What suggestions do you have for how we should handle Iraq?
Panel May Have Few Good Options to Offer
After meeting with President Bush [Monday], a panel of prestigious Americans will begin deliberations to chart a new course on Iraq, with the goal of stabilizing the country with a different U.S. strategy and possibly the withdrawal of troops.
Tuesday’s dramatic election results, widely seen as a repudiation of the Bush Iraq policy, has thrust the 10-member, bipartisan Iraq Study Group into the kind of special role played by the Sept. 11 commission. This panel, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Indiana congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D), might play a decisive role in reshaping the U.S. position in Iraq, according to lawmakers and administration officials.
Those familiar with the panel’s work predict that the ultimate recommendations will not appear novel and that there are few, if any, good options left facing the country. Many of the ideas reportedly being considered — more aggressive regional diplomacy with Syria and Iran, greater emphasis on training Iraqi troops, or focusing on a new political deal between warring Shiites and Sunni — have either been tried or have limited chances of success, in the view of many experts on Iraq. Baker is also exploring whether a broader U.S. initiative in tackling the Arab-Israeli conflict is needed to help stabilize the region.
Is the goal still to establish a strong democratic government, or do we just want a semi-honorable way to get the hell out of Dodge? I believe the sentiment of the majority of the electorate is we removed a dictator, if you can’t get your act together quick, screw you. I admit this doesn’t bode well for future national interests, but who runs the US, the people or a few three letter acronyms?
I like Thomas Friedmans quote:
“Our only two options left today in Iraq are “tolerable” and “awful.” “Good” is no longer on the menu. When you read stories from Iraq saying that all we need to do is get rid of all the police there, get one-third of the soldiers in the Iraqi army to actually report to duty regularly, and replace all the ministers who are corrupt, you know why “good” is not on the menu anymore.”
Good to see Bush listening for ideas outside the pentagon and Haliburton but agree with #2 observations in that no option left appears good.
May God help us extract ourselves from the 4 year hole Bush dug in a way that does not perpetuate total chaos in that region. IMHO, it appears we just cannot extract our troops Vietnam style but dialogue is finally happening.
Just sayin…
But republicans and conservatives have been wrong about virtually every other detail about Iraq, why should we take them at their word that there are no good options left?
Democrats know how to complain but have no workable solutions. Is this a surprise? Cut and run is all they have talked about and exactly what I expect. I know that what their terrorist buddies think.
Lets just pump all the oil out of the country then turn it back over to the people. That would pretty much solve the problem.
i serious don’t understand what all the hand ringing is about. the war for us was over as soon as bagdad fell. its up to the iraqi’s to want peace and up to them to fight for it. frankly i don’t give a fighting fork what they do now as long as they stay out of trouble and out of our way. we have a base there and its going to be there awhile just like our bases in germany, japan, and korea. no big deal. period. end of story… move on.
Millions of Muslims want to kill each other. I think we should let them.
Just to clarify who the terrorist sympathizers are, a republican operative was arrested today for terrorist activities. No link yet, but is forthcoming.
These guys say it right out that they want to blow up the White House! We should either get out of Iraq (which is nuts) or fight and WIN. The way to win it is to occupy Iraq. Send over another 200,000 troops and let it be known: Anyone who picks up so much as a slingshot, will be killed on the spot. Sweep the country of all weapons and bomb making materials. Take as much oil as is required to pay our bills, and rebuild the infrastructure of the country. Stabilize the government, train a force to keep these knuckleheads in line, and leave. You have to get tough. Hey…how did Sadam deal with these people when they stepped out of line? He put them in a woodchipper. Now, we would never do that…we just wouldn’t and they know it. All I’m saying is give them a choice…get with ‘the program’ or get out. (or get dead).
How many more Americans will have to die before we get resolute? Alas, we don’t have the political “balls” to fight muslim extremists. I fear that they will outlast us. They are not like us. All we want is an exit strategy…an end game. What a stupid waste. The world IS more dangerous now.
