Iraq Future?

[alaskaguy]

Is our presence in Iraq coming to a head? That appears to be the case. The United States gives bonuses to soldiers willing to re-enlist equivalent to a year's salary. In addition, the military is accepting people with criminal records. There is an officer shortage. The desertion rate is the highest in 30 years. And some people don't believe that our military is stretched to thin?

The crux now is how can we leave without creating an even larger disaster? I used to advocate that we should spell out what kind of reconstruction we would create for Iraq and then let them vote if they want us to stay or not. This solution is no longer viable since we can't afford to let the military stay much longer without clearing out our prisons and turning them into soldiers, or something equally crazy. In addition, polls show that nearly all Iraqis want us to leave anyway. Virtually all Iraqis believe we are there for their oil (they aren't stupid).

My new solution is to give the the Kurdish area to Turkey. The Turks would love this, they get most of the oil and control of the Kurds. The Kurds gain because they would have enough votes to have political influence within Turkey. Eventually the entire region joins the EU.

Give the Southern Shia area to Iran in exchange for halting their weapons programs. If they are not stupid enough to go for this just give it to them. This would casue more problems for them than sanctions.

Give the central area to Syria. No real benefit here for us, other than we get out and let them deal with the problems. I suspect they would be more effective than we would.

 

[Incyte]

Violence in Iraq is way down. Civilian and US troop deaths are way down. I know you hate this war (which is fine-many do) but things are going better. If you took an unbiased view of the situation you would see that.

We're already starting to pull back some troops. I would expect the pull-down to continue throughout the next year. We will have a presence in Iraq for a number of years but with a reduced/sustainable number of troops.

There is zero chance that your new solution would be implemented.

If the Iraqi government and people truely wanted us out of Iraq we would be gone already. I submit that your poll numbers don't arcuarately reflect the opinion of the Iraqi people.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Is our presence in Iraq coming to a head? That appears to be the case. The United States gives bonuses to soldiers willing to re-enlist equivalent to a year's salary. In addition, the military is accepting people with criminal records. There is an officer shortage. The desertion rate is the highest in 30 years. And some people don't believe that our military is stretched to thin?

The crux now is how can we leave without creating an even larger disaster? I used to advocate that we should spell out what kind of reconstruction we would create for Iraq and then let them vote if they want us to stay or not. This solution is no longer viable since we can't afford to let the military stay much longer without clearing out our prisons and turning them into soldiers, or something equally crazy. In addition, polls show that nearly all Iraqis want us to leave anyway. Virtually all Iraqis believe we are there for their oil (they aren't stupid).

My new solution is to give the the Kurdish area to Turkey. The Turks would love this, they get most of the oil and control of the Kurds. The Kurds gain because they would have enough votes to have political influence within Turkey. Eventually the entire region joins the EU.

Give the Southern Shia area to Iran in exchange for halting their weapons programs. If they are not stupid enough to go for this just give it to them. This would casue more problems for them than sanctions.

Give the central area to Syria. No real benefit here for us, other than we get out and let them deal with the problems. I suspect they would be more effective than we would.

Wow, dude......tongue firmly planted in cheek? I sure hope so!

The only reason for Turkey to want control of Kurdish Iraq would be to eliminate Kurds. I'm pretty sure Turkey would not allow any increased Kurdish political power within their country. I'm pretty sure the Kurds don't want the kind of reform that Turkey would bring to them.

I would not support any plan that gives Iran anything. Period.

Or Syria.

Again, wow :wideeyed:

 

[alaskaguy]

Wow, dude......tongue firmly planted in cheek? I sure hope so!

The only reason for Turkey to want control of Kurdish Iraq would be to eliminate Kurds. I'm pretty sure Turkey would not allow any increased Kurdish political power within their country. I'm pretty sure the Kurds don't want the kind of reform that Turkey would bring to them.

I would not support any plan that gives Iran anything. Period.

