Iraq Withdrawal: C/D, S/D

i can't believe this hasn't been done before. not that i looked it up, i just assumed.

withdrawal is a dud.

Yeah, lots of Iraq threads but no definitive withdrawal thread I can see.

But why is it a dud? And don't say "because we have to finish what we started" or some inane bullshit. That's not an argument.

The Iraqis want us out. Our only chance seems to be getting the moderates of Iran and Syria on board to stabilize the place. But that would mean Bush needs to back off of Iran and quit stirring up trouble with his stupid mouth.

Do the Sunnis want us out though? And what does an Iraq "stablized" by Iran and Syria actually look like?

Who knows. Probably nothing we'd like, but that's where we are. I don't think we qualify as mediators between Sunnis and Shias, so for now, the majority rules. And Iran seems to really want a stable Iraq as much as we do. They want it to lean their way, obviuosly, but nobody trusts us anymore.

i read this on the plane the other day:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86202/ray-takeyh/time-for-detente-with-iran.html

lol@iran 'stabilizing' iraq

think thatd be the last thing the us needs!

anyway to answer the question, its a mess. i mean you dont want the answer 'to finish the job', but its not a bad answer! to leave now would be to leave things in a far worse state than at the beginning, not just from iraqs perspective but also from a us perspective, and a security perspective

it would also be a massive defeat for the US and one which gives the message "declining power". im sure this is already suspected and believed by iran, for one, but it really would be confirmed by a withdrawalo now.

the other question is afghanistan. a withdrawal there is also a massive admission of defeat, and a tacit admittance of inability to realise ambition. after some successes there, afghanistan is slowly slipping away again, and its only the focus on iraq in the media thats stopped this from being bigger news

Iraq is a fucking occupation that by definition can't last forever. Afghanistan might still be salvagable.

well, 4 years ago I'd agree with you 696 but we've seriously shot our wad here. We have no cards left to play. The country is in civil war, no question, and our being there is the main source of resistance (obvs). We've already shown our weakness and no amount of military flexing is going to change that. Iran is our only chance, good or bad. We made the bed...

actually 4 years ago i wouldn't agree, I just meant we've had our chance and we blew it

And this thing was fucked from the very beginning, just due to the people who were running it. I mean, among many other things, these assholes thought the Marshall Plan was a fluke, and they were gunna prove to everybody that unregulated conservative political and economical ideology could quickly bring peace to the region.

well thats the rock and the hard place. we have run out of cards to play, but 'we' wanted this to be a counterbalance to iran in the region. irans aims for iraq arent the same as ours, and they know they hold the cards (why theyve sat on the sidelines, flexing muscles a little, just to say *hello!!*)

Belgravia Dispatch tackles the question via reference to another argument elsewhere:

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2007/05/a_case_for_withdrawal.html

I think Stewart's right about the Iraqi goverment. They're a lot more cunning with mid-east politics than we are. If anyone can solve middle east problems it's the middle east.

xpost
Yeah but they don't seem interested in conquest or anything like that, just a non-hostile neighbor. Iran is not the USSR. The Iranians are a civilized people and they really do want stability. Iraq is seriously fucking with their economy and safety in it's current state (or lack of). The leadership just sees it's chance to tip things in their favor and their taking it. Can't say I blame them.

maybe "solve" is the wrong word?

yea they want to make sure they dont have a potentially antagonistic and coherent sunni neighbour

and get a chunk of revenue I'm sure. also about the Sunnis:

from toohotfortnr.blogspot.com:

"Increasingly, it's possible to classify the Sunnis in Anbar and elsewhere into two categories, which are admittedly reductionist and imprecise: U.S.-complicit, anti-al Qaeda Sunnis, like these guys profiled by Eli today; and anti-U.S. anti-Maliki anti-al Qaeda insurgents, like the "Reform and Jihad Front" (via Abu Aardvark). al-Dari clearly falls in the latter category. At some point these two groups are going to vie for power, if they're not already: al-Dari and the RJF reject al-Q in part for its usurpation of resistance against the U.S., so there's little reason to believe they can peacefully coexist with men like al-Rishawi, whom they view as a collaborator. And all things being equal, the U.S. should side with those willing to side with it against those who'd prefer to kill U.S. troops and civilians.

But what if the RJF faction is stronger than the al-Rishawi/Anbar Salvation Council faction? In other words, what if the destruction of al-Q is more than al-Rishawi can provide? I won't pretend to be able to adjudicate the relative strengths of each movement, but it at least seems likely that the latter faction is the one with more ex-Baathist military officials in it, which speaks to its relative competence as a force. If that is indeed the way it shakes out, then the U.S. will need to find a modus vivendi with people who clearly will never accept Shiite rule"

I just meant we've had our chance and we blew it

Or at least as likely, there was never any chance.