Like most liberals, you guys failed to answer (Uncle Dave’s) question. No solutions, just bullshit.
Here’s the plan I would put forward.
– Establish two military bases: One in the Kurdish controlled area in northern Iraq, and one at H2 or H3 (those bases Saddam setup for arial bombardment of Israel). Sign five year leases on both, and at the end of the five years let the Kurds (for their base) and the Sunni’s/Shite’s (whomever isn’t dead, for their base) decide if they want to renew the leases.
– Establish a 12 month plan for training and armorment of the Iraqi police/military/whatever. Give the current government three months to determine who we’re training and equipment, do it, then stop. If they fail after the 12 months it’s their own damn fault.
– At the end of the 12 month period begin a one year phased withdraw from Iraq, with the establishment of 10,000 man units at each of the two bases (from part one). Use both as quick strike forces against any muslims who piss us off (or in nice terms, quell lingerning insurgent activity by the use of deadly force).
– Establish Kurdistan as a separate nation, work with the Kurds to sign a peace treaty with Turkey, and heavly fund infrastructure build-up in Kurdistan with the money that isn’t going towards the war effort after the two year period outlined above.
With the plan above, I’d be satisfied with Kurdistan becoming a stable, democratic nation at peace with its neighbors. If the rest of Iraq is going to go to shit, let it, but don’t let our enemies say we didn’t try.
The war should’ve been over and spun by conservatives as a victorious exit from Iraq after the government there fell. They should have taken that famous “Mission Accomplished” banner seriously. Instead, the whitehouse.gov site has posted a picture with that faniys banner expunged, moved out of the field of view. “If you can’t stand the irony, take it out of the picture” is not how the old saying goes.
Now we’re stuck over there, the conservatives are falling from power and whining about the Democrats, and the US is falling (or has already fallen) from its position of global preeminence. Nice going, you radical righti-wingers. And you’re whining because the Democrats have no easy fix for the major malfunctions you’ve so enthusiastically created for us? Get serious;.
I kinda like the idea of going “all in” and sink every last ounce of Military strength in an effort to get a peaceful result. Since, whoever is left standing will crave peace so much, they get along. Then I think of all the people that will die and I think we should just bail. Then I think of all the people that will die if we just bail…
On thing for sure, I’m glad it’s not up to me…
11: Best laugh I had all morning. Bitch about how no one’s playing arm chair general first thing in the morning and what’s your strategy?
1. Establish a timetable.
2. Cut.
3. Run.
No, really. I’ll think of something to add as soon as I can get off the floor again.
The go-all-in theory is based on making it so bad on the Iraqis that they will have to agree on peace. But I think a retreat to fight another day plan could have the same affect. If we were to pile boxes of guns and ammo on every street corner and then pull out of Iraq, the civil war would screw up the middle east for years. Iran would jump in first supporting their side which would piss off the Saudis and their believers. The Sunni – Shiite war could keep them off our back for a while. And if anyone decided to come against us, we should promise to invade their country like we did Iraq, We should promise to break their government, their army and their economy and promise NOT to fix it. If they are frustrated being third world, let’s see how they like forth world. The current plan is based on the economic principle that people will do what is in their best self-interest. It isn’t working here maybe because the alternative isn’t bad enough. So let’s make it bad enough.
The problem with all of the ideas presented here is simply that Bush and Rumsfeld have not been honest about any of the aspects of this war. I simply don’t think anyone here has accepted the level of deceit that has occurred here. I don’t think you can chart a good future course until you have an honest accounting of where you are.
As a software developer its as if I am developing an application but the API vendor is lying about what all the function calls do. It is not as if I don’t have the documentation, I do, its just that the documentation is deliberately wrong. Once we fix that, then we can figure out what we are going to do.
We are not even a week out from one of the most profound lies told during this war. So I am unapologetic about my lack of ideas at this point.
As for all the other ideas… It sounds like you guys don’t even understand the conflict at the most basic level. Who is the enemy. You guys just want to shoot everyone is site, which IMO is the attitude that started this war in the first place.
