International Crisis Group's plan for Iraq and the region.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Of all the "plans" put forward, this is the one that I think most sensible...and possibly workable. Dependent, of course, on the blockheaded politicians and generals now running the monumental fuck-up.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4580&l=1&m=1


“We are looking at Iraq’s complete disintegration into failed-state chaos, threatening to drag down much of the region with it”, says Crisis Group President Gareth Evans. “More troops in – or out – are not going to solve this. What is needed above all is a new multinational effort to achieve a new political compact between all relevant Iraqi players.”

All Iraqi actors who, one way or another, are involved in the country’s internecine violence must be brought to the negotiating table and pressed to accept the necessary compromises. That cannot be done without a concerted effort by all Iraq’s neighbours, which in turn cannot be done if their interests are not reflected in the final outcome. If Iraq can be saved at this late date, it will require three ambitious and interrelated steps:

*
A new forceful multilateral approach that puts real pressure on all Iraqi parties. The Baker-Hamilton report is right to advocate a broad International Support Group; it should comprise the five permanent Security Council members and Iraq’s six neighbours. But its purpose must not be to support the Iraqi government. It must support Iraq, which means pressing the government, along with all other constituencies, to make necessary compromises. The government and security forces should not be treated as privileged allies to be bolstered. They are but one among many parties to the conflict and not innocent of responsibility for much of the trouble. It also means agreeing on rules of conduct and red-lines for third-party involvement. Sustained multilateral diplomacy, not a one-off international conference is needed.
*
A conference of all Iraqi and international stakeholders to forge a new political compact. This is not a military challenge in which one side needs to be strengthened and another defeated. It is a political challenge in which new consensual understandings need to be reached. A new, more equitable and inclusive national compact needs to be agreed upon by all relevant actors, including militias and insurgent groups, on issues such as federalism, resource allocation, de-Baathification, the scope of the amnesty and the timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. This can only be done if the International Support Group brings all of them to the negotiating table, and if its members steer their deliberations, deploying a mixture of carrots and sticks to influence those on whom they have particular leverage.
*
A new U.S. regional strategy, including engagement with Syria and Iran, end of efforts at regime change, revitalisation of the Arab-Israeli peace process and altered strategic goals. Mere engagement of Iraq’s neighbours will not do; Washington must clearly redefine its objectives in the region to enlist regional, and particularly Iranian and Syrian help. The goal is not to bargain with them, but to seek compromise agreement on an end-state for Iraq and the region that is no one’s first choice, but with which all can live.

[NashVegas]

1. "All Iraqi actors ... pressed to accept the necessary compromises"? "international stakeholders"?

I have to wonder, who is deciding what the necessary compromises shall be, and for whom?

I do agree it will be necessary to get all sides to the table, but the responsibility of compromise does not rest entirely upon Iraqi shoulders. Westerners and/or these "international stakeholders" must be prepared to accept necessary compromise as well. To refuse to accept that is the height of arrogance.

[endarkenment]

2. "international stakeholders"?

Who dat?

The Iraqi people should be the folks deciding Iraq's future, if any.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Well, they're certainly not having much say in it now.

From an Iraqi blog:

http://twentyfourstepstoliberty.blogspot.com/

Now, do you really think the government and the politicians know what the problem is and what the Iraqis want? Do you think the government and the people are in the same boat?

I don’t!

A government that consists of almost a dozen parties that each one of them is an enemy of the other would never be able to lead Iraq. This “democracy” isn’t working. If anyone ever thought that this is “the rule of people,” well, you are wrong. This is the rule of the powerful and the death of the people. This is a jungle.

[NashVegas]

4. I Understand What You're Getting At

But at this point, the necessary compromises Iraqis must make are to and with each other.

But you must know. Washington and, I assume, the rest of the Coalition of the Willing want some sort of return on their investment. And they, too, must compromise. The article doesn't seem to mandate that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. If you read the whole article...

“There is abundant reason to question whether the Bush administration is capable of such a dramatic course change. But there is no reason to question why it ought to change direction, and what will happen if it does not”, says Robert Malley, Crisis Group’s Middle East and North Africa Program Director.

And, I certainly agree with you that the chances of "success" of such a plan is remote. But, as "plans" go this one, calling for negotiations among concerned parties is better than most.

[endarkenment]

6. Well I have read the report.

OK it is not horrible and the board if ICG is impressive. But as I noted elsewhere, when it comes to what the US should do, it seems to fall apart. For starters, we need to get out of Iraq. We need to take a back seat, along with Britain, and let the other three permanent members of the UNSC drive. I do not, I cannot, trust our government to act correctly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I'm certainly with you on that.

As usual, it's the actual people affected who are never consulted about their future.

The American presence in Iraq is becoming more and more irrelevant except as the common enemy of the whole region. Our part there is totally destructive to whatever peace process will eventually ensue. Same for the Brits.

As I see it, the only reason for maintaining the American presence is for the buffoons who initiated their fantasy of "democratizing" the Middle East by blowing things up and killing people, is to save face. A notion they will cling to until we are finally thrown out by force.