BAGHDAD (still) -- So, check this blast from the past from my buddy Matt Stannard at the SF Chronicle: Iraqi stragglers still pose threat to allied troops patrolling capital / Hit-and-run attacks likely to persist...
Organized military opposition to U.S. and British forces in Iraq has evaporated rapidly since the fall of Baghdad, U.S. military leaders say, but small groups of fighters -- irregulars -- are still defending the fallen regime. These "pockets of resistance" -- the preferred phrase used widely by pundits -- have existed since the first days of the campaign, when American generals said such stragglers would be "mopped up" once the main thrust was complete.
The story dates from April 11, 2003, two days after the U.S. "helped" pull down the Saddam statue in Firdos square near the Palestine Hotel. Ah, we were so young. No one really knew it at the time, but Stannard was eerily prescient in his description of a "third type" of resistance:
A third type of resistance may prove even harder to handle, analysts said: suicide bombers such as the one who reportedly killed himself and injured four Marines at a Baghdad checkpoint Thursday. Dressed in civilian clothing and willing to die for relatively small military victories, those individual Iraqis -- or, in some cases, foreign nationals visiting Iraq specifically to attack Americans -- may prove the thorniest challenge for U.S. and British forces in coming days, analysts said.
It was just after these early days -- in June and July -- that the Iraqi resistance/insurgency formed around these vestigial cells of Ba'athists and fedayeen. Throw in some foreign fighters, sprinkle in a whole lotta Gulf money and bingo -- you've got a quagmire. It's really a shame that no one predicted this. Oh, wait! Someone did!
Instead of a nice, clean occupation that results in the first Arab democracy -- and a network of Army bases from which to project power throughout the region -- I predict the United States will have years of guerilla insurgency from nationalistic Iraqis (some of the fiercest nationalism in the Arab world), the dirty job of suppressing Kurdish and Shi'ite independence movements and Sunni power grabs, the problem of al Qai'da slipping across the borders (with the help of Iran and sympathetic Saudis) into the country to stike at American troops and meddling in Iraq's internal affairs by Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia. And don't forget the resentment in the region that will occur when the United States begins exploiting the Iraqi oil fields for its own purposes. No one will like that, least of all the Iraqis.
OK. So I wasn't 100 percent right on all of this. (Russia? What the hell was I thinking?) But I was pretty close. As were a lot of other people a whole lot smarter than me.
But crowing "I told you so!" -- which is not even emotionally gratifying anymore -- does little to solve the problem. But I don't know what the solution is anymore. We're a hair's breadth away from civil war, American troops can neither stay or go without an even higher body count and we have a political process that is awash with egos, sectarian tensions and lacking in leadership. And that's just in America. It's even worse in Iraq.
I have to confess: I can't see a way out of this briar patch without a whole lot more bloodshed. And at the risk of sounding defeatist -- hell, I've been here a long time, I can say what I want -- I see the likely end as defeat and ruin for Iraqis, the United States and the region. Feel free to use the comment section to suggest realistic solutions 'cause I'm fresh out of ideas. (By the way, if you don't post a comment, then the terrorists win.)
First, rubbing the Jingo Tom-Tom Beaters’ noses in yours/ours/most peoples’ predictions of where this would end up is perfectly legitimate. You’ve earned it. God knows they sought to rub our noses in their slam-dunk “win” on Mission Accomplished/End of Major Combat Operations/CodPiece day…
Reasonable Proposal For Iraq.
Figure out what 3 more years of occupation would cost.
Develop a set of benchmarks that would lead to an acceptably stable Iraqi government.
Offer the Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds the money = to 3 years of occupation if the benchmarks are met.
Pull out all U.S. troops and wait for an answer.
Second, we’ve got to announce a pull-out schedule.
My good friend uz made an excellent case for a timetable in January of 2005. His case is as valid today as it was then.
I like feral1’s answer. However, aside from the wealth that is simply being consumed (in the form of ordinance, fuel, food, etc), lots of that money is simply wealth being transferred from taxpayers to individual Americans (soldiers and mercs in the form of pay) and corporations. So you’d have to subtract that out, which would probably halve the figure (at least). It’s not like we’re paying the locals 4 billion a month for stuff.
Most people are [justifiably] worried about a sectarian bloodbath occuring in the power vacuum created by our departure, however since there is already a sectarian bloodbath occurring, why prolong it with our continued presence?
We lose an average of 2+ American servicepeople per day over there - the bulk of which are killed by IEDs. I’ll be criticized for saying this, but kids getting vaporized by IEDs while they’re driving around in Humvees isn’t a sacrifice for our freedom. It is simply a tragic waste of a life that accomplishes nothing. Are we prepared to waste 2 American lives per day, every day, indefinitely?
I don’t understand what the problem is that prevents the Iraqi Army from getting effectively trained. It doesn’t seem to be working. If it is EVER going to work, you can be damn sure that they’ll step up to the plate if it is made clear to them that they have SIX MORE MONTHS of our training and after that they’re on their own.