Increasingly, it's possible to classify the Sunnis in Anbar and elsewhere into two categories, which are admittedly reductionist and imprecise: U.S.-complicit, anti-al Qaeda Sunnis, like these guys profiled by Eli today; and anti-U.S. anti-Maliki anti-al Qaeda insurgents, like the "Reform and Jihad Front" (via Abu Aardvark). al-Dari clearly falls in the latter category

What gibberish.

Do any of our more foreign policy-savvy ILXors want to weigh in?

Yeah, this one was an insoluble proposition even before presented.

could it still be a bulwark against a much bigger crisis?

What bigger crisis? One might imagine people are tiring of the Iraq as flypaper for war-on-terror argument, which this is a variation on. It was weary three years ago.

How exactly, even as a totally failed state, it's infrastructure and internal security pulverized by the US and resulting civil war, does Iraq threaten us in the "homeland"?

Are you worried about five dollars a gallon gas? Will Iraq somehow become a place for the making of clandestine atomic bombs to be sailed to us in container ships as revenge? Is there a 'domino theory' in action?

One might as well view Iraq as Turkey was regarded prior to World War I: The sick man of Europe. Turkey was merely pathetic and fucked over. Iraq is worse, a total ruin. How is a ruin a threat to us, as a civilization?

Be precise now.

Iraq is a fucking occupation that by definition can't last forever. Afghanistan might still be salvagable.

-- kingfish, Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:24 AM (3 hours ago)

i think it's probably the other way round. afghanistan is practically ungovernable, and i don't think turning it into another colombia is a sound course of action either.

occupations don't have to last forever -- though why that's 'by definition' i don't know tbh -- but they can achieve their objective, if done right. i don't think there's much chance of that.

If anyone can solve middle east problems it's the middle east.

uh

The Iranians are a civilized people and they really do want stability.

"stability" is a ridic euphemism though isn't it? leaving aside that some important iranians don't seem to want stability. i'm not sure what you're getting at with "civilized" -- they don't seem any more or less civilized than the americans or the iraqis.

gorge -- not everyone here is an american.

there's three questions hiding here aren't there?
a speculative one: "what would happen in the event of a withdrawl?"
a moral one: "is it right to leave iraq if what is speculated is to occur?"
and a pragmatic one: "to what extent does leaving iraq serve western interests?"

and a strange one to ask: how much coverage would the war get in the western media if the US/UK pulled out?

gorge -- not everyone here is an american.

So what? My post wasn't anti-world-for-the-sake-of-the-US-homeland.

Britain, for example, has already paid a price, one it will continue to pay, for the US war in Iraq. I know first hand from inside information from terror trials, some of which I have written quite a bit about, that fallout from the war in Iraq has created conditions which have bred terror plots in the UK.

And from this I am certain that national security interests in my country, and England, have been harmed in a signficant way by the war.

The best solution, I think would be for the US and the UK to pass control of the situation over to the UN and for the troops to be replaced with troops from countries such as malaysia and indonesia, i.e islamic countries but not arab/persian/turkic. US UK should be footing the bill of course and paying reparations as well.

yeah i'm aware that iraq is part of the mix with british jihadists, but it's not the only thing. the other part of that is: if the uk withdrew, these same jihadists would still have the ongoing civil war in iraq as a motivator. that or, you know, their hatred of ministry of sound.

xpost

i don't know much about the malaysian or indonesian military, but would they be up to it, ed? and do you think that the UN *wouldn't* be regarded as outside, indeed western, interference? would the religion of the occupiers really swing it for them?

theyd just be seen as stooges, at this point.

not to mention the potential problems it might give indonesia and malaysia!

I'm not sure that they are up to the task and religion should not matter, the current situation is untenable and cutting iraq loose at this time probably turns iraq into a proxy war between the saudis and the iranians, with the turks involved in the north an syria as an unknown quantity. Moslems in blue helmets may affect the attitudes of Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi but might have no effect on the iraqi sectaries.

hasn't john bolton, i know he's not in a postion of power now, come out and said ongoing stability in iraq is not a us priority? i guess morally blame obv should rest with the invading force but once us/uk have left does it just become another nasty situation we tut about but don't actually do much about, just another dafur? a question arising from this: is the age of humanitarian intervention over? cos y know blair for all his mad hubris did seem to have some sort of moral agenda in all this.

john bolton says a lot of things.

yes, yes he does.

Do you guys have any idea how many people in the defense/weapons/etc industries would lose their jobs if there was no war?

( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/ )

not to mention the potential problems it might give indonesia and malaysia!

