Withdrawal from Iraq: The most pragmatic solution available...

[Cooley Hurd]

Civil war in Iraq is an inevitability.

This is a conflict between bitter enemies that has, at various times, simmered and boiled for several centuries, and no force can overcome it (not even the most powerful force to ever exist, the US military). For the US to remain installed in this conflict will result in only one thing: more lives will be lost, and they will include American military personnel.

With the inevitability of the Iraq civil war comes the inevitability of US troop withdrawals. How the withdrawal should take place, and what the US government should pay in terms of reparations TO the new Iraqi government (the US was the aggressor in this conflict) should be immediately considered. A modern, Iraqi "Marshall Plan" should also be devised - the only thing that will soothe this war-ravaged nation will be a Herculean humanitarian effort in the scope and spirit of the allied postwar effort in Europe.

Without delay, the first phase should be that the US cease combat operations in Iraq, followed by the removal of combat troops (i.e. the Marines).

The second phase should be the gradual, reasoned withdrawal of all other US personnel (not to exceed one year), replaced by a UN peacekeeping force, comprised primarily of Jordanian troops, if possible.

The third phase should be the calculation of war reparations. This will serve as a tangible apology to the Iraqi people, as well as an infusion of capital back into the Iraqi treasury (and NOT directly to American contractors).

The fourth, and most important phase is the creation of a modern "Marshall Plan" for the individual provinces of Iraq (as each one becomes strife-free and able to protect the implementation of the aid). This should be monitored exclusively by the UN.

Putting off the inevitable only prolongs the suffering and the agony of the Iraqi people.

See my sig gif. It's time.

[NNN0LHI]

1. Jordan only has about a hundred thousand or so active military troops

And the Iraqis hate every damn one of them after Jordan let the USA use Jordanian airspace to bomb Iraq into oblivion. Plus the Jordanian soldiers are all pretty busy trying to keep the king of Jordan alive. If all of Jordan's soldiers go off to Iraq I am afraid that the kings subjects will cut his head off in a jiffy.

Don

[Cooley Hurd]

3. The reason I chose Jordan was to put an Arab face on the force...

...so to speak, plus, it was the only neighbor of Iraq I'd trust to carry out the mission even-handedly. Their troop "stake" doesn't have to be huge - just a token force at the front of the organization.

Happy New Year, Don!:hi:

[NNN0LHI]

6. Happy New Year, CH. I have been thinking about this subject lately

I got a cat I like a lot. He is a big mother and always kept all the strays away from here no problem. Took on all comers. One tough SOB. Well he is getting up there in years. About 10 or so now. He came in about a week ago after getting the bad end of one major ass kicking. It was cold too. He came to the door he had icicles from each side of his mouth hanging down to the ground. He had about a hundred little tufts of hair pulled out all over him. Nothing major. I really think getting whipped hurt his feelings worse than the physical injuries. Though the fight took a hell of a lot out of him. He slept for 24 hours straight. Didn't eat or get up for nothing.

Well at first this happening to him really broke my heart too. But after a week or so I am starting to think it was all for the best. He isn't out patrolling in the cold all day for intruders and he appears generally happier. Pretty much just goes out into the farm field to do his business and gets right back in here. He is asleep on the couch right now.

So how does this cat bullshit have anything to do with Iraq you are wondering. Well I am starting to think that the natural progression of things just need to happen some time. Like tides. Like a cat getting old. Like Iraqis going their own way. No matter how bad we want to control something sometimes you just can't. Doesn't make any difference how hard we try we can only delay the inevitable in Iraq.

Our choice is do we want to take our licken like my cat did and learn our lesson and become better for it? Or do we want to just keep digging in this hole we have dug until we completely destroy this country we love? Not much of a choice to me. We gotta go. Not next year or even next month. We got to go now. Before it is too late.

Don

[Rhiannon12866]

9. Numerous Jordanians have joined the Iraqi insurgency.

It's a matter of religious duty for them, rather than a question of political loyalty. And, don't forget, King Hussein sided with Saddam, rather than the U.S., during the first Gulf War, despite his close ties to the American government.

[NNN0LHI]

10. Yes but that King Hussein is dead and his idiot son is now in charge n/t

[Rhiannon12866]

11. Good point. This guy has played both ends against the middle, so

neither side can ever completely trust him. And I agree. He will never be the man, nor the leader, that his father was, more's the pity.:-(

[Poppyseedman]

2. Was with you until

replaced by a UN peacekeeping force, comprised primarily of Jordanian troops, if possible.