You’d have to subtract out the soldier’s salaries, but I wouldn’t subtract the contractors salaries. Those would not be incurred by the government if we weren’t in Iraq. Anyway, this of course is just a general framework for an idea. As they say the devil is in the details.
Tell the Iraqis if they don’t for a government and stop the violence, we’re putting Ralph Peters in charge, and every Iraqi male will have to undergo a personal interview by Peters-trained specialists to determine their sexual adequacy and whether they are psychotic or not.
Tell the Iraqis if they don’t form a government and stop the violence, we’re putting Ralph Peters in charge, and every Iraqi male will have to undergo a personal interview by Peters-trained specialists to determine their sexual adequacy and whether they are psychotic or not.
Many people have provided thoughtful, realistic plans for withdrawing our military forces from Iraq and assisting Iraqis in rebuilding their country.
Unfortunately, none of these people have any influence whatsoever with the Bush Administration or members of Congress who could bring the Executive branch to account, or at least change course. Provide a plan that allows the current Administration to alter it’s current path and we may see progress.
Here a some wild thoughts:
1 Keep the Coalition forces in place. 2 Broker a unity government 3 Continue training Iraqi army and police force. 4 Open a dialogue with Iran 5 Hold the nerve
and
6 Pay for western journos to each do 12 months sabbatical in Darfur and Zimbabwe.
Can’t entirely agree with you, Observer. The Coalition is thinning out quite a bit. It is also one of the reasons this enterprise is burning through our national wallet. We made some heavy promises to assemble the Coalition, and will have to come through.
We’ve done #2 three times now, if you count the constitutional referendum. The current attempt is yet to prove fruitful - three months later and no unity government.
On #3 I’m inclined to agree, even though we’ve probably run a number equivalent to the whole former Iraqi army through the process, again with mixed results. Some units turned their weapons on us. Some were so corrupt they had to be disbanded. Some individuals have simply gone home to take care of their families. Others were intimidated into leaving.
4, yes. ‘Bout time. The threats have only pissed them off.Bravo on #5. FDR reminded us that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” GWB reminds us that the terrorists are gonna git us in nearly every speech.
6? Bah. We do need more journalists in Darfur and Zimbabwe, but would you leave us with al Jazeera for news from Iraq? Or do you just want our heads firmly embedded in sand?I’m still working on my own list. However, the first one is easy, and lots of former generals agree with it:
1. Fire Don Rumsfeld.I’ll add a #2 to Steve’s suggestion about firing Rumsfeld—appoint a Democrat as Secretary of Defense. We need to depoliticize the war. If we’re going to have the staying power to see this through, both parties need to have a stake in it. Andrew Sullivan actually suggested sending Clinton to Iraq as a special envoy.
Steven, that’s a good idea. One of the worst things I’ve witnessed in my lifetime is the descent of American politics into a zero-sum game. Clinton crossed the aisle to put Cohen at Defense. Were Bush to do the same with Lieberman (face it, he’s the only Democrat Bush would choose), it could help mend this terribly divided country. There’s a lot of talk of a civil war in Iraq; I worry about one here.
Preemptive strike for anyone who wants to bark at me for suggesting Lieberman - I don’t like the man, and would not want him in charge of Defense. I’m open to other suggestions.
Eep. Forgive that bit of hyperbole about a “civil war” here. What’s happening in Iraq is a helluva lot worse than America’s, shall we say, “extreme civil discourse”.
How did Lebanon pull back from all-out, seemingly all-against-all civil war to a reasonably peaceful (only the occasional Syrian car bomb assassination) state that it is today? I don’t know, but someone does. Then, try to copy that model. In the meantime, renounce SOFA’s in Iraq, and announce benchmarks.
My solution proposal:
Point out the good thing in Iraq. Don’t point out the bad things happening. Slam the bringers of bad news as hurting our troops feelings and ultimately losing the war. Continue to remain optomistic no matter what is happening and assume that we will prevail.
My solution proposal:
Point out the good thing in Iraq. Don’t point out the bad things happening. Slam the bringers of bad news as hurting our troops feelings and ultimately losing the war. Continue to remain optomistic no matter what is happening and assume that we will prevail.
G-Dog, I don’t think Mr Allbritton is looking for heavy-handed sarcasm. You were being sarcastic, right? “Hurting our troops’ feelings?” Oh diddums. Is ‘oo widdle feewings sore? “…if you don’t post a comment, then the terrorists win…” Can’t see anything above that realistically helps. You didn’t have a big enough Army of occupation to start with, certainly not for an occupation the way you did it, and you don’t have a big enough or good enough Army to intervene effectively between the sides in a civil war. First major clash between US troops and marauding Shiite militia, and it all goes to custard. Right, Chris? The terrorists win. Suggestion? The WMD are gone, Saddam is caught, and Iraq has a sort of elected government. Or may have RSN. (Real Soon Now.) Your continued presence is unjustified and likely to become merely an irritant to most Iraqis. Neo-colonial paternalism just didn’t work, guys. Stop trying, stay home where you belong, just like the rest of the world does. And don’t let Rumsfeld run your next “liberation.”
