October 5, 2007
Iraq - suggestions please
I have written a lot about Iraq in the FT. But readers of my column might have noticed that - while not slow to dish out criticism - I have usually dodged the big question: so what would you do?
There is a simple reason for this evasiveness. I don’t know really know what I would do. Like most people, I am better at defining the question than providing the answer. So once again, I would like to turn to the readers of this blog for ideas and suggestions.
Let me break down the "what would you do" question into a series of sub-issues:
Do you think the American should withdraw troops and - if so - how fast?
Don’t America and its allies have a moral duty to stay and try and restore peace and security? This is the "you broke it, you own it" argument.
Even if you set aside the moral issues, what about the strategic issues? Wouldn’t an American withdrawal massively expand Iran’s sphere of influence and risk a wider regional war? And what about all that stuff under the ground - the word beginning with "o"?
Do you buy the idea - advanced by several Democratic candidates - that setting a deadline for withdrawal would force Iraqis to achieve political reconciliation? (I don’t.)
Should we give up on the idea of leaving behind a democratic state and accept more limited aims?
Should we even give up on the idea of a unitary Iraq, and embrace some of the various federal solutions doing the rounds - or even partition?
What are the minimum requirements the US needs to meet, before it can safely withdraw? The report from the Centre for a New American Security, which I cite below, cites three: prevent the creation of safe havens for al-Qaeda, prevent a regional war, prevent a genocide. This list is certainly nice and short, but is it doable?
I could go on and on - but I won’t. If I have ignored the key questions, please let me know.
Instead, like anyone setting an essay question - I will now give you a list of suggested reading. The potential reading list is obviously endless - so this is just a pointer to some of the more interesting stuff I have come across recently. (Any counter suggestions of things I should be looking at, most welcome.)
When I was in Washington last month, the CNAS report on a "phased transition" for withdrawal seemed to be provoking a lot of discussion. Warning: it is a slightly dull read. But it’s worth looking at, because I think it is a reasonable snapshot of mainstream Democratic thinking on what the next president should do. For example its suggestion of getting down to 60,000 troops by the end of 2009 is very close to the Hillary Clinton position.
For a scathing critique of the "phased transition" proposal, here is an article by Fred Kagan - the original designer of the troop surge that President Bush claims has worked so well.
For an argument that the surge has in fact worked (an idea I gloss over in my list of questions), here is a piece by Bartle Bull in "Prospect".
For the contrary argument - that the surge has failed and that the Americans are, in fact, already preparing for failure, here is George Packer in the New Yorker.
And finally, for an intriguing consideration of four possible scenarios for Iraq in 2012, here is a piece by Volker Perthes for Open Democracy.
I cannot offer a cash reward for the best answer. Still, anybody who cracks the Iraq problem might get the Nobel Peace Prize.
Fundamental to the Iraq situation is that the country is an artificial conglomeration, created by the Western powers as a convenience. It’s boundaries do not reflect the religious and cultural differences within. Put a cat and a dog in a box, they will fight. Partition is the only real answer, and is not a sign of failure. It has proved the solution in the Balkans, and would lead to stability in this region also.
If local war did follow, then oil supply would be disrupted, but the oil is not lost forever. The shortage created would force the West to take the oil shortfall seriously, and bring forward long term policies on energy that are required now but are not being forced just yet. This would be a strategic win for the West in the medium term.
Oil from Iraq would return in time, and this would smooth any post “peak oil” supply collapse.
Local war would also occupy the local population, and distract them from mounting terrorism on the West. Brutal but true. Travel restrictions would be justifiably imposed, bottling up the problems.
So, in short, set up partition, pull out, and watch it go pear-shaped from a distance.
Posted by: Andyf | October 5th, 2007 at 5:12 pm | Report this commentDo you think the American should withdraw troops and - if so - how fast?
_____________
An orderly retreat, done in stages so as not to leave valuable equipment or collaborators behind or needlessly endanger the troops, would take several months. The sooner it begins the better.
*********************************
Don’t America and its allies have a moral duty to stay and try and restore peace and security? This is the “you broke it, you own it” argument.
_________________________
The invasion and occupation were criminal and any talk of “morality” in connection with it is a sarcasm. America and its allies (flunkies) presence in Iraq is the principal cause of the violence and in no way a palliative to it.
*************************
Wouldn’t an American withdrawal massively expand Iran’s sphere of influence and risk a wider regional war? And what about all that stuff under the ground - the word beginning with “o”?
______________
As to Iran, they should have thought of that before going in. I think Iran and Iraq’s other neighbors have an interest in a stable Iraq and will help to stabilize it. As to the oil it will soon be on the market no matter who is in charge. How else can they rebuild their country except selling oil.
********************
Do you buy the idea - advanced by several Democratic candidates - that setting a deadline for withdrawal would force Iraqis to achieve political reconciliation? (I don’t.) Should we give up on the idea of leaving behind a democratic state and accept more limited aims?
Should we even give up on the idea of a unitary Iraq, and embrace some of the various federal solutions doing the rounds - or even partition?
____________________________________
These three questions are exclusively for Iraqis to decide, they always were. To think that we have any right to decide them is as immoral, criminal and obscene as the invasion and occupation were in the first place.
This position is anything but “naive”, it is brutally realistic.The immorality and contempt for international law are at the heart of this disaster and are actually endangering our economic system. As impossible as it seems, “western” credibility would only be restored if those responsible (Bush for a start) were sent to the Hague and put on trial. Talk of Burma and Darfur with Bush at large drawing huge speaking and book royalties is pharisitical and absurd.
Posted by: David Seaton | October 5th, 2007 at 5:38 pm | Report this commentI don’t have a silver bullet either. But I notice that most of your questions here are essentially concerned concerned with the stay / go dichotomy. What isn’t asked explicitly is: if US troops do stay, what’s their primary objective, and what realistically are the prospects for achieving that?
In the Afghanistan context, there’s been a lot of discussion about the fact that NATO’s mission is not entirely clear. Are troops there to create the space for statebuilding? Enforce security? Eradicate opium? Catch terrorists? All of these priorities will at times point in different directions to one another, so it’s crucial for NATO policymakers to set a clear sequence of objectives (which they still haven’t done).
Likewise in the context of UN peacekeeping, practitioners increasingly recognise that at best, a peace support operation can put the ‘hot’ conflict into the freezer to try to buy time for a process of mediation, reconciliation and statebuilding to take hold. (Unfortunately, as the track record shows, peacekeeping is often the only bit of the piece that actually works, as there’s a marked lack of consensus over how to do the ’soft’ stuff - see http://globaldashboard.org/news/can-donors-build-effective-states/)
So to go back to Iraq: it’s not enough for ’stay’ advocates to argue that the situation would worsen if US troops were withdrawn quickly (true though that might be).
They need to make clear just what it is, specifically, that a continuing large presence is designed to ACHIEVE, or at least create the space for.
Whatever you thought about the case for war in Iraq, one of the main problems was that Bush and Blair shifted the goalposts so often. So in making a case for US troops to stay in Iraq, there ought to be much clearer, objectively verifiable benchmarks than there have been with the Surge.
So can we add that to your list of questions?
Posted by: Alex Evans | October 5th, 2007 at 6:27 pm | Report this commentI can’t be bothered to consult the reading list you suggested - I doubt I would learn anything fundamentally new. Anyway, sometimes it’s the uninitiated outsider who brings in a fresh new perspective, or points to obvious answers which everyone has overlooked (Though admittedly, that describes more the process of gaining a Nobel in physics, rather than the Nobel in Peace; in any case my following stale suggestions most certainly don’t fit the bill):
1. The Americans can ill afford to withdraw any serious number of troops from Iraq - or else the vacuum created will immediately suck in Iran. We might witness a resurgence of the ancient Persian Empire (whose ancient capital Ctesiphon was in modern-day Iraq, not Iran) sitting on the world’s second-largest combined o-reserve (or is it p-reserve?). I think Europe has suffered enough from its gas dependency on Putin’s Russia, to be wary of a similar outcome with p & o. This is the scenario A-J is dreaming of.
2. Despite this, I don’t believe America and its allies (which allies are these?) have a MORAL duty to remain. The Americans didn’t break anything - Iraq was rotting from within.
3. See my reply in (1) above.
4. Setting a deadline for withdrawal won’t change Iraqi’s mentality. In this, Abba Eban’s charecterisation of the Palestinians is appropriate here as well: They never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
5. If ultimately the US doesen’t leave behind some form of quasi-democracy such as in the Lebanon, then America will be demonised to the very end. America will be constrained for a century, if it performs such a cynical about-face.
6. Of course Iraq will be finally resolved by some federal solution. The model to look at is Belgium. In such a model the Kurds will be needed in order to counterbalance the Shi’ite preponderance. In any case, a landlocked independent Kurdistan would never be geopolitically viable: In the Middle East there are no landlocked countries and none could exist.
It must be borne in mind that the Shi’ites feel the conflict is their’s to lose. If America withdraws, Iran will pull in; They feel no incentive for reconciliation. Only when they understand that America does not intend to withdraw in the foreseeable future, will rapprochement between the communities of Iraq be possible.
It must also be remembered that while Iraq is a liability for the American military, it is at the same time a great (temporary) strategic asset as well: Iran is rightfully irritated by the American presence, which could be used to project military force against it.
As you yourself have ventured to suggest in a previous column, history never exactly repeats itself. For one, we should not draw false parallels with Vietnam: the strategic stakes are higher, the technology has changed, the lines-of-conflict are different. The decision to invade might have been a mistake, but that is no excuse for making further mistakes:
“What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.”