They can barely afford to sustain themselves much less get into a sorry war, and they've opposed it from the very beginning. Not to mention that both those countries are majority Muslim with a very significant non-Muslim population (slightly more than a third in Malaysia). It's a very different situation from Arab countries, that are 90-plus% Muslim.

has the UN ever done this kind of war?

I don't see how malaysia and indonesia have anything to offer. would the arabs and persians trust them anymore than us?

i'm not sure what you're getting at with "civilized" -- they don't seem any more or less civilized than the americans or the iraqis.

That's exactly my point. This exact same conversation is happening all over Iran and Iraq (and everywhere else, mostly). Our best bet is to support the moderates in those places and give people an option aside from gettng wrapped up in blood-boiling rhetoric. The extremist are the minority, but they keep scaring everyone into submission. You're right, it is just like here!

Our only chance seems to be getting the moderates of Iran and Syria on board to stabilize the place

i think this is a total waste of time. none of the "moderates" hold any of the levers of power in these countries

the UN/malaysia/indonesia idea seems particularly fanciful. the UN is not going to do the slightest thing to help out the US/UK in this situation, no matter the possible morality or long-shot utility of keeping Iraq from getting worse. and no country, i mean, absolutely no country, is going to toss more troops into the meat grinder.

i think this is a total waste of time. none of the "moderates" hold any of the levers of power in these countries

I don't see how it's a total waste of time. It is our only option. With the US behind them their influence may change and if that happened, many people wold be more willing to support them. The power is in the hands of the minority because there's no strong alternatives. Supporting moderates gives them that alternative.

With the US behind them their influence may change

It may, like, get worse...

The power is in the hands of the minority because there's no strong alternatives

this was the rationale for regime change!!

i lean towards believing that withdrawal would make thing worse militarily because we're providing the 'security' (but on the other hand maybe the uncertainty as to when we will leave adds to the instability), but also towards believing that doing so would improve the stability of the political situation, because we'd be giving the iraqis full ownership and therefore forcing them to get things together (but on the other hand what if the military situation trumps the political).

lol@forcing them to get act together!!1!

they might get their act together in a way *we* dont like

then in we go again

"we" will live with that

Don't worry guys, we have a War Czar now, this will all be quickly taken care of

What's with the language this White House comes up with? A War Czar? Could they make it sound anymore ominous?

It may, like, get worse...

like, how does supporting the reasonable members of Iran's government make things worse? What actions, then, would make it better?

this was the rationale for regime change!!
there's nothing wrong with supporting moderates to influence the region. It doesn't necessarily imply regime change (except to Bush). And Iran is not a dictatorship. There's lots of cracks we could take advantage of at this point, but threatening the Iranians with war just solidifies those cracks and makes us the bad guy.

like, how does supporting the reasonable members of Iran's government make things worse? What actions, then, would make it better?

would be alibi for non-moderates to bosh the moderates.

Iraqis are not generally opposed to westerners - the ones that are are a very small minority (slowly growing, the longer this goes on) belonging to Al-Qaeda and other extreme Islamic groups. What they are opposed to is what they see as the illegal occupation of their country. The violence is due to competing interests over the land, by a population strongly divided over ethnic and sectarian lines. They are fighting both the US occupants and against each other. If the US pulls out, it is almost inevitable that civil war will occur.

The thing about supporting moderates is that in Iraq, it's not about religious extremism, but about sectarian pride. Being "moderate" doesn't come into play at all. After the fall of Saddam, the US made a big mistake by appealing to the Shiite majority while completely ignoring the Sunnis, most of whom were still sore over the invasion and what they see as the loss of their historical right to rule over Iraq. Neither side are religious extremists, they just haven't liked each other for centuries.

On top of all that, Al-Qaeda (the real Muslim extremists) are taking advantage of the situation recruiting new members, most of whom are just angry Sunnis, AND you've got all the ethnic minority groups (Kurds, Turks, etc) joining in just for kicks. Iraq is basically fucked regardless of whether the US stays or goes - unless a secular government (not unlike Saddam's Baath Party, in fact) can be established that is willing to be really tough on everybody. But given the deep-seated animosity between the competing groups, there is no doubt that at least one of those groups involved are going to be heavily persecuted under whoever eventually takes power.

Of late it sounds like the U.S. *is* preparing to take a more moderate approach toward Iran. As hard as I find Ahmadinejad to stomach, I've felt for a long time that this was the only feasible approach.

I also don't like the idea of a nuclear Iran (I don't really like the idea of ANY new nuclear nations being created, for that matter - I wish we were going in the other direction), but I'm not sure there's any workable approach to stopping Iran from going Nuclear where the consequences aren't equally bad or worse. Iran is determined to become, or at least to feel like a regional superpower, and maybe it's better to humor those feelings than to threaten them.