What makes you think the UN can handle a job this big? Remember the UN cut and run when it's headquarters were attacked. They don't have the stomach for it.

The UN is the most corrupt, compromised institution on the face of the planet.

[Cooley Hurd]

5. The UN is the only entity that could handle this...

...since NATO is still in the US's pocket, and, quite frankly, I don't trust the present US government to carry this out honestly AND capably.

[FloridaPat]

4. They said the same thing with Vietnam. No civil war. In this case

though, there might be a lot of blood shed. Maybe we can put * on trial in Iraq.

[Jim__]

7. I agree that we have to get out - but, I'm not sure there is any solution.

I may be misunderstanding your suggestion; but I take it that you envision this being settled and there being an intact Iraq. I think the only way Iraq can remain intact is if there is a new strongman (i.e. another Saddam) who gets control over the country. Outside of that, I think Iraq will split into at least 3 (and probably more) entities. This will be very destabilizing to the entire Middle East.

I don't see any good solution to this. I believe most people who understood the situation in Iraq advised against this asinine war - essentially because no good could come of it. I don't believe any good will.

But, keeping our combat troops there, does nothing to alleviate the situation. All we're doing is getting more of our troops killed and continuing to instill anti-Americanism in a large portion of the Arab population.

[Cooley Hurd]

8. I don't think an intact Iraq, geography-wise, is possible...

...nor in the best interests of the Iraqi citizens that live within the existing national borders. That's why I think aiding individual provinces is a better solution than giving it directly to the national government.

[liberalpragmatist]

19. Well a disintegrated Iraq isn't in the best interests of its people

You're right that it may be inevitable - the trajectory is certainly leading that way. But that isn't to say it's something we should hope for. We're kidding ourselves if any of us thinks that a 3-way partition of Iraq would lead to greater stability.

There are no clean lines in Iraq. There are millions of non-Kurds in Kurdish areas. There are over a million Kurds in the Baghdad area, which is itself an ethnic and religious milieu of Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, Christians (both Assyrian and Chaldean), and Turkmen. Kirkuk is an ethnic tinderbox, with a Kurdish plurality but huge populations of Arabs and Turkmen. If Iraq were to physically fracture, it would be an even greater catastrophe than it is now. The violence among Iraqis would pale to what is currently going on.

Governments and many people often assume that in cases of ethnic or religious conflict, partitioning a country is the best way to avoid bloodshed. In almost every case - India/Pakistan, Ireland, Yugoslavia, Israel/Palestine, Greece/Turkey - it has led to MASSIVE bloodshed and a poisoning of relations between the two successor states. Of course, some of those, like Israel and Palestine and Greece and Turkey were probably unavoidable. But plenty of others were not inevitable.

This article by Juan Cole, The Three-State Solution is a good overview of the problems inherent in accepting a 3-way partition of Iraq: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/cole

Moreover, if Iraq does split up, it's likely to be two states. Neither the Sunnis or Shias are fighting over a division of the country - they both want control over the whole country. Even with the Shias asking for a large, autonomous Shia region in the South, it's very unlikely that the Shias would concede control of Baghdad to the Sunnis. The Sunnis center will likely remain wedded to the Shia south no matter what the outcome. If there is a civil war, it will be a civil war for control of the Sunni and Shia regions of the country as a whole, not a civil war to establish secession on the part of one or the other. So if there is a division in Iraq, it'll likely be a splitting off of the Kurds, who universally want to be independent of Iraq.

[Cooley Hurd]

21. I certainly don't want to see a forced partition of Iraq...

...but its inevitability, due to what will likely be a drawn-out civil war, must be considered and addressed.