– TS Eliot
I believe whoever is the next president, she will bear that in mind.
Posted by: Paco Labani | October 5th, 2007 at 7:31 pm | Report this commentIf I were George Bush, or any President for that matter, I would set up a 2 meetings - One in Tehran and one in Washington. I would take or have Secretaries Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates with me(both Secretary of State and Defense, respectively). The three of us alone. I would negotiate until we get a deal done that suits both sides, knowing that each has to give and take.
Look what has taken place in both North and South Korea - your picture on today’s cover has both Korean leaders talking with each other. A deal struck. That is the way deals are done. Whether you are in business or politics, the leaders meet, agree/disagree and hash out a deal or compromise. CEOs meet and get deals done. So can leaders of countries - period. If you can dream it, you can do it.
Posted by: Pete Alford | October 5th, 2007 at 11:07 pm | Report this commentGideon thats certainly not a question for which a short answer suffices.
It’s for the Iraqis to decide, and they only can decide while they are free to vote. It would be inexcusable to leave Iraq in chaos, civil war or in the hands of a dictatorship that could only rule through brutality. The result would be a death toll that by then would be in the 7 digits, a devastated country, a global victory for illiberal and anti-democratic nations and groups, no peace, increasing global economic volatility and certainly no opportunity for the Iraqis to decide anything for themselves.
What can practically be done? With the pacification of the Sunni areas currently in progress the Shia must now start to compromise. UK forces could relocate to Afghanistan where they can operate more effectively so that the US can take over responsibility over the entire south and help establish centralized police and military control by isolating the radicals from the population in the south as it is doing in the Sunni areas with relative success. That is an order of magnitude more difficult than the operations in the Sunni areas; It would require a larger military force than the US currently has in Iraq; It could involve conflict with several groups each of which could be larger and more popular than al Quaeda; It would require popular support in the US and internationally, something which isn’t materializing even for the present limited surge; And it could bring the brewing conflict with Iran to a boil. This isn’t a call to wage war in the south but it is impossible to fix Iraq without bringing the south and its oil wealth under the control of the central government. It will also divorce the central government from an influential illiberal support base and would create the basis for nationwide compromises on equal redistribution of revenue. When I looked for a comparison Belgium came to mind too as it seems to have done independantly for Mr. Perthes and Mr. Labani as well; a federation with Brussels modeling for Baghdad.
Europe, Japan and others oil importing nations including even China should align much more strongly with US objectives in Iraq and the wider region and some should have to consider sending military forces to Iraq itself or relieve the US from its commitment in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Europe currently doesn’t have the military capability for increasing foreign deployment, doesn’t have the political will and certainly European politicians lack all conviction to mobilize public opinion in what ultimately is in Europe’s self interest; but this peace is also Europe’s to keep.
It would also mean we have end the partisan battles; Gideon, all the links you gave for further reading with the exception of Volkert Perthes’ piece paint a selective picture of the situation for partisan political purposes, it is rare to come across a piece that paints an objective picture of the current state, has any clarity on the desired state and has a realistic plan to move from one to the other.
It might not win a nobel prize, but going to surge 2.0 is a plan that simply could work. Gen. Petraeus has been promoted very rapidly since 2003 because he has a realistic strategy and a course of action that actually produces results. Adm. Mullen’s promotion to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says that critical thinking is being rewarded again. In Afghanistan US forces are starting to use anthropologists and other social scientists in supporting roles again to find the right levers; on a broad front it is an evolution away from the nonsense of fear and awe towards the intellectual agility necessary to truly win people’s hearts and minds. Things have improved since Rumsfeld and the US administration’s political machine have been removed from the Pentagon. The US military has since started to regain its independent critical thinking and seeing commanders in the field having the confidence to take risks and initiatives again is a very encouraging sign. The old ballsy US of A has started to emerge from the confusion and mind numbing patriotism following 9/11, and that above all else is something we should welcome and support.
Posted by: Felix Drost | October 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pm | Report this commentI’m glad You asked. If terror is the problem: help the Paki military to find a democratic solution. This will take care of AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Let the Chinese do the reconstruction of Iraq and Blackwater the security. Tell Israel to end the occupation and to start Web 2.0 in the region. While doing all that move equipment and military out of Iraq to Jordan.
Posted by: Hans Suter | October 6th, 2007 at 7:41 am | Report this comment“Don’t America and its allies have a moral duty to stay and try and restore peace and security? This is the “you broke it, you own it” argument.”
This argument for continuing to break “china” in Iraq and use the broken “china” as the reason for staying is one of the most stupid arguments that one hears in discussions about Iraq. Please Stop!