Of course now Lebanon is worried that if the U.S. makes nice to Iran and Syria it will weaken Lebanon's current government, and I feel for them. This isn't going to be much fun any way you slice it.

OK Middle East politics are not my forte but I can try to explain a couple of things about Ed's suggestion re: UN forces.

The best solution, I think would be for the US and the UK to pass control of the situation over to the UN and for the troops to be replaced with troops from countries such as malaysia and indonesia, i.e islamic countries but not arab/persian/turkic. US UK should be footing the bill of course and paying reparations as well.

-- Ed, Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:17 AM (6 hours ago)

Actually these troops would probably be from Pakistan and India, who contribute the largest number of UN troops. But yeah, there'd be some Malaysian/Indonesian people as well. To the people who are asking if these countries can send troops: they do, because they get $1000 a head from the UN. This obviously means UN troops have training issues. Add to that the fact that the UN is already going to be a little shorthanded due to African Union troops (whose existence takes away from the number of UN volunteers as these are the same countries who'd be sending these guys to the UN if the AU force wasn't around), and we're definitely not going to have a force that could do a better job on the ground than the US is currently doing.

Additionally, UN troops at MOST can be authorized to defend themselves from attack. They would not be a fighting force (if we wanted to go there, we'd have to involve NATO). Also, in regards to US bill-footing: the US owes more to the UN than any other country, I really doubt that is going to change. Japan and Germany would be footing the bill (just going by contribution breakdowns) which Germany probably just wouldn't want to do and Japan would use to bitch about Article IX and the fact that they are already giving tactical support to the US.

Finally, I dunno if I would put it past certain Security Council members to reply to any request with "it's your mess, you deal with it."

not an easy 'sell' in pakistan, i would imagine.

Sigh - the gap between the ideal of the U.N. and the actual U.N. always rears its head.

One might as well view Iraq as Turkey was regarded prior to World War I: The sick man of Europe. Turkey was merely pathetic and fucked over. Iraq is worse, a total ruin. How is a ruin a threat to us, as a civilization?

Be precise now.

you're forgetting that iraq has the world's third largest oil reserves. yes, iraq is a sick man, but it's a sick man with his pockets stuffed full of money stumbling down a dark alley in a bad part of town.

What do you expect? Even John Bolton failed to prevent them from planning to invade our homes and take our guns!

xp

I'm going to make an admittedly sorta facile but "big picture" kind of point here - in terms of US interests (ie, being protected by terrorism), in a way, isn't the entire middle east being distracted by a huge sectarian conflict kinda to our benefit...? Say the US withdraws and the civil-war-by-proxy scenario that is already in play intensifies: Iran propping up Iraqi shi'ites, the Saudis propping up Iraqi Sunnis, the Turks fighting the Kurds, Syria doing who knows what - all those guys are gonna be too fucking busy hating and killing each other to direct any serious resources against the US. In the end, while that chaos would undoubtedly be horrific and result in massive bloodshed, the US would have insulated itself fairly well while its antagonists spend all their time killing each other and reviving centuries' old theological and ethnic conflicts that essentially have nothing to do with America.

should read "(ie, being protected FROM terrorism)" lolz

altho I realize OIL is the main other US interest, and a massive civil war would kinda fuck America on that count...

I think you answered your own question right there.

also, I'm not sure why people think afghanistan is stable. more like a ticking bomb. we're still fighting the taliban, the occupying forces are disagreeing over how to proceed, the populance is being inflamed by the continuing collateral damage casualties from indiscriminate air strikes, the drug trade continues to fuel corruption. it's not a vicious civil war but certainly not a model state.

to direct any serious resources against the US

Part of the problem, I think, is that doing damage to the US doesn't require "serious resources" any more.

you're gonna hafta unpack that statement mitya

someone said Afghanistan was stable?
also Shakey, as optimistic as that take is:) we need to remember that these are not our enemies. Just opportunists. They see an open spot and a chance to grab some power so their going for it-can you blame them? But I don't think that if they stopped fighting eachother they'd turn around and attack us.

squee!

re: Mitya's comment - I'm talkin resources in a larger sense - personnel, communications, infrastructure, money. None of those things flow easily in an environment of constant sectarian in-fighting and backstabbing. Just ideologically it will be a total mess for the ostensible "Al Qaeda" networks that up to now have been ostensibly directing attacks on the west to drum up and direct support - everyone will be too busy watching their own backs and nursing more local grudges. I would think that radical Islamists will have a hard time directing their ire at a relatively vague enemy thousands of miles away when there's more immediate pressing concerns about local conflicts (for instance, who does the average radical Sunni hate more, Iranian Shi'ites or America?)

x-post

I seem to be overly fond of the word ostensible.