Here’s a suggestion from the other side of the pond: why don’t you, US citizens, get yourself a new president? Why did you elect this one in the first place? Why don’t you stop watching and reading lousy media that distorts your view? Why don’t you stop acting as if you’re in charge of this world? Why don’t you stop meddling in the affairs of others? Why don’t you stop driving stupid SUVs.
While the US sure did contribute a lot to this world, I wish they’d wipe this smugness of their face.
Bringing democracy to Iraq? That’s about as realistic as putting Tony Soprano in charge….
well, that last argument did it. i am indeed leaving a comment now, but i don’t have the slightest idea how iraq could become a better place, even though i’m following the situation from rather close-by, that is to say, through the web, by regular ‘baghdad-chats’ and such. for the moment it all looks pretty dark to me. but i do admire the strength of a lot of iraqi people, in iraq and its diaspora, who haven’t lost their faith in possible positive future changes. further: your articles do make the iraqi picture more complete. thanks for that.
Steve.
1 This President you’ve got doesn’t seem to be a quitter. I suspect if things got worse he’d send more troops, not withdraw them. 2 Don’t underestimate the strength of building blocks put in place with the success of those three elections, especially with the massive Sunni participation. My money is on your Ambassador to get up a unity govt. Whether it succeeds or not is another matter. 6 There was a great book written by an Italian journo about war correspondant addiction in the Viet War called “Nothing and Amen” Judging by the reporting of most of the western journos living in the Baghdad hellhole, they have totally lost perspective and context and need to take a reality check, imo.It was journalists who brought the genocide of the Bosnian Muslims into the spotlight of the early 90s which pressured the EU and the US to eventually take action.
Why the western journos are risking their lives and spending their talents talking up the Baathists and jihadists in Iraq instead of reporting on the real genocide of Darfur is beyond me.
1 Sadly, even if Rumsfield got the bullet I can’t see how how it would make any difference now.First thought (or even with out thinking):
We’ll always have a problem in accepting the others the way they are, and how to be open to discussion, not a dim stubborn who always believe that it’s somebody’s else fault…we need to learn how to hold the responsibility of our deeds, and how not to be victims anymore, apparently, there is no way out. It’s just disgusting, how the people have their pre-defined ideas about you, so that you’re meant to play that boring sick role of a victim or terrorist or just a third world pathetic creature.
Just cut it out…
Kodia:
If Bush is removed from office, Cheney takes the presidency. If he’s removed, we get Dennis Hastert (a hard-line Republican).
We’re just kinda screwed.
I don’t know that we could talk Syria into occupying Iraq for a dozen years. That’s what ended the Lebanese Civil War.
(Then they overstayed their welcome and the locals got resentful. Hm.)
1) Utilizing the threat of withdrawal, try to solve the money crisis first. For ten years, all oil receipts will be nationalized, with receipts dispensed regionally to the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, under the oversigt of the Arab League. After ten years, re-privatization would begin. I think that’d remove a major bone of contention that drives the Sunni political leadership to noncompromise.
2) US aid for infrastructure rebuilding would be done the same way. The amount we provide would be contingent on a secure Iraq policed by Iraqis within 18 months. If they meet steps in that timetable, some US troop withdrawal could begin. If they DON’T meet the 18 month target date, the amount of US infrastructure aid would be reduced 25%, and would further be reduced in 10% increments every month thereafter.
3) Stipulate that the rebuild contracts will employ Iraqis for 75% of all the needed manpower.
That’s a start, I think, that might work, if our government can overcome their abhorrence of nationalized oil.
I’m with Kevin -it’s about socializing the rebuilding process even moderately. That’s just not going to happen.
I totally agree about Iraq. If we stay everyone loses. How much more are those poor people going to hate us now that the “My Lai” incident hit the papers? If we go everyone loses. Maybe a Yugoslav type massive UN involvement, central government revenue sharing to 3 semi-autonomous provinces or something? Who knows? What a mess. I don’t drive an SUV. I didn’t vote for him. Aljazeera got kicked out of Iraq.
No answers. Don’t know much, but were the Iraqi people peaceful before the war? As in “live and let live”. Did they really hate Sadam? I think the war is because Bush had wanted vengence related to Sadam and his father. Sad so many dying. If that is true, I’d put Bush & Sadam in an arena with bare hands and let them duke it out, while we watched. That might unite people, don’t know. The next thing, is weird, but I hear a lot about god, so why not a day of prayer, each praying for peace to their gods? Or for people to simply stop waring.
No answers. Don’t know much, but were the Iraqi people peaceful before the war? As in “live and let live”. Did they really hate Sadam? I think the war is because Bush had wanted vengence related to Sadam and his father. Sad so many dying. If that is true, I’d put Bush & Sadam in an arena with bare hands and let them duke it out, while we watched. That might unite people, don’t know. The next thing, is weird, but I hear a lot about god, so why not a day of prayer, each praying for peace to their gods? Or for people to simply stop waring.