Or Syria.

Again, wow :wideeyed:

I realize that my "solution" is on the crazy side but I can't come up with more sane alternatives.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I realize that my "solution" is on the crazy side but I can't come up with more sane alternatives.

It certainly has been a cluster **** there, and I agree that our recruiting, and military in general is stretched a little thin. I do believe that we are starting see a trend of improvement, and that the new strategies are working. We'll see. I would much rather see Biden's three way division of Iraq, with the US guaranteeing the sovereignty of each.

 

[alaskaguy]

Violence in Iraq is way down. Civilian and US troop deaths are way down. I know you hate this war (which is fine-many do) but things are going better. If you took an unbiased view of the situation you would see that.

We're already starting to pull back some troops. I would expect the pull-down to continue throughout the next year. We will have a presence in Iraq for a number of years but with a reduced/sustainable number of troops.

There is zero chance that your new solution would be implemented.

If the Iraqi government and people truely wanted us out of Iraq we would be gone already. I submit that your poll numbers don't arcuarately reflect the opinion of the Iraqi people.

There are numerous polls that all demonstrate that the Iraqi population wants the US military to leave. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

The Iraqi government or at least the Iraqi Parliament wants the US military to leave. For whatever reason "the liberal media" has largely ignored this story.

Is Iraq any closer to a political solution than they were a year ago? There is zero progress on the political front to create a united Iraq. The sectarian divisions are as deep as ever. How long is it going to take for the US government to acknowledge that a united Iraq just isn't in the cards?

 

[Cyclonepride]

There are numerous polls that all demonstrate that the Iraqi population wants the US military to leave. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

The Iraqi government or at least the Iraqi Parliament wants the US military to leave. For whatever reason "the liberal media" has largely ignored this story.

Is Iraq any closer to a political solution than they were a year ago? There is zero progress on the political front to create a united Iraq. The sectarian divisions are as deep as ever. How long is it going to take for the US government to acknowledge that a united Iraq just isn't in the cards?

I agree that we have to be mindful of the political realities, but I think that basic safety and stability have to be in place for political progress to make headway. I'm not going to say the surge is an unmitigated success, but it has reversed the trend, at least temporarily.

 

[herbicide]

This solution is no longer viable since we can't afford to let the military stay much longer without clearing out our prisons and turning them into soldiers, or something equally crazy.

Something equally crazy = Reinstating the draft.

Neither political party or any single politician wants to support a draft, obviously it would be career suicide.

Honestly though, if we stay on the current course, reinstating the draft may have to be done.

 

[herbiedoobie]

There are numerous polls that all demonstrate that the Iraqi population wants the US military to leave. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

The Iraqi government or at least the Iraqi Parliament wants the US military to leave. For whatever reason "the liberal media" has largely ignored this story.

Is Iraq any closer to a political solution than they were a year ago? There is zero progress on the political front to create a united Iraq. The sectarian divisions are as deep as ever. How long is it going to take for the US government to acknowledge that a united Iraq just isn't in the cards?

Au Contraire, my polar bear friend, there IS a political solution, staring us in the face. A more decentralized, weaker federal government, made of a confederation of provinces will "probably" replace the current centralized government.

The provinces are becoming more and more powerful, as they fall "in line" with US security efforts. And the reason this is becoming more and more unpopular with the central gov't types, is that they will lose their "namby-pamby, good for nothing jobs" ala "Blazing Saddles".

And, sectarianism is not "quite" the dead-end it is portrayed to be. It is my understanding that the most powerful tribes that are driving this bottom-up approach, are intentionally split, Shi-ia/Sunni-wise, in order to solve sectarian issues, (Such as the Al Sadaqt) or and have been, for long before modern history. The hard-core "all-Sunni" tribes like the Al Muwaffeq, or "all-Shi-ia" tribes like the Al Ratib Rais, are losing out to the more moderate tribes, who are split, internally.