Posted by: DILBERT DOGBERT | October 6th, 2007 at 4:00 pm | Report this commentI’ll go along with Zbigniew Brzezinski regarding -
Posted by: Bill Goedecke | October 6th, 2007 at 4:27 pm | Report this comment“The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy… intensifying regional instability…Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework…The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq … (to undertake) talks with the Iraqi leaders (and) jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed… (to arrange for a conference with regional powers)… (and) finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/zbigniew-brzezinski-calls_b_40115.html
- I would add that the US government needs to come clean with the American people of its true strategic aims in the mid east. If polices and actions were taken based on deliberate lies then there needs to be some kind of consequence.
I’ll go along with Zbigniew Brzezinski regarding -
Posted by: Bill Goedecke | October 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pm | Report this comment“The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy… intensifying regional instability…Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework…The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq … (to undertake) talks with the Iraqi leaders (and) jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed… (to arrange for a conference with regional powers)… (and) finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/zbigniew-brzezinski-calls_b_40115.html
- I would add that the US government needs to come clean with the American people of its true strategic aims in the mid east. If polices and actions were taken based on deliberate lies then there needs to be some kind of consequence.
The problem with Iraq lies entirely in the hands of the Iraqis. Nobody would be able to unite them save and except for themselves. The cornerstone to Iraq’s nation buidling is unity amongst all the tribes. The US/UK or even UN would never be able to solve their problem if Iraqis continue to disintegrate.
Posted by: Sue Ali | October 6th, 2007 at 8:37 pm | Report this commentUnless they get their act together, they will continue to live the way they are living now. All ought to realise that what had occurred had occurred and nobody would be able to unturn the clock to undo anything. However, it is critical at this juncture for the Iraqis to put their thoughts together and think about how they see the future of their country. Should they remain they way they are today, they should not blame anyone for the destruction of their country except for themselves. The international community can only be a mediator and nothing more. Only the Iraqis know what is best for them.
Full employment for Iraqis, Bring Halliburton home. That is why the Marshall plan worked. It put Europeans back to work building their own countries. Giving each a stake in the outcome. Besides, you cannot have civilized society when men have nothing to do.
How? Suitcases filled with cash. Using the same incentive that, according to Woodward’s “Bush at War” was used to enlist the Northern Alliance in the initial invasion of Afghanistan.
First contact each Imam or tribal leader (I don’t know the difference) with the goal of contracting out the health care in the area. If they want the concession ask how much and how long. When they succeed with step A, find groups, possibly the same groups, willing to provide for education in the community. Build from there.
Each step is double audited, one audit by the GAO one audit by an international body, the U.N., IMF, World Bank, ect., before they are eligible to receive further contracts or cash.
When and if a basic level of success is achieved offer them a bonus suitcase filled with cash if there are no bombings or violent deaths in their area for a week.
If the Bushies do not know how to contact the imams or tribal leaders after being in the area for 4-5 years, buy small denominations of gold coins.
Posted by: ann zuspann | October 6th, 2007 at 9:58 pm | Report this commentI think the biggest problem the US has, with regard to the stay or go dilemma, isn’t necessarily an issue of whether or not they can leave without some sort of chaos erupting as a direct result (that ship has sailed). The issue that should (but needs to) be discussed is whether or not Iraq can or should remain one country.
The US should at least entertain the option of trying to establish more than one government in the area, as the setbacks in establishing just one far outnumber the successes to date.
Posted by: Landon Adebiyi | October 7th, 2007 at 3:47 am | Report this commentI thought you’d at least offer a prize for the best suggestion!
Posted by: Tom Dalgleish | October 7th, 2007 at 1:03 pm | Report this comment(1) Arm all sides to the teeth with suitably ugly looking weapons that sate the temporary desire to inflict sectarian pain.
(2) Go back to barracks and wait.
(3) For instruction on (1) and (2) study Beirut and its recovery from a shooting alley to the present day.
(4) Offer high tea to anyone not wanting to participate in said side-show.
N.B. Ethnic cleansing isn’t so bad particularly as many Spanish builders are now seeking new projects.
Of course there is a short answer. Withdraw from Iraq immmediately. Send the architects of the Iraq War to the Hague to face war crime charges. Pay the amount already expended on executing this illegal oil war into a Swiss Bank so that the fund can be used for reconstruction & to compensate the people of Iraq. Set up a UN task force to sweep Iraq for & remove all war junk including nuclear materials & mines. Close down the dirty tricks departments within the CIA. Move the UN off US soil.
Posted by: Crowsfly | October 7th, 2007 at 2:42 pm | Report this commentRealpolitik: partition is inevitable, so get out in front of it.