What about Zbigniew Brzezinski’s idea about inviting Iraq to invite us to leave when they decide to; leaving promptly thereafter; regional conference; and post-withdrawal donors’ conference. Best, most feasible-sounding plan I’ve yet seen—and it puts the power where it should be: in Iraqi, not American, hands.
Hey Chris, maybe you weren’t completely off about the Russian invovlement after all.
Check out this blog for 22 March http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
Caitlin
Caitlin, thanks for the link. All I can say is, verrrrry interesting. (From my hotel room in Amman. Yes, I’m out for the time being.)
Kevin H,
Your point #1 is a bad idea that would further divide the country into ethnic groupings that are more of an obsession with Westerners than they are with the people here.
Furthermore, placing trust in the Arab League to fairly administer funds between Arabs vs. Kurds is hilarious.
Your point #2 is interesting - not bad.
Point #3 is a bad idea. Right now projects are expected to be run using at least 95% Iraqi human resources - labor, craft, engineering, supervision. My projects range from 97 to 100% Iraqi labor through direct local hires and subcontracts. FYI.
Fix Iraq:
1) Do our best to nationbuild for about 2 more years. If that succeeds, our cedibility will be maintained and the Middle East might finally get moving out of the 8th century. If not, then…
2) Withdraw and let Iraq implode.
3) Declare nation building futile in the insane Middle East.
4) Declare that future US military action in the Middle East brought on by Arab Islamic terrorism will be of a more traditional sort: Attack, conquer, oppress, plunder, withdraw. No mercy, no remorse. If youdon’t want some, leave us the hell alone.
5) Build nuke plants, drill Alaska, and give the ME the finger.
orangeducks
Easy , have a big official poll in Iraq (controlled by UN), “Should we stay or should we go, NOW!?” , then no one can argue either way.
What happened to your FOIA post? Did the CIA make you take it down, under threat of being forced to stay in Baghdad?
Orangeducks, Leave US alone??? We’ve been meddling the in middle east, supporting dictators and thugs for decades!!! Do you think this thing just dropped out of the sky? We don’t leave others alone, we never do. Practice what we preach might be the answer, but acting like this big victimized bully just doesn’t cut it.
Observer, you’re right, Bush is no quitter, as his recent speeches reveal. But Rumsfeld is and was determined to do the job with as few US troops as possible, and the field commanders know it. It would cost them their career to buck him - as it has cost many already.
You’re right, I shouldn’t - and don’t - underestimate the strength of the building blocks from the elections so far. In fact, I think that a successful parliamentary democracy in Iraq is the best outcome, and I hope it happens. But democracy is a government of, by and for the people, in the words of a wise man, and can only be built from the bottom up. We, through Khalilzad, are trying to build it from the top down. (Oddly, William Odom - canned by Rumsfeld - a proponent of pulling out now, said, “Ask the president if he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because that’s just impossible.” He implies that Iraq needs another strongman because “Arab-Muslim” societies will not accept a liberal democracy. Feh. I disagree.) Unfortunately, the recent elections in Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine (and I could make a case for Iraq) reveal that anti-American people and platforms are succeeding.
Neither of my local libraries has Fallaci’s “Nothing and Amen,” but I’ll try to arrange an interlibrary loan. Sounds like an interesting book. But I don’t agree that western journalists have lost perspective. It is their job to focus on and report about what they see and where they see it. Which is why I agree that we need more reporters in Sudan and Zimbabwe. But I won’t blame the messenger. I think it is we, the American people, who have the perspective problem. Pogo famously said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” I agree with Pogo. We Americans have plenty on our plate right now with the committment of troops and treasure in Iraq. The rest of the world may just have to deal with Darfur without us right now. And I hate the fact that we have to ask that of you. (Which reminds me of #2 on my list: Fire Bolton.)
You say that even if Rumsfeld left, it wouldn’t make any difference now. Well, we’re in this for the long haul, as the president sadi, so the sooner he’s gone, the better.
Forgive the lengthy comment, Christopher. Observer, if you wish to continue the conversation, I hang out at the link below.
Oh, bugger it. I knew I shouldn’t have assumed that William Odom was canned by Rumsfeld. There were so many that I lost track. Odom retired before Bush came to office.
How about this (probably what’s going on even as we speak):
Plan A: Put as much weight as possible behind the current effort to create a government. Let Khalizad wave lots of money around, and let everyone know that the alternative is plan B.
Plan B: Take no official sides, but let the Shiites and the Kurds know that they are soon going to be responsible for their own security. Once the violence reaches a certain limit, pull the troops back to the bases, where they will intervene to prevent the fall of whatever ends up passing for a government but not suppressing minor atrocities. Come to terms with whoever rises to the top, providing heavy-duty firepower, infrastructure, and good old graft in return for maintaining a few choice bases. Declare victory and latch on to some other crisis to divert attention from Iraq.
Split the country. Manage, through diplomacy where possible and militarily where necessary a divorce of an unhappy forced marriage. Form three, maybe four countries out of it. It’ll be nasty like India - Pakistan 1947. But a third party keeping things from getting too out of hand might help. If possible get someone else to be the third party, someone interested in a peaceful settlement because of their need for the oil, but not directly a party to the current trouble, China, for instance. Who knows what they could do if they were asked nicely?