[nuxvomica]

12. You need to get rid of the contractors somehow as well

I'm not sure how this would fit into your plan but I've always felt that the no-bid contractors like Halliburton are a big part of the problem over there. Their effect is a double-whammy against the Iraqi people: 1) they are taking jobs that should filled by Iraqis and 2) they are failing to get the infrastructure up to par because of security problems, incompetence and poor incentives. Our own revolution was sparked by corporate imperialism (British East India Co. and "the Boston Tea Party") so we should be aware of how corrosive such policies are more than other countries.
So I would clean house in that area first but I agree that we need to get the troops out and bring in a trusted third party

[Rhiannon12866]

14. You are absolutely right.

The contractors are a major reason for the resentment and hatred, not to mention the huge cost to the American taxpayers. This makes no sense, since Iraq has a trained population that can handle the jobs that are going to costly American companies, mainly Halliburton, and the cost to taxpayers must include security for these people, to prevent them from being taken hostage and murdered. Iraqis need jobs, so employing them to rebuild their own country is he only thing that makes any sense. Of course, this won't benefit Cheney or the other Bush* cronies, so don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. But nothing about invading Iraq makes any sense, so I can't imagine that they'll see sense at this late date.:shrug:

[Cooley Hurd]

15. I believe once their American protection was out of the picture...

...they would have no choice but to abandon their efforts and sell their interests back to Iraqi companies.

There's no way civil war can be avoided, so the reconstruction of its infrastructure will be a moot point for the time being. The focus should be on humanitarian relief in the short-term. Stop the bleeding, then treat the wound, so to speak.:thumbsup:

[Rhiannon12866]

13. Withdrawal from Iraq is long past due.

Civil war was always a possibility, but because we have occupied Iraq for so long, allowing the hatred and insurgency to grow far beyond anything anyone can manage or control, it's become inevitable. Our troops definitely have become prime targets, merely by their presence, and nothing can be accomplished in Iraq until the Americans are gone.

I agree that we need to bring in UN peacekeepers. Nothing else makes sense, since we can no longer accomplish anything there, but I've been saying this for a very long time. Putting an Arab face on this is the only thing that makes sense, since resentment will be less, but it must be a multinational force, if nothing else. Bush Sr. had a better idea, when he launched Gulf War I, since he orchestrated a true coalition, including Arab neighbors. This Bush* has little sense and didn't even learn the lessons of his father. In 1996, on the fifth anniversary of the first Gulf War, Bush Sr. explained his reasons for not taking Baghdad and taking out Saddam when he had he chance. He said that doing so would have "turned the entire Arab world against us and destabilized the region." Well, guess what?!

Of course, he also encouraged the Shia to rise up against Saddam, then left them to his mercy, resulting in the brutal execution of around 300,000. And we wonder why they hate us.

As for putting a timetable on his, which Bush* also refuses to do, this makes no sense, since I can't imagine how this could possibly makes things worse. We have to leave, and leave now, and should have done so long ago. The longer that we remain in Iraq, the more deaths will result, Iraqi and American.

As for a modern-day Marshall plan, and war reparations, a brilliant idea. After the havoc, death and destruction, we sure as hell owe these people something.

[Cooley Hurd]

16. I'm operating on three simple concepts:

1) Civil war cannot be avoided, therefore the only pragmatic solution is to try and lessen the humanitarian toll this conflict will take on the Iraqi people.

2) Maintaining one Iraq under its present (British-drawn) borders might not be possible, so focusing on individual provinces (in regards to aid, diplomatic and economic ties, etc) might be the only practical way in the short-term.

2) The US and US-controlled entities (NATO) cannot be trusted to carry out the task, so giving it to the UN to administer is the only option.

[Redstone]

17. Gradual? Up to a year? Why?

What's the fucking point of taking a YEAR to get out?

Redstone

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. I'm with you Redstone

Why can't we just pack up and leave?

[Cooley Hurd]

20. We have 3 years worth of shit to take with us...

I'd prefer not to leave anything that could be used militarily against the weaker segment of the Iraqi population (the Sunnis) by the Shia government.

I agree, I'd like to see withdrawal ASAP, but to leave quickly means we leave all that nasty shit behind.

[Redstone]

22. Well, if you really mean "in a year or three, maybe you should take the

"NOW" out of your graphic.

A year or three isn't NOW.

Besides, it would probably be cheaper to blow up a lot of stuff rather than ship it back.

And you can't tell me that it would take a YEAR just to move everything to Kuwait where it could wait for sealift.

Redstone

[Cooley Hurd]

23. Actually, I said "not to exceed one year" in my OP...

I said "three years worth of shit" in reference to our (almost) three year occupation.

It would take at least 6 months to get all US personnel (w/ full gear) out. There's also fixed bases that would have to be dismantled and removed. A year gives the US military enough time to get everything out.:thumbsup: