Iraq Future?

[iceclone]

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 think a good argument can be made that a true reconciliation cannot happen until Iraqis are faced with no other choice. Right now, they have another choice, namely to rely on the US for maintaining order. Indeed, I personally don't think a true reconcilation will happen until we leave.

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?

I very strongly disagree that a division of Iraq will lead to regional stability. In fact, I think it would create problems that make current problems pale in comparison. A politically separate Kurdistan would draw both Iran and Turkey into direct conflict. A Shi'a Arab state in the south would never be well tolerated by Saudi Arabia, and hence likely draw Iran and Saudi Arabia into a more direct conflict. I think this is a recipe for disaster.

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 know this question wasn't for me, but I favor a fairly rapid withdrawal. I don't know what the exact date should be, but I suspect that if Petraeus was asked to get things as stable as he could and then start withdrawing troops, he would start doing it early next year. From my point of view, the President should thus be saying that he wants to see troops coming home as soon as possible, and then letting the people on the ground determine a timetable for achieving that goal.

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?

There are really no good-faith regional actors outside of Iraq. Everyone has their own interest in seeing Iraq not succeed (or at least not too much). The US is probably the only outside interest that has a chance of acting as a good-faith broker, but it seems that this is an internal Iraqi matter, which must be solved from within.

 

[alaskaguy]

I'm not convinced that political reconciliation is a reality.

The US government has scaled back the political goals for Iraqi unity. Furthermore, the reconciliation is considered to be "a long way down the path" if at all.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/washington/25policy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

My take on the notion that Iraq will eventually become a stable, united, secular democracy is that it is an illusion.We should not be asking more Americans do die for an illusion.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I think a good argument can be made that a true reconciliation cannot happen until Iraqis are faced with no other choice. Right now, they have another choice, namely to rely on the US for maintaining order. Indeed, I personally don't think a true reconcilation will happen until we leave.



I very strongly disagree that a division of Iraq will lead to regional stability. In fact, I think it would create problems that make current problems pale in comparison. A politically separate Kurdistan would draw both Iran and Turkey into direct conflict. A Shi'a Arab state in the south would never be well tolerated by Saudi Arabia, and hence likely draw Iran and Saudi Arabia into a more direct conflict. I think this is a recipe for disaster.



I know this question wasn't for me, but I favor a fairly rapid withdrawal. I don't know what the exact date should be, but I suspect that if Petraeus was asked to get things as stable as he could and then start withdrawing troops, he would start doing it early next year. From my point of view, the President should thus be saying that he wants to see troops coming home as soon as possible, and then letting the people on the ground determine a timetable for achieving that goal.



There are really no good-faith regional actors outside of Iraq. Everyone has their own interest in seeing Iraq not succeed (or at least not too much). The US is probably the only outside interest that has a chance of acting as a good-faith broker, but it seems that this is an internal Iraqi matter, which must be solved from within.

My post here is my response to alaskaguy although I have it hitched to iceclone's remarks. Essentially I adopt his observations and conclusions with a caveat or two.

I am not sure how much, if any, " true" or lasting reconciliation is in Iraq's future whether we stay or withdraw. Religious anomosities and differences and their attendant grievances run deep. I can visual agreements of convenience between the various antagonists to achieve some common goal such as the withdrawal of US military forces. Once that goal is achieved, a power struggle, probably violent, will determine what becomes of Iraq. I hate to say it but I see an ayatollah (dictatorship) the most likely outcome.

My second exception would be that I do not see us playing the role of a good-faith broker in any negotiations between any of the antagonists because (a) we would not be viewed in that light by any the parties to the negotiations and (b) it it not likely that we, in light of our stake in the future of Iraq, would accept a role where we might be required to act against our vested interests.

 

[herbiedoobie]

"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.

Best post in "the cave" that I've read. We are currently living realpolitik circa 2007, in Iraq.

I think that a loose confederation is the most probable outcome, with outside actors creating a status quo of desultory warfare for the forseeable future. I don't think the time for an effective dictator will come for some while, much less a stable and democratic Iraq.