I know this is a crazy sounding solution, and I’ve no real confidence, but it’s a differnt idea that hasn’t been mentioned and I would like to brainstorm even unrealistic sounding solutions than continue contemplating the havoc that my country has caused.
So why the fear of civil war if “nationalism” reigns so fierce? Do not all of the internal divisions in Iraq contradict some sort of overriding national identity? This is a country formed by the British after WWI to be intentionally internally divisive and thus weak. I think the fundamental issue is that the US occupation is just one more in a string of Muslim humiliations from the Judeo/Christian/Infadel Occident. Iraq has to do it for themselves—this is the only way out of their humiliation and the only way to be legitimate in the eyes of the Islamic world. And by the way, a western style democracy has many elements in direct contridiction to the example set by Muhammed, e.g. the notion of individual freedom of speach, equality of women, separation of church and state, and so on. The Middle East runs on a win-lose propositions. There is no win-win. It plays by “Hama rules” according to Thomas Friedman. They know we are soft, impatient, and weak-willed as a people. We must get out of the crusade, convert, and rescue mode. We have to counter the foriegn influence in Iraq but beyond that, turn it over to the Iraquis, and do it ASAP! We can still play behind the scenes through surrogates and also out in the open as sort of a Janissary with our military. We should have a “don’t make us come out of our bases becuase a lot of people get kiled when we do” attitude. Really, that is what a good army excells at—disciplined and effective killing and destruction.
I’m surprised it took until the 40th comment for someone to mention breaking up the country. No one is mentioning this, but at this point it should at least be an issue on the table. It should be a last option, but anything that could prevent Iraq from devolving into a Darfur or Rwanda-esque sectatian bloodbath should be in consideration. And this is probably just the calm before the storm, unless a real government can be put in place soon.
Secondly, why is anyone shocked that civil war is rearing it’s ugly head in Iraq? In the history of the world, I can think of only one democratic nation that didn’t go through the growing pains of civil war on its path to stability—Japan, and the mono-ethnic Japanese nation is a far different environment than the multi-ethnic Iraq. Civil War—sooner or later—seems to be a part of the development process for any nation with a diversity of people, like it or not.
Thirdly, “nation-building” by an exterior force just doesn’t work (again, with the exception of Japan). We got lucky once, so we are doomed to repeat our mistakes?
I will risk giving two suggestions that run in differing directions:
Gradually reduce the foreign troop numbers there over time as the situation permits…
or,
Threaten to ANNEX Iraq or deliver it straight into the hands of some other country if the government doesn’t get its act together and organize its own security forces.
I wonder which option the Iraqi people would prefer…
Splitting up the country has one major stumbling block: the Sunnis and oil revenue. This could be overcome with some very creative brokering, but it won’t be easy.
I don’t think a Darfur situation is likely, but a long, bloody conflict looks to be inevitable at this point.
On the point of firing Rumsfeld, he should be fired out of priciple for not predicting what you, I, and many others predicted: a long, long period of chaos and bloodletting. It may be part of the development cycle, but everyone should have been warned going in, especially the Iraqis.
Solution? Unless you can get the Arab League to take over security until the Iraqis are able, expect more of the same.
Sorry, but at least the Arab League suggestion is new.
And, talk about coincidence, on the same page in the Archive as that article there’s this link: http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2003/01/helenthomassavagesarifleis.php to an account of Helen Thomas cleaning the White House clock….then it was Ari Fleischer, now it’s George Bush.
Gotta say, one punch from Helen and George is on the rope, punch drunk, declaiming unrelated talking points like a Speak n’Spell with low batteries. Even Scotty does better!
the most like scenario: the U.S. A. will try to murder all Iraqis, obliterate their cities, use the new US military bases to protect transplanted oil company contractors to develop the resources.
This will take years, but Bush has 3 years more.
Haven’t the faintest what the US should do — or rather, I think we’ve managed to create a catastrophe that presents no “shoulds.” What we most likely will do, when the pain becomes too great and destablizing in the US, will be to leave Iraq as a devastated failed state. We have left ourselves no other option.
First I am no fan of the current administration’s drive for primacy in the world. The “shoot and answer questions later” vice president yesterday said that the democrats lack the backbone to fight the war on terror and I would suggest the president lacks the compassion to meet with the victims of this war but certainly has no lack of compulsion to feed peeps into this meat grinder. Be they iraqis or americans. They have painted this country into a corner in iraq and I really am beginning to think that the only way they can see as a way out is to widen the conflict. syria and iran come to mind. The pacification of iraq since “mission accomplished” has been marked by complete incompetence, yes let’s give rummie a medal and fire him. Once again we have our military in a mission they are not trained or were designed for. In hindsight the iraqis would have been better off had we not begun our crusade, sodamn insane could have been pressured to leave and we would not have had this vacuum that exists now. If I had to guess what will happen to the peeps of iraq I would say that rather than democracy they will revert to tribalism along religious lines, the shiia will turn to iran, the kurds will take over the oil in the north and be a thorn in the side of the turks and the sunni will become displaced peeps supported by the saudis and fighting for nationalism. sorry for the long post but I feel neither optimistic that the current administration will change its policy any time soon or that iraqi peeps can establish a center moderate government, imho.
