Never mind the balkanisation
Project on Defense Alternatives - 400 days and out: A strategy for resolving the Iraq impasse
The key to enabling total US troop withdrawal from Iraq within 400 days is achieving a political accord with Sunni leaders at all levels and with Iraq’s neighbors - especially Syria and Iran. The proximal aim would be to immediately lower the level of conflict inside Iraq by constricting both active and passive support for the insurgency, inside and outside the country. This would allow the United States to shift resources to the training mission and to adopt other de-escalatory measures - most importantly: a withdrawal time line. The strategic price of this diplomatic initiative would be a return to self-governance in Sunni areas, a guaranteed level of representation for these areas in the national assembly, an end to broad-brush measures of de-Baathification, an amnesty for most indigenous insurgents and for most former Baathists, and a de-escalation of the US confrontation with Syria and Iran regarding a range of issues.
Read the executive summary if you don’t have the time for the whole thing.
It is a very seductive idea on the face of it, particularly for the “troops out” faction, until you look deeper.
It sounds like a recommendation of cutting and running to me in the face of a massive terrorist insurgency with an insatiable taste for civilian casualties and a reconstruction barely begun. And it doesn’t square with reports of permanent US bases being built in Iraq or a perceived need for a US foothold in the region after largescale withdrawal from Saudi Arabia to ensure the oil continues to flow.
It seems to me that the crux of the plan is to do an ambitious deal with a newly elected hardline Iranian government with nuclear ambitions and a previous history of sponsoring terrorism. Doesn’t that risk an Iranian-backed theocracy at least in the southern canton? That is in no way a satisfactory outcome for the secular Muslim population of Iraq let alone those of us in the West indulging in political parlour games. Are we now talking about peace (meaning stability) at any price?
And that’s before you consider what to do about the Zarqawist/al-Qaeda elements inside Iraq. Doing a deal with Iran and Syria to appease Sunni Muslims isn’t necessarily going to rein in Islamist terrorists. Also, won’t a newly expansionist Iraqi/Iranian theocracy be tempted to do a deal with these elements and use them to continue the civil war in an attempt to take the Sunni centre and Kurdish North? Or even export these terrorists worldwide?
On the whole, I think this is dangerous nonsense. What is the solution? I don’t know but the path of least resistance doesn’t appeal.
That the post-war period in Iraq has been criminally botched seems indisputable and no doubt the coalition are thinking hard about how to extricate themselves from a mess of their own making. The Iraqi people are owed a debt. Risking the replacement of one tyranny with another is not the way to pay it.
Populist, seemingly win-win thinktank solutions aren’t the way. For once, I hope nobody in the Pentagon is listening.
(Thanks to Katie for the link.)
Posted on July 21st, 2005 at 12:49 pm
| See also • I know nothing stays the same, but if you’re willing to play the game, it’s coming around again • You can’t handle the truth • The smoking, ahem, guns… |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under Uncategorized |
I think Iraq can now only be helped by those who aren’t closely identified with the invaders. The battle for hearts and minds looks irretrievably lost. We (Britain) could still assist the Iraqi people towards a secular peaceful democracy, but surely now only by proxy (Syria, Iran, Turkey?) and even then only discreetly. And how much compromise (and plain sucking up) would this take? Would our current leadership even contemplate it? It’d mean playing second fiddle - at best.
The corollary - if you’re British - is that little you do or say will now make much difference to the future of Iraq. It’s a past event. The best the popular voice can do is try to prevent any likely future fuck-ups.
“Doesn’t that risk an Iranian-backed theocracy at least in the southern canton? That is in no way a satisfactory outcome for the secular Muslim population of Iraq let alone those of us in the West indulging in political parlour games… Also, won’t a newly expansionist Iraqi/Iranian theocracy be tempted to do a deal with these elements and use them to continue the civil war in an attempt to take the Sunni centre and Kurdish North? Or even export these terrorists worldwide?”
I think that I blogged about Iran in my “synergy” piece, didn’t I? I think that this is one of those occasions when I’m not going to enjoy being right.
Charlie says: Mmmeowwweeoooww… Only joking. He actually said, “I think Iraq can now only be helped by those who aren’t closely identified with the invaders.”.
As I keep posting, here are the words of Iranian cleric and MIS commander, Al-Zarqawi, speaking the day before the Iraqi elections in January:
“Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the terror chief, warned Iraqis yesterday he would wage a “bitter war” against next Sunday’s election… “We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it,” a speaker identified as al Zarqawi said on an Islamist website. “Those who vote . . . are infidels. And with God as my witness, I have informed them (of our intentions).”
(Originally from The Herald (Al Zarqawi declares war on Iraq election; The Herald. Glasgow (UK): Jan 24, 2005. pg. 1).
The majority of Iraqis who do not wish to live under a theocracy want the troops to stay, to help fight the “insurgants”, or–let’s call them what they are–Iranian-funded, theocratic, fundamentalist invaders.
P.S. MIS is my own abbreviation: it stands for “Murdering Islamist Scum”.
Anyone else spot the Turkish prime minister threatening to invade Kurdistan yesterday?
and, BTW, I quite like the idea of “insurg-ants”. Reminds me of the quote from the First Battle of Fallujah about “heaven sent forth giant spiders to fight the Americans”.
Alex, have you got a link for the Turkish Prime Minister story?