1. Abandon Kurdistan to Turkish administration.
2. Abandon central “Sunnistan” to pan-Arab administration.
3. Southern “Shiastan” remains under US/UK occupation.
Yes, this is unfair, especially to Kurds and to Baghdad Shias. Yes, “Sunnistan” becomes a shooting gallery, especially divided Baghdad. But on the whole it promotes strategic goals:
1. Cuts troops, yet increases force concentration in “Shiastan.”
2. Maintains a coastal base for further orderly drawdown.
3. Keeps most of the oil under pro-Western control.
4. Creates incentives for neighboring countries to help stabilize.
5. Emboldens Iran’s Kurdish separatists.
6. Leaves Iran in an unwinnable proxy war for Shia control of a suddenly Sunni-dominated, cash-starved center.
This could begin now. Turkey and al-Saud have no choice but to go along, if the US privately signals inevitability. Their alternatives are worse. Turkey in particular has a large army, low cost of labor, short supply lines, a strategic interest, and is probably already operating in northern Iraq. Arab-run “Sunnistan” is probably a train wreck, but no worse than the current situation.
I would request that any reader criticizing this proposal please offer another specific idea that serves US and/or UK interests. Of all other posts so far, I see none that are specific and realistic.
Posted by: William Mitchell | October 7th, 2007 at 7:55 pm | Report this commentI should add to my previous post that I opposed the war and voted against Bush. But this is not the time to complain about past mistakes, no matter how egregious. We need leadership, right now, and each of us in this forum can step up with constructive suggestions.
After that, we can go after war criminals as appropriate.
Posted by: William Mitchell | October 7th, 2007 at 8:04 pm | Report this commentAnn Zuspann, your proposal is interesting also because it already works especially in Anbar in the wake of the new counterinsurgency strategy; local leaders are being given money to construct infrastructure and provide services with local workers who often previously were insurgents (swords to ploughshares). The most efficient and least corrupt are then awarded new contracts. It used to be funded with money from the pentagon but now its increasingly being funded by money from Baghdad as well.
Since local people built these structures they own them to a much greater degree than anything built by outsiders; they are much less likely to be destroyed, abused or plundered.
Here’s an article from last may about the shift that’s happening in Iraq which has some relevance to the above.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_tribes_070525w/
So far, George Marshall is the only general ever to have received a Nobel Peace Prize. But since it’s about saving lives and building communities we will hopefully have another candidate shortly.
Posted by: Felix Drost | October 7th, 2007 at 9:17 pm | Report this commentTha answer is very simple. KEEP TALKING or in America’s case START TALKING.
Iran is potentially a stable and conservative global partner, it has the most developed and broad economy of the major middle east oil producers. Even more importantly it still has a high quality civil service and professionals in education, law, accounting etc. Iran should always have been the partner of choice in the middle east, the challenge now is to work our way slowly and diplomatically back to a working relationship. European companies are quietly profiting from the non invlovement of US companies.
“Jaw jaw and trade trade rather than war war” should be the motto
Posted by: David Potter | October 7th, 2007 at 10:06 pm | Report this commentAny discussion of options must ask whether the US has the staying power to impose or ‘manage’ a solution. It does not, if we think of any reasonable span of time. Neither can it, or Israel, seriously take on wilder (John Bolton and neo-con-favored) additional agendas such as to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.
So then the outcome should naturally be that the one regional power with the resources and population of significance, Iran, would maintain and expand its influence in Iraq, with the majority Shiite community supporting it. Conflict with Sunni groups will come to an end with time,and a modus vivendi will be found, however, uncomfortable, as in Lebanon, including with the Kurds.
Perhaps Israel and the US could contribute to more stability, along with the Sunni Arab powers in the Region, by not creating further conflict through arming and backing surrogates, and working towards a more equitable solution for Palestinians.
In other words, the answer to the question is that the US should get used to the changing balance of power and play a more normal role as a state among others rather than act as an imperial power with a special mandate in the Middle East. Its might in nuclear weapons, conventional forces, technology more generally, and economic resources still don’t add up to sufficient ability to do anything else.
Posted by: Hari Prasad | October 8th, 2007 at 12:25 am | Report this commentWe have a moral obligation to do the best we can to “fix” the problems in Iraq because Bush “broke it”. How we, as the rest of the nation, fulfill that obligation is the question. The option of using US military/contractors is, for me, antithetical to a sustainable solution. To use the same military and corporate forces is not and will not work. The only way it would stand even a slim chance is if America admitted Bush’s criminal take-over and put him on trial to show we know we did wrong and will hold the perpetrators accountable.
Posted by: Richard Averett | October 8th, 2007 at 12:34 am | Report this commentThis is an opportunity to restore and build the UN into a truly international/world organization for peace. Give them the money and authority to stop wars, genocide and arms flows. This is how we fulfill our obligation: fund this UN mission to the same level we’re funding the Iraq war; and temporarily provide 60,000 to 80,000 troops to be under UN command.
Democracy? That was the umpteenth excuse Bush/Cheney used. The UN’s mission should not be to impose a form of government on Iraq, but to stop the civil war (thus protecting the civil rights of Iraqis) so Iraqis can decide what form of government they want and need.