First I am no fan of the current administration’s drive for primacy in the world. The “shoot and answer questions later” vice president yesterday said that the democrats lack the backbone to fight the war on terror and I would suggest the president lacks the compassion to meet with the victims of this war but certainly has no lack of compulsion to feed peeps into this meat grinder. Be they iraqis or americans. They have painted this country into a corner in iraq and I really am beginning to think that the only way they can see as a way out is to widen the conflict. syria and iran come to mind. The pacification of iraq since “mission accomplished” has been marked by complete incompetence, yes let’s give rummie a medal and fire him. Once again we have our military in a mission they are not trained or were designed for. In hindsight the iraqis would have been better off had we not begun our crusade, sodamn insane could have been pressured to leave and we would not have had this vacuum that exists now. If I had to guess what will happen to the peeps of iraq I would say that rather than democracy they will revert to tribalism along religious lines, the shiia will turn to iran, the kurds will take over the oil in the north and be a thorn in the side of the turks and the sunni will become displaced peeps supported by the saudis and fighting for nationalism. sorry for the long post but I feel neither optimistic that the current administration will change its policy any time soon or that iraqi peeps can establish a center moderate government, imho.
First I am no fan of the current administration’s drive for primacy in the world. The “shoot and answer questions later” vice president yesterday said that the democrats lack the backbone to fight the war on terror and I would suggest the president lacks the compassion to meet with the victims of this war but certainly has no lack of compulsion to feed peeps into this meat grinder. Be they iraqis or americans. They have painted this country into a corner in iraq and I really am beginning to think that the only way they can see as a way out is to widen the conflict. syria and iran come to mind. The pacification of iraq since “mission accomplished” has been marked by complete incompetence, yes let’s give rummie a medal and fire him. Once again we have our military in a mission they are not trained or were designed for. In hindsight the iraqis would have been better off had we not begun our crusade, sodamn insane could have been pressured to leave and we would not have had this vacuum that exists now. If I had to guess what will happen to the peeps of iraq I would say that rather than democracy they will revert to tribalism along religious lines, the shiia will turn to iran, the kurds will take over the oil in the north and be a thorn in the side of the turks and the sunni will become displaced peeps supported by the saudis and fighting for nationalism. sorry for the long post but I feel neither optimistic that the current administration will change its policy any time soon or that iraqi peeps can establish a center moderate government, imho.
First I am no fan of the current administration’s drive for primacy in the world. The “shoot and answer questions later” vice president yesterday said that the democrats lack the backbone to fight the war on terror and I would suggest the president lacks the compassion to meet with the victims of this war but certainly has no lack of compulsion to feed peeps into this meat grinder. Be they iraqis or americans. They have painted this country into a corner in iraq and I really am beginning to think that the only way they can see as a way out is to widen the conflict. syria and iran come to mind. The pacification of iraq since “mission accomplished” has been marked by complete incompetence, yes let’s give rummie a medal and fire him. Once again we have our military in a mission they are not trained or were designed for. In hindsight the iraqis would have been better off had we not begun our crusade, sodamn insane could have been pressured to leave and we would not have had this vacuum that exists now. If I had to guess what will happen to the peeps of iraq I would say that rather than democracy they will revert to tribalism along religious lines, the shiia will turn to iran, the kurds will take over the oil in the north and be a thorn in the side of the turks and the sunni will become displaced peeps supported by the saudis and fighting for nationalism. sorry for the long post but I feel neither optimistic that the current administration will change its policy any time soon or that iraqi peeps can establish a center moderate government, imho.
breaking up Iraq - surely this can only be a decision of the Iraqi National Parliament and after referendums? None of the three major groupings have ever said they want to break Iraq up - quite the reverse in fact. No Iraqi public opinion polls indicate that the people themselves would prefer such an outcome.
civil war - has been going on ever since the Coalition removed the minority (20%) Baathist Sunni regime which had been tyrannising the majority (40%) Shiites for more than forty years.
Not surpising then that the overthrown minority ruling class has been fighting to regain control over the Shiites and the Kurds. - even to the extent of allying with the Jihadists who want to impose a Taleban-style regime.
However the civil war is nowhere near the scale of say Bosnia or Lebanon - although this is probably because of the presence of Coalition troops.
So should the US really quit unilaterally and allow a full scale civil war break out? Shouldn’t the Iraqi Govt have the decision on when US troops should leave?
Correction - the Shiite majority is actually 60% of the Iraqi population. It’s no wonder that Saddam and the Baathists had to adopt Stalinist methods to keep themselves in power for so long.