(for instance, who does the average radical Sunni hate more, Iranian Shi'ites or America?)

that is a difficult question to answer, as it presupposes that there is an average radical Sunni. Some Sunni Islamists have in the past drawn inspiration from the Islamic Revolution in Iran, while others focus more on the apostasy of the faux Muslims who rule that country.

In the end, while that chaos would undoubtedly be horrific and result in massive bloodshed, the US would have insulated itself fairly well while its antagonists spend all their time killing each other and reviving centuries' old theological and ethnic conflicts that essentially have nothing to do with America.

Somewhere Kissinger is chortling with glee.

Obviously, this is less chortlesome to the families of the various US soldiers killed in Iraq.

not to mention families of all the dead Iraqis.

I would hope its obvious that I'm not espousing this as a morally defensible position, or one the US should adopt as policy. Just that it is perhaps a more cynical, amorally pragmatic way to view the situation - and one I wouldn't be surprised to see various neocons adopt as a rationalization of their current fuckup.

(ie, "this is really what we intended all along! And it will work out GREAT for the US!")

Look I know it's not as simple and causal as Israel "dictating" US policy. But the US under Bush has more explicitly than ever before thrown its lot in with Israel, come rain or shine. It seems like the US sees Israel as its partner and ally above all others not in some oil/financial sense but in a moral/way-of-life/Judaeo-Christian/make-the-world-safe-for-liberal-capitalism sense. So things that threaten Israel threaten the US. There's no question that aside from oil control, which is a very real issue, but very murky, that Iraqi insurgents pose no "threat" to the US. But what's happening now, withdrawal or not, definitely poses a "threat" to Israel.

I would think that radical Islamists will have a hard time directing their ire at a relatively vague enemy thousands of miles away

but it's usually those vague, far away enemies that radicals use get everyone all freaked out. I think we can all think of examples of that in action

i don't know about pragmatic, but cynical sure. amoral, definitey. I understand where you're coming from Shakey. I have a few friends who have this point of view for real, though our friendship hangs by a thread at this point, I understand their rationalization

the real threat from radical Islam is the prospect of economic independence, whether the actual Islamic agitators realise that or not

sorry Tracer, could you clarify: do you mean the threat to us is radical Islamists having economic independence?

if you mean independence from western-dependent oil economies that seems quite a long way off

It seems like the US sees Israel as its partner and ally above all others not in some oil/financial sense but in a moral/way-of-life/Judaeo-Christian/make-the-world-safe-for-liberal-capitalism sense.

I think that's a fair statement, Tracer, except that I'd say it's not oil OR *way-of-life*, but very much both. I also think you'd be hard pressed to point to a similar democratic *way-of-life* type ally that didn't also happen to exist in an oil-rich region.

So things that threaten Israel threaten the US. There's no question that aside from oil control, which is a very real issue, but very murky, that Iraqi insurgents pose no "threat" to the US. But what's happening now, withdrawal or not, definitely poses a "threat" to Israel.

But "aside from oil control" is such a ridiculous thing to toss off here - it's like saying "aside from death, cancer doesn't pose that much of a risk"

Uh, change that to read "that didn't also happen to provide some other strategic benefit"

i'm not sure what you're getting at with "civilized" -- they don't seem any more or less civilized than the americans or the iraqis

iranians? civilized?

you realize they still hang homosexuals in iran, right?

It seems like the US sees Israel as its partner and ally above all others not in some oil/financial sense but in a moral/way-of-life/Judaeo-Christian/make-the-world-safe-for-liberal-capitalism sense.

perhaps for part of the administration that may no longer hold sway. but i see this as more a matter of politics than policy, and the politics didn't get them too far.

xpost
and we hang the mentaly disabled here.

dud. it take it you all are ready to take full responsibility for the etnical cleansing, anarchy & genocide sure to follow in the wake of a withdrawal. its not like we can all leave and everything will work out you know. it will be bloody. rwanda 2 here we come.

withdrawl doesn't have to be the same thing as abandonment. there's no easy way out, but we're just throwing our soldiers against a wall. a better leader could at least try to make a morally responsible exit.

Why would all of "us" need to be ready to take responsibility? Most of "us" were all "don't go in there" in the first place.

I mean, there is a small part of me that wishes we could enact a whole new constitutional office making Bush "Prime Responsibility-Man for Iraq War for Life," so that the rest of the country could elect someone else and move on, and spend the next few decades saying "No, you started it, this is YOURS now, we're not letting you out until you reach some kind of satisfactory conclusion," but of course (a) his administration's incompetence is far more hurtful to everyone else than him/his administration, and (b) they're so staggeringly incompetent that anyone but him at least stands some marginally better chance at finding a resolution that's not entirely awful, and (c) he'd surely like that, anyway.