What we need, is a measured response to those who threaten this process, money to develop infrastructure, and strong support by the non-military branches of government to ensure the money and blood do not go for nothing.

Or we could just pull out and "see what happens."

 

[alaskaguy]

Au Contraire, my polar bear friend, there IS a political solution, staring us in the face. A more decentralized, weaker federal government, made of a confederation of provinces will "probably" replace the current centralized government.

The provinces are becoming more and more powerful, as they fall "in line" with US security efforts. And the reason this is becoming more and more unpopular with the central gov't types, is that they will lose their "namby-pamby, good for nothing jobs" ala "Blazing Saddles".

And, sectarianism is not "quite" the dead-end it is portrayed to be. It is my understanding that the most powerful tribes that are driving this bottom-up approach, are intentionally split, Shi-ia/Sunni-wise, in order to solve sectarian issues, (Such as the Al Sadaqt) or and have been, for long before modern history. The hard-core "all-Sunni" tribes like the Al Muwaffeq, or "all-Shi-ia" tribes like the Al Ratib Rais, are losing out to the more moderate tribes, who are split, internally.

What we need, is a measured response to those who threaten this process, money to develop infrastructure, and strong support by the non-military branches of government to ensure the money and blood do not go for nothing.

Or we could just pull out and "see what happens."

It would be great if the political solution that you outlined (or Biden's) would work and I suspect that it will be attempted. The problem I have with going down that road is how long is it going to take? At issue is the longer we occupy Iraq, the more our perception deteriorates globally. In addition, I'm not even sure that as long as we are in Iraq that a solution is possible given the Iraqi perception of the occupation. Some vision and diplomacy are critical at this junction.

There is no question that my proposal is out of the box. It would break up Iraq but I don't see that as a big deal, the country was pretty much arbitrarily created to begin with. The up side (if it worked) is that we could potentially get regional countries on our side for a huge change. It certainly would take some of the financial burden off of us.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Is our presence in Iraq coming to a head? That appears to be the case. The United States gives bonuses to soldiers willing to re-enlist equivalent to a year's salary. In addition, the military is accepting people with criminal records. There is an officer shortage. The desertion rate is the highest in 30 years. And some people don't believe that our military is stretched to thin?

The crux now is how can we leave without creating an even larger disaster? I used to advocate that we should spell out what kind of reconstruction we would create for Iraq and then let them vote if they want us to stay or not. This solution is no longer viable since we can't afford to let the military stay much longer without clearing out our prisons and turning them into soldiers, or something equally crazy. In addition, polls show that nearly all Iraqis want us to leave anyway. Virtually all Iraqis believe we are there for their oil (they aren't stupid).

My new solution is to give the the Kurdish area to Turkey. The Turks would love this, they get most of the oil and control of the Kurds. The Kurds gain because they would have enough votes to have political influence within Turkey. Eventually the entire region joins the EU.

Give the Southern Shia area to Iran in exchange for halting their weapons programs. If they are not stupid enough to go for this just give it to them. This would casue more problems for them than sanctions.

Give the central area to Syria. No real benefit here for us, other than we get out and let them deal with the problems. I suspect they would be more effective than we would.

A radical yet interesting solution. A couple questions?

Who is going to do the giving away? The USA, the UN, the Arab League or whomever?

Implementing a partition of a sovereign nation would be done under what recognized authority?

 

[herbiedoobie]

A radical yet interesting solution. A couple questions?

Who is going to do the giving away? The USA, the UN, the Arab League or whomever?

Implementing a partition of a sovereign nation would be done under what recognized authority?

I agree with Mr. Tremain. We do not have the authority to give away pieces of Iraq. Neither do we have the authority to "implement" a political solution.

I don't think we have the moral authority to "just pull out and forget about Iraq", either. I think we are stuck, and need to find a way to withdraw that does not lead to complete and utter chaos. (I think a certain amount of chaos is inevitable, in the Arab world, compared to the Western world.)