#15 – Learn to read, idiot.
My plan clearly states we’d retain at least 20,000 troops in Iraq for a period of five years, then let the Iraqis and Kurds determine how much longer we stay. Cut and run it is not.
Honestly, add something to the discussion or shut the f— up. Your posts are dull here and dull in the Cage Match.
Wow, there are some pretty decent strategies articulated above. I could support #11 above, though that is a tough road to go down.
For all the anti-war hoopla frenzy during the period leading up to the election, it’s amazing that there are only 18 posts here talking about a solution, when before, you’d get easily 50-100 posts screaming about what a clusterf*ck the corrupt war-mongering Republicans have gotten us into and throw the bums out, etc. Where are those folks now? Still celebrating last week’s victories?
How long can people complain about the current situation we’re in without bringing forth any good solutions? Simply “getting the hell out NOW” is not realistic, no matter how many folks won elections this month saying that. Thanksfully, I only see a couple of those above…
I’m truly looking forward to the Democrats/Republicans/Bush working out a feasible new direction in Iraq…
Give Saddam a pardon and a gun. He’s got the balls to keep the people in line.
11 Establish two military bases: ….Sign five year leases on both…
Who are we signing leases with? The elected government, or regional ones?
11 …at the end of the five years let the Kurds (for their base) and the Sunni’s/Shite’s (whomever isn’t dead, for their base) decide if they want to renew the leases.
Ah, I see you already answered my question: regional “governments”… and the “sovereign”, elected government of Iraq will allow this?
11 Establish Kurdistan as a separate nation…
You want to impose partition on a sovereign nation, with a democratically-elected government? A government that we required them to establish?
11… work with the Kurds to sign a peace treaty with Turkey, and heavly fund infrastructure build-up in Kurdistan with the money that isn’t going towards the war effort after the two year period outlined above.
Too bad that is the -LAST- thing that Turkey wants… a strong, independent Kurdistan on Turkey’s southern border.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Kurdistan
The use of the term “Kurdistan” is vigorously rejected due to its alleged political implications by the Republic of Turkey, which does not recognize the existence of a “Turkish Kurdistan”.
#11 is on the right on.
We should pull back to the military bases. Screw driving around and sticking our neck out anymore. Let the Iraqis run with the ball. If they really screw things up, we won’t be too far away to save their butts. We also should put all our efforts to help the Kurds. That’s the only part of the country that’s getting their shit together. We should tell Turkey to take a chill pill. They’re already in NATO, so an independant Kurdistan shouldn’t make them afraid.
#21…
– Specifically the Kurdish regional authority for the base in Kurdistan, and the elected Iraqi government for the base in Iraq.
– In short, yes. The Kurds have not pushed the issue because they operate as their own entity, and have since after the ’91 Gulf War.
– That’s why I’d go after a peace treaty between the Kurds and the Turks. In short, The Kurds won’t try to to take land from Turkey if Turkey agrees to open the boarder. I agree that this would be the biggest question mark of my plan.
iJames, your assumptions are essentially what the DoD is planning to do over the next few years. You are right on with the removal of large America Forward Operation Bases (FOB) inside major cities, as they will be removed and relocated to the outside perimeters. This move will serve several objectives, mainly a lesser foreign (U.S./Coalition) presence, the ability to track the borders for foreign fighters with more effectiveness, and finally the probability of U.S. soldiers taking casualties will greatly be reduced. iJames I believe that Kurdistan does not need to be a separate nation-state as the ethnic group is working extremely hard to forge a common goal with all ethnicities of Iraq. It will be a question of “if the Kurds leave the Iraqis, or instead if the Iraqis leave the Kurds.”