I think there's some slight argument to be made that prolonging current U.S. strategy is, in the long run, making for worse consequences than even abandonment might, but it's certainly not one I'm hugely invested in; there is really no good tactic here other than a time machine and a round of spankings.

The odd part is that it's gotten far past the point where we should be talking about it in a "political" sense, which is why the Dem Congressional takeover isn't as uplifting in this sense as it could be -- the only things that will help are new strategies on a detailed on-the-ground military-and-culture level that very few people are even qualified to begin speculating about, and given my own lack of qualification to judge that kind of thing (beyond "well it sounds like this guy really knows what he's talking about"), the most anyone can pray for is some consensus coming out of people in Iraq itself that A-HA here is one good-looking tactic. And so what's dispiriting is that a lot of people's answer to that question actually IS "just get out, it's for the best."

Alternate answer = "Too late, Iraq's already pregnant anyway"

nabisco OTM - and no I ain't taking full responsibility for anything that I did pretty much everything I could think of within my legal, financial, and political limits to oppose.

But the US under Bush has more explicitly than ever before thrown its lot in with Israel, come rain or shine.

i don't think there's been an opportunity for that to be true. the 1973 crisis was much, much bigger in terms of anything to do with the US and israel than anything since.

iranians? civilized?

you realize they still hang homosexuals in iran, right?

-- moonship journey to baja, Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:37 AM (1 hour ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phantom_Fury#White_phosphorus_usage

by which i mean, both sides are equally capable of barbarism.

the real threat from radical Islam is the prospect of economic independence, whether the actual Islamic agitators realise that or not

-- Tracer Hand, Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:50 PM (Yesterday)

threat to whom tracer? that might be the threat to the US and its allies -- obviously there's terrorism in the mix there too -- but this statement doesn't make sense if applied to the threat radical islam poses to iraq or pakistan or afghanistan.

there are a couple of sensible but morally questionable alternatives left actually. a good first one would be to scrap all the democracy shibboleth and pick out some iron-hearted strongmen with tribal prestige (they are precious and few - i know - but Sadr for example is an obvious candidate) and help them increase their power and crush their petty enemies. this would leave the u.s. with a couple of warlords on their side, a la the "nothern alliance" in afghanistan. not the most convivial of companies but a good start. next up is increased repression. this all sounds unpleasant but the main point is that organized killing is not nearly as deadly as full on anarchic in-neighbourhood killing if the powerbalance is kept in check (cf bosnia vs eritrea/ethiopia). also this would mean that plumbers, doctors, and other professionals would not get killed on the job as the warlords have an interest in keeping their subjects content (this is how sadr city works today). the last trick is to get from here to ONE strong leader but that can be arranged with a little bit of wheeling and dealing on the CIAs part (the odd targeted assassination, etc. - think 70s latin america). a crucial element here is to get iran in on this. everone knows ahmadinejad isnt half as wicked as the msm media claims, so he will readily jump in if it means greater regional influence for the iranians (forget the nukes for a while. so what? north korea has em). the u.s. troops need to stay until the strongmen can handle themselves, ok so that means an additional 1000 or so dead soldiers, so be it. ill take that over anarchy in the worlds powderkeg any day.

the result? iraq in 2010 = saddam-era iraq light. everyones happy.

one last thing. of course there will be a partioning. in fact there already has been one. live with it. turkey is not gonna mess with the kurds, thats just alarmist piffle.

to not have supported the war initially does lessen your responsibility in making sure the situation improves.

The Stratfor elves just released another one of their considerations of the state-of-play, so forthwith...

-----

"The United States, Iran and the Iraq Negotiation Process"

By George Friedman and Reva Bhalla

At long last, the United States and Iran announced May 13 that they will engage in direct public bilateral talks over Iraq. From Washington, it was the office of Vice President Dick Cheney and the National Security Council that broke the news. >From Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confirmed that the two sides will meet in Baghdad in a few weeks, most likely at the ambassadorial level. That makes these talks as officially sanctioned as they can be.

Already there have been two brief public meetings -- albeit on the sidelines of two international conferences -- between senior officials from the Iranian Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department in March in Baghdad and in May in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The upcoming meeting in Baghdad, however, will be the first official bilateral meeting. After months of intense back-channel discussions, both sides have made a critical decision to bring their private negotiations into the public sphere, which means Tehran and Washington must have reached some consensus on the general framework of the negotiations on how to stabilize Iraq.

Why Now?

The U.S. political situation illustrates why both sides are willing to come to the table right now. Both Iran and the United States are closely eyeing each other's busted flushes, and they understand that time is not on their respective sides.