No the daily situation in Iraq has not yet reach the point seen in Bosnia or Lebanon. It did not happen over night there and is not going to happen over night in Iraq. The 60% of the population represented by the shiia are increasing falling under the sway of an Iranian cadre. They have assumed positions of power within the police force and the Iraqi army. The militarize element back by the “coalition” is not some neutral party whose sole mission is to bring the insurgents to heel and eradicate the foreign jihadists. More and More Sunnis are being picked up off the streets tortured, killed and dumped. The question you might ask it by whom? Neighborhoods are becoming polarized with either Sunnis or Shiia moving out depending which in the minority. Why is this happening?
Should the Iraqis have a referendum to decide about partitioning the country? Who would enforce it? Should the Iraqi government have the choice if the coalition forces stay or leave? Who would enforce that?
No the daily situation in Iraq has not yet reach the point seen in Bosnia or Lebanon. It did not happen over night there and is not going to happen over night in Iraq. The 60% of the population represented by the shiia are increasing falling under the sway of an Iranian cadre. They have assumed positions of power within the police force and the Iraqi army. The militarize element back by the “coalition” is not some neutral party whose sole mission is to bring the insurgents to heel and eradicate the foreign jihadists. More and More Sunnis are being picked up off the streets tortured, killed and dumped. The question you might ask it by whom? Neighborhoods are becoming polarized with either Sunnis or Shiia moving out depending which in the minority. Why is this happening?
Should the Iraqis have a referendum to decide about partitioning the country? Who would enforce it? Should the Iraqi government have the choice if the coalition forces stay or leave? Who would enforce that?
No the daily situation in Iraq has not yet reach the point seen in Bosnia or Lebanon. It did not happen over night there and is not going to happen over night in Iraq. The 60% of the population represented by the shiia are increasing falling under the sway of an Iranian cadre. They have assumed positions of power within the police force and the Iraqi army. The militarize element back by the “coalition” is not some neutral party whose sole mission is to bring the insurgents to heel and eradicate the foreign jihadists. More and More Sunnis are being picked up off the streets tortured, killed and dumped. The question you might ask it by whom? Neighborhoods are becoming polarized with either Sunnis or Shiia moving out depending which in the minority. Why is this happening?
Should the Iraqis have a referendum to decide about partitioning the country? Who would enforce it? Should the Iraqi government have the choice if the coalition forces stay or leave? Who would enforce that?
No the daily situation in Iraq has not yet reach the point seen in Bosnia or Lebanon. It did not happen over night there and is not going to happen over night in Iraq. The 60% of the population represented by the shiia are increasing falling under the sway of an Iranian cadre. They have assumed positions of power within the police force and the Iraqi army. The militarize element back by the “coalition” is not some neutral party whose sole mission is to bring the insurgents to heel and eradicate the foreign jihadists. More and More Sunnis are being picked up off the streets tortured, killed and dumped. The question you might ask it by whom? Neighborhoods are becoming polarized with either Sunnis or Shiia moving out depending which in the minority. Why is this happening?
Should the Iraqis have a referendum to decide about partitioning the country? Who would enforce it? Should the Iraqi government have the choice if the coalition forces stay or leave? Who would enforce that?
Chris,
An end to “meddling” is an end to international relations and diplomacy, especially in this age of global markets and communications.
The attacks on the West by Islamic extremists are no more motivated by our tinkering with their tin-pot dictators decades ago, than was our interference in their turf motivated by the price of fish in Tokyo.
Listen to the terrorists when they speak to their own people (not the propaganda they prepare for stages lectures to the West on CNN). Their STATED intent is to conquer the world under the banner of Islam. That is why they attack us now. They feed us BS about corporate greed and decades-old territorial pissings because they aim to energize the Left in our countries, who are sympathetic to those musings, and thereby undermine us.
But if you listen to what they say to each other, their goals are entirely religious.
Hence my desire for them to keep their damn religious zealotry, and the bombings and beheadings that come with it, to themselves. And yes, leave US alone.
orangeducks
Why can’t you focus on the good news — like the 80-year old Imam that U.S. troops appear to have killed in their raid on one of Moqtada’s mosques today.
Typical liberal media.
Chris-
Thanks for your reporting.
I have a modest proposal:
1) Apologize to the Iraqi people for the damage we have done to their country.
2) Announce that we are leaving permanently on December 31, 2006 and will retain no bases or other governmental interests.
3) Set up a $100 billion temporary trust fund, invested in US Bonds, the proceeds of which will be paid individually to each Iraqi for 10 years at which time the Bonds will revert to the US Social Security system. (If I have done the arithemetic right, that’s about $2,000 per Iraqi per year.)
4) Wish them good luck!
Sam Taylor
Chris- keep up the incredible work.
I have 2 suggestions. 1)Scrap the existing constitution which clearly isn’t working. Contract out the governance of Iraq to Haliburton. Replace U.S. troops with mercenaries-allow any U.S. troops who wish to become Haliburton mercenaries the option to transfer. Collect an administration fee on all oil sales. Turn this structure over to the U.N. security council as a protectorate.
2)If this doesn’t work- when the current U.S. administration’s mandate runs out transfer the whole lot of them to Iraq to take over the government. Give them a 4 year mandate and wish them luck.
Whoops!
