Where is Iraq Going?

[gipper]

Where Iraq is going has been the question of the hour since 2003 and not only remains so but for as far as the eye can now see. The answer is not so much elusive as it is unknowable with so many factors bearing on the problem in unforeseen ways, with so many intangibles combining with with entrenched, hostile interests and developing, explosive dynamics that the outcome, on either a short-term or a long-term basis, is a matter of sheer speculation and hope. If this portrait glowers with the reality of the situation, then should we persist in a die-hardd campaign of hope, or should we regroup and retrench (out-country) to fight smarter and wiser with the far horizon in our sights?

[BT]

Define far horizon.

[gipper]

I'll define "far horizon" in two dimesions for present purposes: 1) temporally: what is the best we can "hope for/expect" 10 yearss down the road, 20, or "permanently"; and 2) spatially: while the impact of our actions now have a global reach, to "simplify" analysis I will just limit our scope of concern to the Middle East, the Islamic world in general and movements therein diverging on a spectrum from moderate/modernizing to raadical/violent/terroristic/atavistic.

[BT]

And the desired outcome of this long term vision?

[gipper]

Peace.

[fatman]

I have yet to see anyone from any major political philosophy advocate an acceptable policy for our dealing with Iraq.  On the one hand, if we pull the troops out, now or in the near future, we open up possibilities of genocide, a worse civil war than they have now, or an economic calamity caused by destabilised oil stocks.  On the other hand, if we stay and keep doing what we're doing, we keep dumping money into Iraq that could be put to better use here at home, not to mention the loss of life and the public's simmering dissatisfaction with the situation.  This leaves us (the US) in a very bad situation, and I'm not concerned so much as with whose fault it is as I am with how to remedy it.

[BT]

Peace.

To achieve this long term goal, what interim steps are necessary?

[gipper]

That's the question.

[BT]

and your answer is?

[gipper]

Get a new, competent president.

[BT]

seems your solution is US-centrict.

What about the other players in the region?

[_JS]

What about the possibility of simply "containing" the violence as best we can? For most practical purposes the violence is mostly taking place in one area, the problem is that this area includes Baghdad (or a sizable piece thereof).

The problem as I see it is this:

1. The Shi'ites are not going to forget what the Sunni did to them under Saddam Hussein (or if they have long memories, all the way back to British occupation). In some ways, this situation would be similar to suddenly turning all power in Israel over to the Palestinians. The Sunni, even the ones who disliked Hussein but kept their mouths shut, lived a decent middle class life off of the backs of the Shi'ites. Now, this wasn't true of all Shi'ites, but a large enough group that they are pissed. They've had their families taken away and tortured, killed, buried in unmarked mass graves, perhaps their sisters or mothers were raped...whether we wish to accept it or not, some of that is going to be paid in blood.

2. The Kurdish people faced the same awful treatment. They had mass graves. They had entire villages bombed or hit with artillery rounds with chemical weapons. I really doubt they will feel a great sympathy for the Sunni Muslims who wish to fight it out.

3. Iran. Here's the thing with Iran and I know some of you won't like it. After the first Gulf War, the Shi'a and Kurds saw an excellent opportunity to seek freedom from Saddam's tyranny. The nation that helped them both was Iran. Iran had agents in place in both areas and helped bring in weapons during the post-war confusion in Baghdad. When both insurrections failed, it was Iran that helped Shi'a and Kurdish officials escape. In fact, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki once lived in refuge in Iran and President Jalal Talabani has close ties in Tehran. In 1983 when Kurdish villages were gassed, it was Iran that brought foreign journalists in to film the travesty.

That is not to say that Iran is not a selfish actor in this civil war. The problem is credibility. Where Americans see a sinister force in Iran, most Shi'ites and Kurds in Iraq do not. In fact, when they hear Americans whining about Iraqis not being thankful enough, they likely remember Iran far more fondly than they do the United States - who set up NFZ's, but did little else while Shi'a and Kurds were being massacred, tortured, and sent to mass graves in 1991.

The United States, in the form of President Bush urged the uprisings, but then did nothing to help. In some cases U.S. soldiers watched as hospitals and residential homes were bombarded and destroyed in deliberate strikes on civilians, designed to inflict terror on the Shi'a in the South and the Kurds in the North.

So the question is credibility. The Shi'a and Kurds felt betrayed by the United States, but not Iran. So while we make Iran out to be a majopr threat and enemy, I seriously doubt the Kurdish and Shi'a people will take our word over theirs.

4. Terrorism?: The idea of us "fighting terrorism over there so we don't have to fight it over here" is a somewhat Orwellian theme that really needs to be dropped. Most of the major violence is strictly sectarian and part of the civil war that is taking place in Iraq.

The pure Wahhabi religious terrorism, which we link to al-Qaeda is minimal and nearly non-existent. The main figure behind this was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was described as a "terrorist mastermind" and given credit for much of the early violence (mistakenly it seems). In reality, al-Qaeda has never been very strong in Iraq and is likely very divided in what small presence they have (look at it this way, there's a lot of competition in the violence game in Iraq).