Deadline? Three months for the UN to set up command operations. (And, no US or British military person should serve in the command; otherwise it would be subject to charges of real and perceived manipulation by the same corporate forces that got us and keep us in this situation.) Then, another three months for the UN to complete recruitment/build-up of forces to 200,000 (including 70,000 US and UK troops, 70,000-100,000 troops from middle-east countries, and the rest from existing UN forces and troops from other countries). All support services should be provided by Iraqis under UN command. All contracts should be awarded to Iraqi companies or not awarded but administered by the UN. And, all project workers should be Iraqis.
Then, the UN should determine a deadline (two to three years?) for the Iraqi government to establish a government that can protect it’s people. If the government doesn’t meet interim deadlines, the UN should oversee elections in no later than three years.
Richard A.
Americans WILL STAY IN IRAQ as they are building three giant MILITARY BASES both to have the Iraqi Government and to attack Iran when they think it is necessary.
Americans will not leave Iraq; they will just continue the promotion civil comfrontation between Iraqis.
Since Americans arrived civil comfrontation and killings have increased and nobody can believe that the 160,000 US forces, plus the “Iraqi” Army they have financed and built, have nothing to do with it.
Posted by: enrique | October 8th, 2007 at 2:03 am | Report this commentIt’s amazing that they call this paper the Financial Times yet no one has addressed the economic conditions that will lead to a peaceful withdrawal of troops (assuming success is everyone’s objective).
It isn’t as if the West hasn’t faced a difficult rebuilding project after a war before. Arguably the reason we are still trying to get traction there is our lack of force in the beginning. I agree that we needed more forces (while the UK seems to embrace a new Chamberlain-esque philosophy) - but much more. We should have never disbanded the Iraqi army and if we took up their payments with a nice raise, I think we could be at stage 4 by now.
So, #1, overwhelming force should be applied and civil liberties curtailed. Sorry.
#2, encourage foreign investment with enough incentives that death will not dissuade. And not just a hand-picked group of contractors. Serious investment to bring jobs to Iraqis.
#3, Hail Iraqi history and people. Give them pride in their nation so that they feel patriotic enough to help those who are working to build a democracy.
#4, establish rule of law - set up courts that have teeth and take politics out of the process of choosing judges (as much as possible).
Set definable goals that can be measured. Once a threshold his reached, go to stage 2:
1. Relieve some restrictions on civil liberty (this will likely be demanded well before this stage is reached, and once given should gain goodwill from many)
2. Promote entrepreneurship among Iraqis. Promote the arts. Promote their culture. Set up cultural exchanges between nations and Iraq.
3. Do NOT let up on military presence. Certainly try to establish more of a police presence and if warranted have them stay in the background while the police handle disturbances. But don’t let the innocent people down and walk out on them.
Only after this stage should a reduction in military presence be considered. Anyone who believes a healthy economy breeds domestic tranquility should address the economic conditions and the reality of maintaining security so as to create conditions for a healthy economy.
Posted by: Brian Ritchey | October 8th, 2007 at 2:40 am | Report this commentHi sir,
For the “You broke it, you own it” rationale, I attribute it at least partly to your pondering upon my previous letter to you which said “Britain as the initiator and special partner of American civilization should help contain America’s capitalist extremism”. I’d like to pledge you to forgive my boldness in expressing the fury on world chaos in such an irrational way, for I deeply believe, if it’s not because of Britain, there would also have been this chaos in the world. The difference is just Europe first got out of this mess and try to help regulate the other parts of the world. Actually then the question is how to regulate the world without impairing basic humanitarian values. Everyone must admit it’s a very delicate process. However sophisticated the wise leaders are, there are always some unexpected “accidents” which would instantly spoil the whole arrangement. Right here a western motto come upon to my mind which I could only clumsily express it like “God laughs when human thinks”. All I have courage to say on the topic you raised is US military should stay in Iraq as long as the west and the wise men in Iraq deems suitable, but please do choose some people understanding the local needs(of course not only physically , also spiritually) to manage the situation. And also the ultimate goal should be to reach certain reconciliation between the west and Muslim world so that both parties would understand they need to rely on each other to make this world livable. Patience and perseverance are perhaps the most important personal qualities hereafter. A modest level of liberty might be suitable to be promoted to the east, but I’m honestly not sure what result there would be if democracy is brought along by force. Maybe respecting the local tradition is also among the most important goals.
Posted by: Alan | October 8th, 2007 at 4:50 am | Report this commentSir,
Short to mid-term:
Posted by: Daniel Karlsson | October 8th, 2007 at 10:46 am | Report this comment- Increase taxes on oil and gas in North America to approach European levels within a decade. Given the record level of dissatisfaction with an openly petroleum friendly government along with + trillion $ disastrous cost of war in midst of hostile oil region… there may be a historical opportunity to reach bipartisan consensus on the need to raise energy taxes (let the parties debate on how to redistribute/use additional tax revenues not whether the raise should take place).