#21, You are missing a couple key facts that would contradict your main arguments. One, the lease plan is interesting, but it would have to be approved by the federal Iraqi government which could be accomplished as the major political parties do not want large FOBs inside major cities. The Kurdish parliamentary bloc would probably welcome this move, as long as the base is not located close to their major cities. Also, sovereign doesn’t need to be in quotations as the nation-state of Iraq is a sovereign country. Secondly, Turkey has invested over 2 billion dollars into Kurdistan so whether or not you believe their relations is in good standing it is. Never doubt the power of greed, there is probably a Ferengi Rule of Acquisition there. However, there is a minute chance that Kurdish separatist forces could upset this relationship.
Finally, it took the Kurds about ten years to bring their community, markets, and other macro-economic variables to a more prosperous level. Looking forward the same can be said for the Shiite/Sunni blocs, they just need more time and I’d estimate this to be another 8-10 years.
23 Specifically the Kurdish regional authority for the base in Kurdistan, and the elected Iraqi government for the base in Iraq.
Interesting that you call them the regional authority, but refer to the area as Kurdistan. 🙂
I am sure the Kurds would be interested in negotiating with us, but I don’t think Turkey or Iraq would.
The Kurds won’t try to to take land from Turkey if Turkey agrees to open the boarder. I agree that this would be the biggest question mark of my plan.
If I understand it correctly, Turkey is not worried about the Kurds in Iraq wanting to take land from Turkey, they are worried about Tukish Kurds trying to secede from Turkey.
“agrees to open the border” also sounds implausible, given the fence-building along our own southern border. 🙂
For the record, I don’t know how strong Iraq nationalism is amongst its peoples, but I think it would be better if the country was partitioned. It brought an end to the open warfare in the “former Yugoslavia”…
Pushing for the Kurds to legitimise their de-facto autonomy, while lumping the Sunni & Shia factions together into a 2nd nation, doesn’t seem plausible though.
Democrats know how to complain but have no workable solutions.
I think people who say this kind of thing have forgotten how wars work. The President makes the plans, controls the execution of the plans, and so on. He has total control. Outsiders creating comprehensive war plans or strategies is a complete waste of time…for one, such plans are written by the opposition, and this administration has had (until last week) zero interest in what the oppostion has to say. Hell, they wouldn’t even listen to their own generals. Two, it’s the classic business territorial argument: if we didn’t write it, we’re not going to implement it. However, Bush can (and probably will) follow the panel’s recommendations. He can change gears without losing face. Fine.
Lots and lots of people have come forth with plans and strategies, and ideas. Lots of Dems have put forth plans! I think those of you discussing the territories and relationships are great…that’s the kind of debate that can be productive. But the R’s talking points are NOT productive.
Mike Voice one does not need to partition Iraq, as doing so would be a complete nightmare and probably would never succeed. The best solution, and what is currently being done, is to setup a federalist state and through that setup each region can have specific laws and regulations that best suits their needs.
iJames puts forth most of what would be a workable plan, and probably the best we can get out of this mess now. The only things I would add to it are the need for an Iraqi referrendum on partition in order to legitimize it (which, according polls of the people over there, would pass in a heartbeat), and perhaps a larger US force – something like 50k total – simply b/c I think the ensuing 5 years will also require a referee between the new borders. Perhaps that’s something we could internationalize with Muslim countries and/or NATO, though I doubt it. Regardless, there is no doubt such residual peacekeeping would be necessary. The new countries created there wouldn’t have much of a half-life if they trade civil war for simple cross border war.
As for those of you kvetching about the Turks; you need to understand that the dynamics of the situation are not of the 1980s anymore. Their concerns are of secondary importance now, and probably never should have been given as much weight as they have been going all the way back to the first Gulf War. Turkey is as guilty of doing horrible things to the Kurds as Iraq was under Saddam, and they did it for a lot longer. Regional stability now requires that ALL the ethnic and religious divisions that are now in open war with one another in the area be cooled off. And the only thing capable of doing that is giving each group their own space in which they can feel relatively safe and in control of. It’s that lack of basic security and control over their own fortunes which is driving things there now.