One interesting note in a document found in a Zarqawi safe house was the hope of bringing the Americans and Iranians (hence the Shi'a as well) to a great animosity and hopefully (if you are al-Qaeda) open warfare. No mistake about it, al-Qaeda supports the Sunni here.

5. Sunni? And that brings us to the Sunni Muslims. Saudi Arabia publicly pledged to help the Sunni fight against the Shi'a and Shi'a domination (which in theory would happen, even in a democratic form of government). In fact, Saudi Arabia warned President Bush that they would do this. The Sunni are at a disadvantage in numbers, but they have the backing of nations with a great deal of money and influence.

So what can we do?

[gipper]

My solution may or may not actually be US-centric, which may or may not be a fault in orientation, but it most definitely is US-conscious, the only perspective from which I can reliably speak, unless you want to get into a discussion of the psycho-social-political aspects of world citizenship, a status few can achieve, I suggest, any more than one can shed personal identity in virtually any discussion: which doesn't rule out altruism, but most definitely locates where it emanates from. More to the point, we can only control what we can control, and influence what we can influence. To speak of other players in the region, in terms of present realities, is to speak in terms of potentialities that sometimes (rarely) we can control, more frequently we can influence, and always we can react to (in a positive sense) to turn a "player's" actions into, if not a harmonious whole, then at least a non-dangerous part. Moving on, my vision sees in 2009 a radical departure from present US policies, in ways that we can develop in future discussion. No more "ideal" than Bush's original conceptions for Iraq, my ideas, I submit, incorporating the full range of peaceful and belligerent measures designed to allow moderate voices of Islam to prevail, our natural allies, simply cannot be implemented by the present administration consistent with any rational continuation of its past. Perhaps inapt but nonetheless partly illustrative, for Bush to change in the ways that need changing would be like Paul falling off his horse on the way to Damascus.

[BT]

It appears then that the ball is in your court. Can you help elect a democrat president who will change course on mid-east policy?

Hillary doesn't seem to think her vote for authorization was wrongheaded, her bigger problems are with execution. Remember, she was calling for an 80k troop surge long before the ISG did.

Can Obama win? Is he your best hope?

[Michael Tee]

My solution - - or at least a thought on the solution - - get the U.S. out since they're obviously the aggressors and the cause of the whole problem; not the root cause, maybe, but the irresponsible schmucks who let the cats out of the bag in their ruthless and cynical  quest for self-aggrandizement.  Everyone hates them and they're a magnet for attacks, a rallying call for popular resistance and even international Muslim intervention.  They're by now irredeemably branded as rapists, torturers and murderers.  No self-respecting Iraqi could ever accept their presence any more than a self-respecting Frenchmen could abide Wehrmacht occupation troops on French soil.

Replace them with U.N. troops from which all Muslim participation is excluded (to avoid partisanship in the inter-Muslim religious civil war.)  Ideally, from large nations with no recent history of colonialism in Muslim lands or oil imperialism:  Brazil, Indonesia,Spain (?) and Poland come to mind.  Nations such as India and China which are potentially huge buyers of Mid-East oil should be excluded.  Or in a second approach, if disinterested parties are too hard to find, the command should be split among interested parties, which would let in bigger countries more able to shoulder the burden:  the U.S.A., China, Russia, India, France; with the command effectively split so that it would be impossible for any one country to dominate the effort.

I start with the premise that these people obviously need guidance and protection while they work out a way to (a) either all get along together or (b) fairly and peacefully agree to go their own separate ways.  This has to be an IRAQI decision.  The U.S. is obvioulsy incapable of proving that protective guiding force, simply because everyone in Iraq sees them for what they are and does not trust them; since they have zero legitimacy, any government or solution that emerges under their occupation will similarly lack legitimacy.

My other solution, if the U.N. won't step up to the plate, was a fifty-year lockdown with 500,000 U.S. troops in place, swarming over every inch of populated area and in total control of the society.  Oil revenues administered by a trust of Europeans audited by auditors appointed by the U.S. government will pay for the occupation costs, with the surplus invested for the benefit of the post-occupation Iraqi government.  During that time, it will be an offence punishable by death to teach religion of any kind, Christian, Muslim etc., to anyone under the age of 35, all mosques and churches will be closed to anyone under 50, and all the children will attend mixed public schools in which they are made to study Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Plato and the Greek philosophers, compelled to learn English and to memorize the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address.  During that time all political parties will be banned.   Islamic dress or any public display of religious afiliation will be banned.  

At the end of the first forty years, they will be given a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America and told that they must begin to govern themselves under it, but that at the end of the 50th year of the occupation, they will be given the opportunity to vote in a national referendum on accepting or rejecting their "new" Constitution.  75% approval required, otherwise back to chaos.