From the U.S. perspective, it is no secret the Iraq war has soaked up an enormous amount of U.S. military bandwidth. With the 2008 presidential election fast approaching, the Bush administration is left with little time to put a plan in action that would demonstrate some progress toward stabilizing Iraq. It has also become painfully obvious that U.S. military force alone will not succeed in suppressing Sunni insurgents and the Shiite militias enough to allow the government in Baghdad to function -- and for Washington to develop a real exit strategy. But by defiantly sending more troops to Iraq against all odds, Bush is sending a clear signal to Iran that it is not in the Iranians' interest to wait out this administration, and that the United States is prepared to use its forces to block Iranian aspirations to dominate Iraq.

From the Iranian perspective, Tehran knows it is dealing with a weak U.S. president right now, and that the next U.S. president probably will have much greater freedom of action than Bush currently does. The Iranians learned that dealing with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter would have been preferable to dealing with his successor. If you know negotiations are inevitable, it is better to negotiate with the weak outgoing president than try to extract concessions from a strong president during an increasingly complicated situation. The Iranians also know that the intensely fractious nature of Iraq's Shiite bloc -- which Iran depends on to project its power -- makes it all the more difficult for Tehran to consolidate its gains the longer Iraq remains in chaos.

U.S. and Iranian Demands

And so the time has come for both Iran and the United States to show their cards by laying out their demands for public viewing.

U.S. demands for Iraq are fairly straightforward. Our understanding of what Washington wants from Tehran regarding Iraq rests on these key points:

1. The United States wants Iraq to be a unified and independent state. In other words, Washington knows a pro-U.S. regime in Baghdad is impossible at this point, but Washington is not going to permit an Iranian-dominated state either.

2. The United States does not want jihadists operating in Iraq.

3. The United States wants to be able to withdraw from security operations, but not precipitously, thereby allaying Sunni Arab states' concerns.

Essentially, the United States is looking to create an Iraqi government that, while dominated by the Shia, remains neutral to Iran, hostile to jihadists and accommodating to mainstream Sunnis.

Iranian Demands

Iran's answers to these demands were publicly outlined in a paper at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit. The Saudi-owned, U.K.-based daily newspaper Al Hayat established the details of this paper in a May 5 article. The key points made in the presentation include the following:

1. Iran does not want an abrupt withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq for fear this would lead to reshuffling the cards and redistributing power. Instead, there should be a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. and British forces from Iraqi cities and relocation at bases and camps inside Iraq, provided the Iraqi forces have reached the point at which they can provide security. The Iranians also stated that they would extend all possible assistance so that foreign forces could exit "honorably" from Iraq.

The U.S. decision to surge more troops into Iraq forced Iran to think twice about placing its bets on a complete U.S. withdrawal. An abrupt withdrawal without a negotiated settlement leaves more problems than Tehran can manage in terms of containing Iraq's Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions, and Iran does not want to be left to pick up the pieces in a country that is already on the verge of shattering along sectarian lines.

It is important to note that Iran is not calling for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, and actually acknowledges that U.S. forces will be relocated at bases and camps inside the country. Though this acts as a blocker to Iranian ambitions, the presence of U.S. bases also provides Iran with a stabilizing force placating the Sunnis and Kurds. Moreover, the Iranians are sending assurances to the United States that they are willing to cooperate so the Iraq withdrawal does not look like another Vietnam scenario for the U.S. administration to deal with at home.

2. Iran is "strongly opposed to all attempts to partition Iraq or impose a federal system that allows for regional autonomy." No region should be allowed to monopolize the resources in its territory and deprive other regions of the revenues from these resources.

Iran is essentially saying that Tehran and Washington have a common desire to see a unified Iraq. The U.S. insistence on a unified Iraq takes into account Sunni concerns of being left with the largely oil-barren central region of the country. Iran is signaling that it is not interested in seeing Iraq get split up, even if such a scenario leaves Tehran with the second-best option of securing influence in a Shiite-dominated, oil-rich southern autonomous zone.

3. Iran wants a plan, involving the Kurds and Sunnis, drawn up to root out the transnational jihadist forces allied with al Qaeda in Iraq. Sunni tribes should also assume the responsibility of confronting jihadists, whether they are Iraqi citizens or are from other Arab and Muslim countries.

In this demand, Iran and the United States share a common goal. The jihadists will use every attempt to sow sectarian strife in Iraq to prevent a political resolution from developing. The United States does not want to provide al Qaeda with a fertile base of operations, and Iran does not want its ideological nemesis gaining ground next door and working against Shiite interests.

4. Iran clearly states that the negotiations over Iraq cannot be separated from other regional issues and Tehran's nuclear file.