Frankly, it should be obvious to anyone with a brain that Humpty Dumpty can’t be put back together again. As in Yugoslavia in the late 80s, as it is just about anywhere in the world, once the consensus among a disparate group of people – all with their own grudges & different ideas on things – to stay together has been broken, about the best you can do is plan for the ‘soft fall’. A controlled demolition allowing a rebuilding in the form of self-determiniation. The West made things in Yugoslavia 10Xs worse by not recognizing that fact. The Russians are doing the same with the Chechans. Georgia with the Oessians. Etc ….
Yes, a partitioned Iraq will be a serious step, as has been a partitioned Yugoslavia, and it needs to be done with a lot more competence than has been demonstrated by the NeoCons up to now. However, since those idiots are rapidly being replaced now, it is forseeable that it could be accomplished. And, more importantly, it’s a strategy that doesn’t piss into the wind – i.e. fight against the basic desires of the people you’re dealing with. Doing that is a colossal waste fo time, money, and lives.
In the meantime, Turkey is just gonna have to grow up and stop abusing their minorities … hell, that could even help get them in the EU. And it might not even be that jarring of a change, since reports out of there now say that the population – after witnessing 3 years of religion-inspired suicide bombings at home and abroad – are turning back to secularism after a decade of drift. One can only hope that happens everywhere.
One last message for iJames: You put forth a good plan, but it isn’t a new, or conservative, or Republican one. You’re dissing of the liberals on this is laughable, as the bones of what you put forward here originated on that side of the isle – John Murtha & Joe Biden were the first big names to advocate it, but Dem policy wonks started talking about it years ago. You may not have been aware of that fact, but it’s true nontheless. Try not to be so closed-minded in the future.
Ok. Here’s my suggestion.
Leave Iraq. Let the civil war you fomented run it’s circuit… approx 5 years. Since America was happy to impose sanctions on a country for 10+ years where the innocent people were the only victims and HW Bush prevented the populace from over throwing Saddam, you can’t claim sympathy for the plight of the Iraqi’s.
After the civil war has firmly established a muslim theocracy a’la Iran (also thanks to America), establish a no trade sanction on them. Prevent them from developing any civilian technologies that MAY be used for military purposes.
Once Iraq reestablishes itself as a nationalist state oppressing any non-muslim persons, fund a coup and install a strong man dictator sympathetic to American interests to quell any non-secular opposition.
Sounds familiar? Wash, rinse, repeat.
#28 – Odyssey, I freely admit that my ‘plan’ isn’t that creative or original, but to say this idea is out there… beyond the blogs and the inner circles… is incorrect. Further, this thread continues to prove my point: Liberals, even in a blog, can’t post their own plan (that would then back up their talk on the subject), and can only throw up crap like in #29.
#26 – Where are these plans, and why aren’t they in the mainstream? All that your post did was prove my statement.
#25 – I simply don’t agree, but I understand your point of view. I feel that establishing a Kurdish nation is a practical solution that Turkey could be brought on board with.
I agree that some sort of emigration strategy would need to be put in place, however, and could probably be done better than what we’re doing along the Mexican boarder.
1. Continue to muddle along as we have been for the next two years.
2. When Bush leaves office, he partners with Cheney, Vladimir Putin, Rumsfeld, and they gather a group of investors who form a company that outsources security and oil production to the Iraqi government. The fee for security is 25% of Iraqi oil revenues.
3. The security company hires 500,000 troops, mostly Palestinians, thus exporting most of the Palestinian youth from the area around Israel and ending the conflict there. BushCo secures the country with an iron fist. Many hundreds of thousands die, but the country is stabilized.
4. Oil production ramps up over a three year period to be on par with Saudi Arabia. Oil prices worldwide stabilize. Bush and Putin and their investors become multi-billionaires and assemble the world’s largest private military.
5. Using the success in Iraq, they stage a leveraged buyout of Saudia Arabia. They annex Kuwait to Iraq to facilitate oil exports. Not a shot is fired.
6. Meanwhile, the neocons start working on the case for invading and pacifying Venezuela.
7. etc.