- Irrespective of which view one takes today (Republican, Democratic, “European”, “Arab”, Israeli, etc.), the American invasion in Iraq has been an utter failure on all regards. It strikes me that the mayhem wrecked by the US and coalition forces is such that “no matter what they do”, they will be despised locally and genuine goodwill will endlessly be undermined by local and regional groups. Therefore, the illusion of achieving “success” should be buried (along with the thousands of American and allied soldiers, not to mention to the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed) and sober realism should prevail. Withdraw from patrolling duties, symbolically half the American ground forces and focus on achievable tasks (border surveillance, protecting oil sector and maintain sizeable strike force available to carry out heavy attacks on any group (including Iraqi police forces), anywhere in Iraq. As soon as UN peace keeping mandate can be agreed upon, hand over command to UN.
- Allocate an important share of current US Iraqi war budget in coming decade to a UN managed Iraqi reconstruction fund. This fund could serve to build new schools, public institutions, infrastructure, etc. Grants should be open to any company, including local companies and should free of any religious, military, ethnic or otherwise political affiliation.
Long-term:
Adopt alternative sources of energy to reduce the excessive economic advantages enjoyed by oil and gas rich governments.
It looks like only a partition/confederation solution would reduce the sectarian violence - maybe one or more of the post-Iraq statelets might even end up a democracy - is it realistic to think that international troops could help police the inevitable mass migrations?
“America and its allies (flunkies) presence in Iraq is the principal cause of the violence and in no way a palliative to it.”
It would be nice to believe so, as the solution would then be simple, but it’s nonsense - the violence is now about power struggles between different criminal gangs and their intimidation/protection rackets to control ordinary Iraqis…
Posted by: David | October 8th, 2007 at 11:35 am | Report this commentI agree with Ann Zuspan. It always comes down to cold hard cash and the people, the INIDIVIDUALS, responsible of doling it out.
The reason why the Iraq Campaign has been such a disgrace is because the only policy that has really mattered to the current administration, from the very beginning, notwithstanding all the pious talk of nation building, Wars on Terror etc, was for a good old push in military spending which dramatically expanded over recent years. The gravy train has been a tremendous lark for all those involved. To believe that Rumsfeld was ever even remotely interested in rebuilding Iraq is a display of the utmost naivete.
Here we have the man responsible for arming Iraq against Iran. The man, who while most recently in power used the two words “kill” and “destroy” so often he should have been locked up in a mental Asylum and the key thrown away for good. Inicdentally, this is also the man who has a rather large and frankly, quite frightening shareholding in the principal US producer of the bird flu vaccine.
It is said that the Vietnam war could have been simply won by providing each Vietnamese family with coupons for $1million USD worth of goods “made in USA” - fridges, cars, household goods, electric generators etc - this would have had the same cost, and a better long term impact on the US economy than the military spending which did take place and ended in carnage and disgrace.
Essentially the principle of the Marshall plan was to turn Germany and Japan into long term trading partners. The US by that time had just been through its Second World War, and the leaders responsible at the helm were not particularly interested in anything but to get the show back on the road again and were tough enough to face off any impositions and demands that might have been made on them at the time by the “military industrial complex” as identified by President Eisenhower - if anyone knew about this, he did.
What I see is a fairly simple tale of the Cold War ending, a very dirty War and a lot of cold war warriors ending up on the scrap heap. This war in Iraq has been - hopefully - their last hurrah.
Indeed, all this war has really represented is Cost plus no bid contracts, fat salaries to “consultants” (haliburton types - some ex-military and other scrupleless types in need of cash) with the heavy involvement of what have become some of the most unsavory individuals in the US today. There has developped in the US today a litterally criminal political class.
So while there is no doubt that the US military is a great force, and has the potential to be a great force for good in the World, and that there is no doubting the very great sacrifices made by its current service men and women, i would argue that there is equally little doubt about the fact that we are facing one of the most inadequate, corrupt, arrogant and frankly retarded administrations the US has ever seen- and that those military professionals they have chosen to promote to the highest posts reflect this. Indeed it is no surprise to hear that large swathes of the most able, intelligent and courageous members of the US military on long-term career paths have left in utter comtempt and disgust at the current situation.
As is always the case in these matters, situations are made and broken on a person’s character.
The US political system has been in a long term trend of decline and “criminalisation” since the 1950’s, and it should be no surprise to find that the persons now involved in the process are seriously lacking in terms of character and leadership. It is not surprisinsg then to find that the campaigns and policies that these individuals attempt to promote are half baked, seriously flawed, and based on false motives/pretences.
There are a few glimmers of hope out there, but as it always does, it depends on the People of the USA to wake up and remember their duty as citizens of the most powerful nation on our planet, to bloody well take their citizenship and vote seriously. The way things are going, is that likely? The People of the USA are one of the hardest working, friendliest, earnest and honnest around, and yet it is precisely these fantastic qualities which makes them victims of their media/political system. Ultimately, they are also very naive.
So, Gideon, my friend, your question - how do we solve the Iraq problem? There is no quick fix. Iraq will come and go; many will die. Blame will be assigned, hard feelings held. Iran will choose its fate. Life will go on; will the US mature as a nation, psychologically? Will US politics clean itself up? Do we all live at the mercy of Rupert Mudoch?
Posted by: none | October 8th, 2007 at 3:22 pm | Report this commentforgot the quote:
“There is something rotten in the State of Denmark”
Posted by: none | October 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pm | Report this commentIt’s interesting to see how the most promising answers (like Ann Zuspan’s) to Gideon’s questions take us far beyond the stale-dated dead-end stay/leave military options that Gideon advances as a list of “key questions”
We are learning the hard way that Iraq conflict, like the Vietnam War before it, cannot possibly be won by force without unacceptable toll in human life.
The only solution solution is to address the economic plight of Iraqis citizens in the manner suggested by Ann Zussman and by “none”, above. And “none” is dead right to note that impetus for this huge change of strategy can only come from within the US: from a citizen-participatory, media-enhanced way of doing politics that opens and cleans up American politics in ways not possible in the top-down New Corp media climate we have today.
Here’s a question. Will the Rupert Murdochs of this world finally CHOOSE to restore dignity and functionality to politics in the eyes of voters and elected leaders alike when they finally wake up and realize HOW MUCH MONEY is to be made by doing so?
Posted by: Steve Sewall | October 8th, 2007 at 6:40 pm | Report this commentReading Suggestion: Karen Armstrong’s Battle for God.
A remarkably rich history of Jewish, Christian and Islamic fundamentalism whose empathy with all three types, and whose perspective on them, goes far towards explaining the mess we’re in now.
Posted by: Steve Sewall | October 8th, 2007 at 7:16 pm | Report this commentMuch bloodshed in the Gulf is precipitated by a desire to guarantee oil supplies to the West. Our true need is more subtle: we need only limit oil supply uncertainty.
This could be accomplished through a larger strategic reserve, run by a politically independent appointee, rather like the Federal Reserve. He or she would maintain a target price by buying or selling oil.
This fights monopoly with monopsony: a large well-run reserve would break OPEC, reduce Iran’s bargaining power, and eliminate the incentives for military action in the Gulf. Cheaper than warfare, and morally defensible.
This would take time to develop, so the Iraq withdrawal would be thus:
1. Partition and partly withdraw, per my previous post.
2. Verify our ability to stabilize oil prices as above.
3. Slowly withdraw from the Shia south.
The Gulf would be rendered less strategically important, permitting industrial nations to stay out, and meeting the wishes of Islamic extremists without “giving in.”
Posted by: William Mitchell | October 9th, 2007 at 12:48 am | Report this comment—
The US has a responsibility to clean up the toxic mess it has made in Iraq. ‘What you sow you will reap.’
Posted by: Crowsfly | October 9th, 2007 at 4:00 am | Report this commenthttp://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/depleted_uranium_iraq_afghanistan_balkans.html
All the talk of free voting is utterly anachronistic.
Iraq is a country with an armed population composed of numerous tribal, ethnic and religious groupings that at present are having trouble getting along with one another. At present those groups are seeking to maximise power relative to the other groups. At stake are control over the bureaucracy and control over oil rents: the former will allow the construction of the country in the winners’ image; the latter will fund such construction.
Logically, should one grouping emerge as the clear winner, that grouping is likely to marginalise the losers. That was the dynamic when the Sunni in general and the Tikritis in particular were the top dogs. Ensuring their predominance required the ruthless exercise of violence and persecution, given the lack of any real legitimation of the state of affairs beyond its sheer existence.
To force the groups to compromise with each other, it would be necessary to intervene in the competition to ensure that no group emerges as the clear winner. That would mean supporting Sunni militants and exploiting the divisions amongst the Shia factions so that there was a broad parity of forces amongst the individual political groupings and militias (I’m talking at the level of parties, not of ethnicities - clearly the demographics favour the Shia in ethnic terms).
Then there might be hope for the emergence of an endogenous political process that might lead to a fragile modus vivendi. I think the main thing that might catalyse the emergence of such a process would be the prospect of a US withdrawal - by which I mean that previously opposed groupings would come together if it meant that the US would commit to a withdrawal, rather than that the announcement of a withdrawal would catalyse the process. Without a political process in place, the announcement of a withdrawal would simply accelerate the competition already underway. To understand why, it might be worth looking to the Yugoslav example: the ethnic cleansing there accelerated *because* of the Dayton process, because the warring groups wanted to consolidate their gains.
A negotiated withdrawal is the only way that would work - particularly given that it would take at least a year to withdraw all the men and materiel currently in the country. A grand bargain with all of the warring factions - that would force them to cooperate in return for US withdrawal - combined with the threat of renewed intervention if a pure state capture dynamic sets in again.
Posted by: Matt Drinkwater | October 9th, 2007 at 5:11 pm | Report this comment