I missed a zero. We could either increase to trust fund to $1 trillion or reduce the income to $200 per year.
Your call.
With a smile.
Sam
I can not work out details, but I can give a suggested beginning.
Let us acknowledge that patriotic and honest American s can support a variety of choices from immediate pull out to increased committment, but only
TRAITORS want to “stay the course!”
The course has been a failure. Rumsfeld and Cheney must go. Perhaps Zinni in Rummys slot. Limpbowel and other terrorist enablers must be ruthlessly chastised for doing all they could to stop reform in pursuit of partisan gloating.
“An end to “meddling” is an end to international relations and diplomacy”
Not quite… It is perfectly feasable to maintain international relations while NOT supporting warlords the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam. Not to mention Pinochet, Noriega or whoever…
Just follow one basic rule: Once they start killing, quit the support. Simple, no?
“An end to “meddling” is an end to international relations and diplomacy”
Not quite… It is perfectly feasable to maintain international relations while NOT supporting warlords the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam. Not to mention Pinochet, Noriega or whoever…
Just follow one basic rule: Once they start killing, quit the support. Simple, no?
In the short term: get out and ride it out. In the long term: stop voting out of fear and investing in weapons and war.
Peace out.
The best solution to this problem is for our occupation to end, right now. We can have UN peacekeeping forces ready to come in to aid in the process IF and only IF the Iraqi government requests assistance. No government set up by the US will be accepted by any of the Iraqi people and I don’t blame them, look at the part our country has played in the history of this area as well as other areas of the world. When it comes to the so called act of “Spreading Democracy and freedom” I think our government has been engaging in the act of ” The Pot calling the kettle black” when we consider the Bush administration’s revival of McCarthyism with their surveillance of private citizens that is expanding with Bush’s insistence that he has the right to basically do what ever the hell he wants, such as the Talon program that was reported on by the PBS program “NOW” on Friday night, http://www.pbs.org/now/index.html
WE should never have gone in - but we are stuck until a soulution evolves. Many of my friends say - Out now - but then what happens to the innocents who will die at the hands of the victors …and the insurgency. I used to produce a talk show here in DC and I had on all of the neo-con team, I knew they were wrong then - as we all know now…the administration keeps pumping the canard that Clinton signed the iraqi `freedom’ act back in 98…but the truth was that the entire gop caucus was screaming and DEMANDING this be passed…Clinton made a mistake in buckling - but the situation then - the GOP hating him and the Media gunning and hating him (yes they did!)…he had little choice and we all thought there was no way that this could ever come to pass….but then Nader entered into his hateful role and the republican minions stole (oh yeah - they did, I saw it - and John Bolton btw was the #1 chad counter during the recount you know…) and we ended up in this terrible spot.
The only answer can be broad talks involving ALL parties. These talks can be under the banner of the UN or the Arab League, or whoever…We must remember JFKs line - `never negotiate out of fear - but never FEAR to negotiate”. They will be awful and long, but the alternative is worse and will take decades…In truth, there is NO alternative, except for more deaths, continued tribal payback and more waste and lost.
If this idea isnt pushed and achieved, be prepared for this to continue for years and years because the insiders here are already setting up and secretly, and not so secretly, making it clear that McCain will be Bush Co’s guy in 2008. (McCain is assumed to be unbeatable if he gets the GOP nod…which right now seems quite logical….especially since the oh so pure -Feingold and his sightless minions seem to be ready to play the Democratic spoiler once again)
Well, the short answer is that if we got out, the Iraqis would compose themselves in short order. The only faction that has a real interest in splitting the country is the Kurds, and Turkey and Iran have more to lose than Iraq in that situation, which should enhance problem-solving skills.
Unfortunately, there isn’t going to be a solution. A longstanding dynamic of our foreign policy is to create ‘failed states’ with porous borders, states that are splintered by factional strife, and allow relative freedom for gangsters. In this environment it is easy for foreign companies to form business arrangements very much to the disadvantage of the ‘failed state’.
Judging from other countries that have had our unfortunate experience, one guess might be that our military might remove Bush from office to save our army. In fact, I would consider this to be a very likely outcome if Bush won’t leave peacefully in January 2009.
Another possibility is that Bush attacks Iran, and we actually lose the army in Iraq. In that mess oil would probably go to $200/bbl, at which point some really strange stuff could happen.
Oh, well, we always kinda knew that the American Way of Life couldn’t really go on forever, at least not in the gas-guzzling way we’ve been living it.
And I swear, I will only hit the ‘Post’ button once. Wonder what will happen?
Hey Chris, have you seen the kerfluffle over the photo that Kaloogian posted on his site and claimed was Baghdad? It was actually right outside Istanbul, and people on DailyKos were very quick to pick it up. He’s now replaced it with an actual photo of Baghdad. Still, claiming that a city is “calm” and “stable” from one photograph is rather much.
put saddam back in. keep on with the embargo.
2 radical solutions: 1. Put the old regim back in power as a figure head, like in Japan where they kept the Emperor. I was thinking of Terriaki Azis in charge.