I think the current military leadership is onto something, there. To pull out the funding rug right now, despite all that has gone before, would be dangerous. At least, without a solid plan on how to deal with it. The current refusal to fund the war without immediate withdrawal is like playing Russian Roullette with a 500 pound bomb. Everyone will get splattered, when it goes off.

 

[alaskaguy]

A radical yet interesting solution. A couple questions?

Who is going to do the giving away? The USA, the UN, the Arab League or whomever?

Implementing a partition of a sovereign nation would be done under what recognized authority?

Chapter five of Iraq's constitution allows any of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be grouped into regions. Provincial governors in the Southern Shia area, Central Iraq, and the northern Kurdish regions could vote themselves, individually or collectively, autonomy.

Even though the Iraqi's want the U.S to leave, the majority of the population supports a timeline for withdrawal rather than an immediate withdrawal. Iraqis seem to understand that an immediate withdrawal is likely to lead to even more violence. Therefore, the newly partioned areas would likely accept outside assistance for security and governance. Negotiations would then take place to determine the security and governance arrangements for the partioned areas. Neighboring countries would be invited to attend. Once the U.S. makes it's intent clear that it will be withdrawing from the partioned areas the terms of the security and governance arrangements could be negotiated.

 

[alaskaguy]

I agree with Mr. Tremain. We do not have the authority to give away pieces of Iraq. Neither do we have the authority to "implement" a political solution.

I don't think we have the moral authority to "just pull out and forget about Iraq", either. I think we are stuck, and need to find a way to withdraw that does not lead to complete and utter chaos. (I think a certain amount of chaos is inevitable, in the Arab world, compared to the Western world.)

I think the current military leadership is onto something, there. To pull out the funding rug right now, despite all that has gone before, would be dangerous. At least, without a solid plan on how to deal with it. The current refusal to fund the war without immediate withdrawal is like playing Russian Roullette with a 500 pound bomb. Everyone will get splattered, when it goes off.

I am not advocating an immediate pullout. What I am advocating is that Iraq be partioned and that we negotiate with neighboring countries for the security of the partioned countries.

Is there a shared national identity between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunni's? If there is a shared national identity why do the Kurds ban the national army and police from their territory? Or why don't the Sunni's trust the Shiite dominated security forces?

Let’s face reality. A partition is a better outcome than the US trying to unite a country that can not be united. It is also better than a Sunni-Shiite civil war. It is also better than an indefinate U.S. commitment to the area.

 

[alaskaguy]

A radical yet interesting solution. A couple questions?

Who is going to do the giving away? The USA, the UN, the Arab League or whomever?

Implementing a partition of a sovereign nation would be done under what recognized authority?

Johnny I should have mentioned that you asked good questions. I don't think that I completely answered your questions so here is the remainder of my response.

Realistically Iraq is owned by the US government. I would have a difficult time arguing otherwise. So the US goes into negotiations with the neighboring countries. From a practical aspect who is going to complain? The Iraqis maybe but who cares? We might even get the UN to sanction this? I don't see any reason the Russians or Chinese would be opposed, do you?

The invasion/occupation isn't recognized so why should we be concerned about the legality of the partition? Nevertheless, the Iraqi constitution does appear to be a fallback position. But what history has taught me is that the victors always make the rules. The arbitrary boundries in the middle east (and in Africa) are the source of many of these problems.

 

[iceclone]

I am not advocating an immediate pullout. What I am advocating is that Iraq be partioned and that we negotiate with neighboring countries for the security of the partioned countries.

Is there a shared national identity between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunni's? If there is a shared national identity why do the Kurds ban the national army and police from their territory? Or why don't the Sunni's trust the Shiite dominated security forces?

Let’s face reality. A partition is a better outcome than the US trying to unite a country that can not be united. It is also better than a Sunni-Shiite civil war. It is also better than an indefinate U.S. commitment to the area.

