure. The problem is the Iranians, who have a completely distorted view of not only us, but of themselves. I agree with Pollack on that, we basically payed little attention to them for years, but they operated under the idea we are and always were preoccupied with them.

 

I forget Israel not one bit. As melodramatic as it may sound, everything needs to play out with an eye on preventing a nuclear exchange between Israel and players yet to be named. Don't let the map distance fool anyone, lots of ties between Hammas and Iran.

612600[/snapback]

I was surprised to learn his take that Iran is unilaterally obsessed with the US.

Am I characterizing that correctly?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

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.

612496[/snapback]

While the later is probably correct, the Shias also don't see themselves as Persian and Al'Sadr will eventually demand independence from Iraq for that reason and for a typical power desire.

 

I like the 3 state confederation idea that you suggested while bringing in Syria and Iran to overtly part of the process. As you stated they already are covertly part along with who knows who else...

 

Still would need heavy monitoring and probably an Arab moderator government on the ground. Not sure who, possibly Jordan or Egypt if they were willing, but not sure.

 

I don't think sticking it out is the answer anymore and other options need to be considered and tried before it gets worse.

[Ghost of BiB]

I was surprised to learn his take that Iran is unilaterally obsessed with the US.

Am I characterizing that correctly?

612668[/snapback]

 

Pretty much. Maybe not to the degree he indicates, IMO but on enough of a scale to make it a big factor. That's why regime changes and undermining don't work there. As much as Iranians don't care much for their leadership, they circle the wagons when it comes to the US. Looking at history over the last hundred or so years, I can't say I blame them. And, the current leadership there is basically void of any moderation. We had our shot with the last one, but the Mullahs intervened and shorted out his moderate support within the govenment. They weren't going to "approve" a candidate this time where there was any danger of that.

[Ghost of BiB]

While the later is probably correct, the Shias also don't see themselves as Persian and Al-Sadr will eventually demand independence from Iraq for that reason and for a typical power desire.

 

I like the 3 state confederation idea that you suggested while bringing in Syria and Iran to overtly part of the process.  As you stated they already are covertly part along with who knows who else...

 

Still would need heavy monitoring and probably an Arab moderator government on the ground.  Not sure who, possibly Jordan or Egypt if they were willing, but not sure.

 

I don't think sticking it out is the answer anymore and other options need to be considered and tried before it gets worse.

612687[/snapback]

 

Everyone's rhetoric and hyperbole aside, we're well way past that point. I don't want to risk the "Bush Bad pinko commie" crap, but I still don't get why we haven't long since shifted gears. This whole thing wasn't to hard to see coming, without getting into the post mortems.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Everyone's rhetoric and hyperbole aside, we're well way past that point. I don't want to risk the "Bush Bad pinko commie" crap, but I still don't get why we haven't long since shifted gears. This whole thing wasn't to hard to see coming, without getting into the post mortems.

612699[/snapback]

Yeh I know and that is what is frustrating, in many respects the stay the course action seems to be letting events control our policy, not our policy controlling events unlike during the initial invasion.

 

My hyperbol...invasion which I thought was stupid... but we are passed it, you are right.

 

So, how best to minimize any more damage in the process? Notice I did not say get out. Think that would also be irresponsible. We just need to have less fingerprints on the process. How best to accomplish that will only occur when a decision on a new direction is determined.

 

Like Johnson before, we may have to wait another 3 years...Democrat or Republican.

[Ghost of BiB]

Like Johnson before, we may have to wait another 3 years...Democrat or Republican.

 

Which rolls back to my original concerns. Is this country going to vote for whoever says they will "make it stop" without anyone examining the consequences of just trying to make it go away? We have to have some kind of Foreign Policy other than not to have one. What direction is right?

 

This administration still has time, and things really haven't been going on all that long. I also have no idea what they really ARE doing, it just looks like they get trumped pretty easy. One thing seems to be pretty clear, and that's red, white and blue ideology isn't going to matter and something practical needs to take place. Iraq was never, and is never going to be the 52nd state.