Stratfor has extensively discussed the nexus between Iran's nuclear agenda and its blueprint for Iraq. Iran is trying to link the nuclear issue to its dealings with the United States on Iraq as a sort of insurance policy. Iran does not want to reach an agreement on Iraq and then leave the nuclear issue to be dealt with down the road, when the United States is in a stronger position to take action against Tehran.

Iran basically is looking for a deal allowing it voluntarily to agree to freeze uranium enrichment in exchange for political concessions over Iraq, but without it having to dismantle its program. That would leave enough room to skirt sanctions and preserve the nuclear program for its long-term interests. Washington is not exactly amenable to this idea, which is what makes this a major sticking point. The United States already has made it clear that it is leaving the nuclear issue out of the Iraq discussions.

5. Iran wants a new regional formula that would make Iraq a region of influence for Tehran.

While it does not appear that Iran explicitly stated this in its presentation, a majority of participants at the conference got the message. Washington cannot afford to allow Iraq to develop into an Iranian satellite, but it is looking for assurances from Iran that a U.S. withdrawal will leave in place a neutral, albeit Shiite-dominated, government in Iraq.

Iranian Offers

The Iranian paper outlined several key concessions it would offer the United States and Iraq's Sunni faction if its demands were met.

1. Iran would help the Iraqi government rein in the armed Shiite militias and incorporate them into the state security apparatus.

2. The de-Baathification law can be revised to allow for the rehiring of former Iraqi army personnel, the bulk of whom are tied to the Sunni nationalist insurgency. However, Iran wants assurances that former Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and other former Baathists will not be allowed to hold the position of prime minister when the time comes to replace current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

3. Iran would be willing to see fresh parliamentary elections, the formation of a new Cabinet and the amendment of the Iraqi Constitution to double the Sunni seats in parliament to 40 percent, with the Shia retaining 60 percent. Tehran has said nothing about what would be left for Kurdish political representation, however.

4. Iran has proposed the "fair" distribution of oil revenues in Iraq to satisfy all parties, especially those in "central Iraq," the Sunni-dominated, oil-deprived heart of the country.

Tehran's offers illustrate the Iranians' open acknowledgment that they are not going to be able to have their cake and eat it too. Instead, they are going to have to guarantee Iraqi neutrality by giving the Sunnis a much larger slice, leaving the Kurds to get screwed yet again.

Back in Washington, the Bush administration is looking at the Iranian withdrawal plan skeptically. Right now, the United States wants assurances that a withdrawal plan worked out with the Iranians does not simply leave a longer-term opportunity for Iran to gradually take control of Iraq once the major roadblocks are out of the way. In other words, the United States needs guarantees that, as it draws down its troop presence, the Iranians will not simply walk in. The Iranian proposal to expand Sunni representation is a direct response to these concerns, provided the relevant parties can actually deliver on their promises.

This is still highly questionable, though significant developments are already taking place that reveal the United States, Iran and various Iraqi players are making concrete moves to uphold their sides of the bargain. With Iran's blessing, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) has announced it will undergo a process of "Iraqization" -- a largely symbolic demonstration that SCIRI will not operate simply as an Iranian proxy. Meanwhile, the Sunni tribes and clans in Anbar province are increasingly broadcasting their commitment and progress in combating transnational jihadists. And finally, numerous reports in the Arab media suggest the United States would be willing to heed the Iranian demand that the Iraqi military not have offensive capabilities allowing it to threaten its Persian neighbor.

The negotiations are moving, and it is becoming more and more apparent that a consensus is emerging between Tehran and Washington over how the Iraq project should turn out. With enough serious arrestors in play for this deal to fall through, it is now up to all players -- whether those players call Washington, Tehran, Riyadh or Baghdad home -- finally to put their money where their mouths are.

Ethiopia and Eritrea are poor examples there, I think; it's not internal "power balance" that keeps things from flaring, it's the fact that Eritrea has its independence, so there's not much beyond some unproductive border land to fight over. The Eritrean People's Liberation Front was part of a coalition that overthrew a central regime LOTS of groups were interested in overthrowing; the new government was set up in a way that cleared the way for their independence, so when a referendum was taken a year or two later, there wasn't exactly much force to stop them. It took a few years after that for border disputes and alleged stolen-food disputes and such to ignite hostilities, but we're talking about two independent poor countries with not much of value on the borderline -- it would take a lot to spur either one beyond organized killing, surely? (Both parties have had to justify at length why they're even bothering fighting the border disputes, the usual answer being that territorial integrity is a matter of principle.) So by analogy to Iraq, it's ... well, it'd be more like if the US had lent political support to an internal overthrow of Hussein, with the Kurds as a major player, and afterwards the Kurds had asserted their independence, and then later gotten in a border dispute with an Iraq that wasn't in a state of foreign occupation and/or civil war, which ... if only that were our problem.