Yes, Iraqis have a shared national identify that dates back thousands of years and pre-dates Islam and any division between the Shi'a and Sunni branches. The division does exist to some extent but it has been exacerbated by us (due to ignorance) and by the Iranians and the Saudis (due to their own interest). However, there can and will be a unified Iraq again.

The Kurds probably don’t have much such national identification, much like the Kurds in Turkey don’t feel like Turks, and the Kurds in Iran don’t feel like Persians. That is a separate problem, but it suffices to say that neither Turkey nor Iran would ever tolerate an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Such a state would have to be defended by US forces forever.

 

[alaskaguy]

Yes, Iraqis have a shared national identify that dates back thousands of years and pre-dates Islam and any division between the Shi'a and Sunni branches. The division does exist to some extent but it has been exacerbated by us (due to ignorance) and by the Iranians and the Saudis (due to their own interest). However, there can and will be a unified Iraq again.

The Kurds probably don’t have much such national identification, much like the Kurds in Turkey don’t feel like Turks, and the Kurds in Iran don’t feel like Persians. That is a separate problem, but it suffices to say that neither Turkey nor Iran would ever tolerate an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Such a state would have to be defended by US forces forever.

I fully agree with your assessment of the Kurdish situation.

I hope that your assessment that there can and will be a unified Iraq is accurate. The Sunni-Shia split in Iraq is complex. The relationship is illustrated by a recent Time article which I considered worth reading:

Link:
Behind the Sunni-Shi'ite Divide - TIME

A few excerpts follow:

The Sunni-Shia split is a product of centuries of social, political and economic inequality, imposed by repression and prejudice and frequently reinforced by bloodshed. The hatred is not principally about religion. Sunnis and Shi'ites may disagree on some matters of dogma and some details of Islam's early history, but these differences are small--they agree on most of the important tenets of the faith, like the infallibility of the Koran, and they venerate the Prophet Muhammad. Despite the claims by some Arab commentators, there is no evidence that Iraq's Shi'ite extremists are trying to convert Sunnis, or vice versa. For Iraqi fighters on both sides, "their sect is nothing more than a uniform, a convenient way to tell friend from enemy," says Ghanim Hashem Kudhir, who teaches modern Islamic history at Baghdad's Mustansiriya University. "What binds them is not religion but common historical experience: Shi'ites see themselves as the oppressed, and they see Sunnis as the oppressors."

And the conclusion:
Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting for a secular prize: political domination.

So what do I think? First, I don't share your optimism. I believe that the Sunni and Shiites are biding their time and will strike against each other given the opportunity(meaning once the American security forces leave).

 

[iceclone]

I fully agree with your assessment of the Kurdish situation.

I hope that your assessment that there can and will be a unified Iraq is accurate. The Sunni-Shia split in Iraq is complex. The relationship is illustrated by a recent Time article which I considered worth reading:

Link:
Behind the Sunni-Shi'ite Divide - TIME

A few excerpts follow:

The Sunni-Shia split is a product of centuries of social, political and economic inequality, imposed by repression and prejudice and frequently reinforced by bloodshed. The hatred is not principally about religion. Sunnis and Shi'ites may disagree on some matters of dogma and some details of Islam's early history, but these differences are small--they agree on most of the important tenets of the faith, like the infallibility of the Koran, and they venerate the Prophet Muhammad. Despite the claims by some Arab commentators, there is no evidence that Iraq's Shi'ite extremists are trying to convert Sunnis, or vice versa. For Iraqi fighters on both sides, "their sect is nothing more than a uniform, a convenient way to tell friend from enemy," says Ghanim Hashem Kudhir, who teaches modern Islamic history at Baghdad's Mustansiriya University. "What binds them is not religion but common historical experience: Shi'ites see themselves as the oppressed, and they see Sunnis as the oppressors."

And the conclusion:
Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting for a secular prize: political domination.