 

But anyway, my quick answer is still to confederate, with the central government focused to the common good, let everyone regionally play in the adjustment process (if nothing else, to diffuse the idea we are trying to create an American-Israeli puppet) and put a full court press, damn the dollars, to get Iraq up and running. Running water, electricity and cable would go a long way to slowing down the violence.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Which rolls back to my original concerns. Is this country going to vote for whoever says they will "make it stop" without anyone examining the consequences of just trying to make it go away? We have to have some kind of Foreign Policy other than not to have one. What direction is right?

 

This administration still has time, and things really haven't been going on all that long. I also have no idea what they really ARE doing, it just looks like they get trumped pretty easy. One thing seems to be pretty clear, and that's red, white and blue ideology isn't going to matter and something practical needs to take place. Iraq was never, and is never going to be the 52nd state.

 

But anyway, my quick answer is still to confederate, with the central government focused to the common good, let everyone regionally play in the adjustment process (if nothing else, to diffuse the idea we are trying to create an American-Israeli puppet) and put a full court press, damn the dollars, to get Iraq up and running. Running water, electricity and cable would go a long way to slowing down the violence.

612744[/snapback]

Agreed, it would be a much easier policy for a future admin to adopt if it were changed now and has albeit short history of making progress and less likely the next one would choose or see as viable the cut and run approach.

[Mickey]

Have the Iraqi government issue an ultimatum, a timetable with definite dates for our withdrawl. Then follow it. Have lots of ceremonies marking the handover each step of the way. Then declare the whole thing a big victory and leave it up to the Iraqi's to sink or swim on their own. Btw, no permanent bases in Iraq, none.

 

The result?

 

A. a civil war: if so, it becomes a problem for every one to solve, not just us. The UN complains, fine, let them committ troops to pacify the warring factions. They won't? Fine, they can't then blame us for not re-re-invading Iraq. Maybe let Arabs figure out how to stabilize an Arab state in chaos?

 

B. they work it out, we take credit

 

 

Either way we are outta there and so we stop bleeding lives and money. Iraq either fixes itself or the rest of the world figures out what, if anything, should be done or better yet, Arabs themselves intervene.

 

The primary approach here is to recognize that the long term future of Iraq is not really within our power to decide. There are no strings we can pull to make this puppet dance the dance we want it to dance. We have largely done all that was doable. We got rid of Saddam, we broke the back of his regime. We have given them the beginnings of a democracy. Reality. There is only so much that we can do.

[Mickey]

Which rolls back to my original concerns. Is this country going to vote for whoever says they will "make it stop" without anyone examining the consequences of just trying to make it go away? We have to have some kind of Foreign Policy other than not to have one. What direction is right?

 

This administration still has time, and things really haven't been going on all that long. I also have no idea what they really ARE doing, it just looks like they get trumped pretty easy. One thing seems to be pretty clear, and that's red, white and blue ideology isn't going to matter and something practical needs to take place. Iraq was never, and is never going to be the 52nd state.

 

But anyway, my quick answer is still to confederate, with the central government focused to the common good, let everyone regionally play in the adjustment process (if nothing else, to diffuse the idea we are trying to create an American-Israeli puppet) and put a full court press, damn the dollars, to get Iraq up and running. Running water, electricity and cable would go a long way to slowing down the violence.

612744[/snapback]

I think the historical problems with that kind of solution focuses on borders. What do you do with a nation that is ethnically or religiously interlaced? The population distribution does not follow sharply marked geographic or political boundaries. What do you do with Sunni's living in Shiite areas? With Shiites living in Sunni areas? With Kurds? Can you imagine the displacement as refugees from one area move to another? What happens to those who don't move despite suddenly being a minority in a poltical subdivision? Abuse at the hands of the majority in their sector which is avenged by their kin in their own sectors?

 

Admittedly, it sounds appealing but I think in practice, it might not really be viable. My first take anyway.

[Ghost of BiB]

I think the historical problems with that kind of solution focuses on borders.  What do you do with a nation that is ethnically or religiously interlaced?  The population distribution does not follow sharply marked geographic or political boundaries.  What do you do with Sunni's living in Shiite areas?  With Shiites living in Sunni areas?  With Kurds?  Can you imagine the displacement as refugees from one area move to another?  What happens to those who don't move despite suddenly being a minority in a poltical subdivision?  Abuse at the hands of the majority in their sector which is avenged by their kin in their own sectors?