So what do I think? First, I don't share your optimism. I believe that the Sunni and Shiites are biding their time and will strike against each other given the opportunity(meaning once the American security forces leave).

My “optimismâ€￾ does not exclude bloodshed, which will surely continue to happen. I also agree that violence isvery likely increase significantly whenever American troops leave. This seems almost inevitable before they eventually figure out some way of making things work themselves. I have no idea what the outcome will look like, and since I have very little stake in it I would not presume to try to prescribe what it should look like.

The source of my “optimismâ€￾ is largely because Iraqi Arabs do indeed have a national identity, even though one group has been the traditional ruling class of that nation. The article you cite seems to reinforce that view: they are fighting for the political power in a nation to which both sides belong. They are not fighting to splinter away like the Kurds.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Johnny I should have mentioned that you asked good questions. I don't think that I completely answered your questions so here is the remainder of my response.

Realistically Iraq is owned by the US government. I would have a difficult time arguing otherwise. So the US goes into negotiations with the neighboring countries. From a practical aspect who is going to complain? The Iraqis maybe but who cares? We might even get the UN to sanction this? I don't see any reason the Russians or Chinese would be opposed, do you?

The invasion/occupation isn't recognized so why should we be concerned about the legality of the partition? Nevertheless, the Iraqi constitution does appear to be a fallback position. But what history has taught me is that the victors always make the rules. The arbitrary boundries in the middle east (and in Africa) are the source of many of these problems.

"Realistically Iraq is owned by the US government."
I can only wish that were true.

"From a practical aspect, who is going to complain?"
Just about anyone who has any kind of an interest in Iraqi oil. That probably means everybody in the world.

"I don't see any reason the Russians or Chinese would be opposed, do you""
Currently Putin is complaining loudly and bitterly about our intent to position our missile shield radar in ex-Iron Curtain nations of Poland and the Czech Republic. He will oppose us on any and every issue we propose.

".....so why should we be concerned about the legality of the partition?"
Because most of the nations around the world will not recognize the partition.

"But what history has taught me is that victors always make the rule."
Maybe in other times and places in history. I am not sure you can make that case for us in Iraq in 2007.

 

[alaskaguy]

"Realistically Iraq is owned by the US government."
I can only wish that were true.

"From a practical aspect, who is going to complain?"
Just about anyone who has any kind of an interest in Iraqi oil. That probably means everybody in the world.

"I don't see any reason the Russians or Chinese would be opposed, do you""
Currently Putin is complaining loudly and bitterly about our intent to position our missile shield radar in ex-Iron Curtain nations of Poland and the Czech Republic. He will oppose us on any and every issue we propose.

".....so why should we be concerned about the legality of the partition?"
Because most of the nations around the world will not recognize the partition.

"But what history has taught me is that victors always make the rule."
Maybe in other times and places in history. I am not sure you can make that case for us in Iraq in 2007.

I thought the purpose of the surge was to provide breathing space for Iraqi political leaders so that they could make the hard choices necessary for political reconciliation. The surge may be providing the breathing space. Nevertheless, the political decisions are stiill not on the front burner and there doesn't appear to be much optimism that political reconciliation will be happening in the near future.

I recognize that my plan has weaknesses. However, there are critical issues connected with every proposed political plan. The primary goal of any plan should be regional stability, and my plan does that as well as any proposed diplomatic solution?

What do you suggest we do? Continue the military occupation indefinately hoping that the political pieces will fall in place?

A diplomatic surge must accompany the military surge at some point. Since the U.S. has long overstayed it's welcome, the chances of the U.S. brokering a diplomatic surge can not be good. And having all the regional actors involved increases the complexity of the deal since all the actors must be happy with the agreement.

I'm sure that Jordan and Syria don't want to deal with any more Iraqi refugees so you would think that they would be motivated in finding a diplomatic solution. But what about Iran? Will Iran settle for anything less than an allied government?