 

Admittedly, it sounds appealing but I think in practice, it might not really be viable.  My first take anyway.

612824[/snapback]

 

I've already agreed. But by the same token, if they are already intermixed and living together (and I personally know a few who are, and could give a shidt) is this really an internal problem driven by sects as opposed to other motives? I don't think so. Suggest three states to a common goal, and if it ever for a second looked real to the affiliated "Mosques", they might back up and reconsider.

 

Also remember, that you will always hear about bombs where they blow up, not where they don't. I think a lot of Iraqis want the toilet to flush, and to watch Iraqi Idol. Get that fixed and the 5% who wants to make it something it really isn't will go play somewhere else.

[Mickey]

I've already agreed. But by the same token, if they are already intermixed and living together (and I personally know a few who are, and could give a shidt) is this really an internal problem driven by sects as opposed to other motives? I don't think so. Suggest three states to a common goal, and if it ever for a second looked real to the affiliated "Mosques", they might back up and reconsider.

 

Also remember, that you will always hear about bombs where they blow up, not where they don't. I think a lot of Iraqis want the toilet to flush, and to watch Iraqi Idol. Get that fixed and the 5% who wants to make it something it really isn't will go play somewhere else.

612853[/snapback]

I don't know where the line is, but there is one. On one side of the line is violence at a level that can be tolerated and the government survive, on the other is violence at a level that can't be tolerated so that the government can neither govern nor survive. That is the side we are on now. How do I know? I don't but if we were on the other side, we could go. We are still there so I think there is a good chance that those who make our decisions have decided that we are still on the "too violent to survive" side of things.

[X. Benedict]

I don't know where the line is, but there is one.  On one side of the line is violence at a level that can be tolerated and the government survive, on the other is violence at a level that can't be tolerated so that the government can neither govern nor survive.  That is the side we are on now.  How do I know?  I don't but if we were on the other side, we could go.  We are still there so I think there is a good chance that those who make our decisions have decided that we are still on the "too violent to survive" side of things.

612869[/snapback]

Are you suggesting that we tacitly support partition?

[Mickey]

Are you suggesting that we tacitly support partition?

612885[/snapback]

No, the line I am talking about isn't between two governments. I was addressing bib's point that Iraq isn't as violent as it appears, that it is being caused by 5% of the population, etc. Doesn't matter whether it is 1%, 5% or 50%, it is enough to prevent the government from effectively governing or even surviving once we leave. The line is between violence a government can survive and violence a government can't survive.

[X. Benedict]

No, the line I am talking about isn't between two governments.  I was addressing bib's point that Iraq isn't as violent as it appears, that it is being caused by 5% of the population, etc.  Doesn't matter whether it is 1%, 5% or 50%, it is enough to prevent the government from effectively governing or even surviving once we leave.  The line is between violence a government can survive and violence a government can't survive.

612893[/snapback]

gotcha.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

No, the line I am talking about isn't between two governments.  I was addressing bib's point that Iraq isn't as violent as it appears, that it is being caused by 5% of the population, etc.  Doesn't matter whether it is 1%, 5% or 50%, it is enough to prevent the government from effectively governing or even surviving once we leave.  The line is between violence a government can survive and violence a government can't survive.

612893[/snapback]

The lesser degree than appears of violence part of your statement is hard to fathom. Where are you getting your info. My cousin, an intelligence officer over there now, before he actually crossed into Iraq was stationed in Bahrain and could hear the explosions regularly from there and now is in the green zone and it is a regular occurence. Other soldiers that I have talked to express the same experiences about the violence. Granted my info is recent statistics that have upticked as a result of the sectarian violence and the annectdotal info that I have heard from soldiers.

 

What they say that is being underreported is the violence from all the fighting going on between U.S. raids and groups fighting them. But I do agree with your conclusion about a line of tolerance. Just think that it is going to take a lot more work or serious change in tactics to achieve that goal. I don't think we should underestimate the difficulty in achieving that worthy goal.