A new roadmap: What's the best way out of Iraq?

Great Debates
1

OK, GWB says that we must stay the course…though I’m not sure he could define just what that course is.

But suppose that GWB was suddenly morphed by aliens into a brilliant and subtle leader, a genius in both military and diplomatic issues. What would he then do to deal with this mess that some are now calling worse than Vietnam?

The visible options:

  1. Pack up and leave now; probably leaving behind us a civil war and, eventually, a vicious new totalitarian regime.

  2. Keep on doing what we’re doing: bleeding American and Iraqi lives while unrest and terrorism continue to grow.

  3. ??? Does anyone have any great ideas on how to get us out of this train wreck?

Constructive discussion for the future, rather than bashing those responsible for past mistakes, is encouraged. :slight_smile:

2

First let me say that there is no magical formula that overnight will turn around the monumental blunder that is current US policy in Iraq.

There is a long road ahead, and there will be obstacles and bloodshed on that road.

But there are some things that could be done that would make me more optomistic.

Stop meeting terror with terror. Do not use the tactics that Israel is so fond of (and that have proved so succesful :rolleyes:) of collective punishment, destroying the houses of suicide bombers etc. Challenge the impression that Iraq is just an excuse for a bunch of people to make money. Get rid of the big fat contracts for US administration-friendly corporations. If they want to pitch in fine, no-ones even going to begrude them a reasonable profit for helping put back together the country. But, if Iraqis are capable of doing the job, let them. They’ll probably charge less anyway. Stop making decisions based on the timetable of the US elections. Sovereignty is not going to be handed over to anyone on June 30th, so why pretend to be doing it (please note: I don’t believe anyone can be sovereign over a country if they don’t control the armed forces of/in that country). Why must there always be a bogeyman? Moqtada Sadr is not Osama Bin Laden. Do you want him to be? Listen to what Iraqis want. Not what you think they should want.

Like I say, it’s not an easy path and would require real political will. I’m not getting my hopes up.

3

Sounds like Israel bashing to me…tsk,tsk. Is this the kind of debate the OP had in mind?

Stick to the topic.

4

it is not Israel bashing to point out that their policies toward the Palestinians have failed to bring the conflict to a successful resolution.

5

Here is a cite for the US consulting Israel over tactics and using those tactics in Iraq.

kezami, I’m not sure how your post was relevant to the topic?

6

I would mention there’s something else the US is currently doing, which is trying to obtain some form of cooperation from Irak’s neighbors, and more generally “arab” countries to help solving the issue. That’s particularily true in the case of Iran, since it could obviously have a significant influence on some Iraki elements. More generally, these countries’ cooperation could be helpful too in the sense that they’ve a better understanding of what’s going on there.
Iran eventually accepted very recently the US requests (After, I understand, having the US jumps through some diplomatic hoops) to take its part in the pursuit of a negociated solution to the Iraki issue (or perhaps should I say mess, at this point). However, Iran, like other countries, would want to be involved in a more official and significant way in the process. In particular, they would want a regional commission to be (re) established and to have a significant weight, if not in the ultimate decision-taking, at least in the negociation process.
I think that at this point, this is indeed the best prospect for the US. This and handing more control to the Iraki themselves, be it the current cherry-picked “governement” or even the major faction’s leaders. Irakis institutions which are so obviously only nominal and powerless won’t be able to have any influence on what’s going on in Irak. However, in both cases, I’ve huge doubts regarding the ability of the current american administration to somehow relax its grasp on Irak or to make suitable concessions to any third party. And IMO, if it don’t, it won’t cut it.

7
  1. Hold local elections ASAP in every city and town in Iraq where they haven’t already been held. (According to commentator Juan Cole, that’s most of them.) In those cities and towns where they’ve been held, but the officeholders have no real power, give them the authority (and if necessary, the money) to do what needs to be done at the municipal level.

Baghdad, with its five million residents, would have to be broken up into districts of some sort for this purpose.

It drives me nuts that this wasn’t done last May. If it had, some of those cities and towns would have been run badly, but others would have been run well. (Maybe have some sort of recall option after six months, so the ones who are obviously just in office to make out like bandits can be gotten rid of by their constituents.) And the leaders of those towns would by now have built up some credibility as leaders by exercising responsibility well. But better late than never.

  1. Have this substitute for an actual transfer of sovereignty. It makes sense for Iraqis to get a feel for democracy at the local level before trying to figure out what it means as a religiously and ethnically divided nation.

  2. Hold elections for the transitional Assembly next January as scheduled. Have mayors of the various cities and towns meet at that time and choose persons to man the executive branch for the remainder of the transition.

  3. Everything Avenger said:

  • Stop responding to terror/insurgency/whatever with massive force. Our making war on the Iraqi people helps the terrorists win.
  • Give every reconstruction contract possible to Iraqis. They have lots of smart, skilled people who get bypassed in favor of Bechtel and them guys. Like Avenger said, the Iraqis can do it cheaper. Yeah, sure, some of them will take the money and not do much for it, but that’s been happening already with our contractors.
  • Listen to what Iraqis want. Stop making decisions about privatization of government-run industries, foreign investment, and the like, as if we knew what was best for them. It’s their country, not ours, and we need to keep that idea foremost in our minds.
  1. Give decision-making authority at the national level over to some other entity between now and the handover of sovereignty. The UN, NATO, some pan-Islamic body like clairobscur discussed, even our friends the Brits. But it needs to be someone besides us, because now that we’ve been there a year and showed them what we’re like, they don’t exactly like us there, and they for sure don’t trust us.

This isn’t a silver bullet, of course; just an improvement over the Bush Administration’s non-plan.

8

“some” would be screaming idiots who have no idea what they are talking about. Look up casualty figures for Vietnam sometime and get a clue.

  1. Put up with casualties while slowly disengaging over a period of months while transferring power to a legitimate Iraqi government that can assume control of its own internal security.

Boy, that was tough to come up with. I had to stop wetting my pants, get a clue and read what the leaders of both major parties have said they wish to do.

Try it.

9

If US casualties are the sole measure of the seriousness of a problem, we could in theory save ourselves a lot of trouble by leaving immediately.

Ummm, furt, have you read the latest wrinkle in the GD forum policies?

The problem with your proposed #3 is, it isn’t something you can do simply by choosing to do it, then allocating the resources and putting your people to work.

Before you can transfer power “to a legitimate Iraqi government that can assume control of its own internal security”, you’ve got to find or create one. You’ll notice that part of the unease in the current situation is Bush’s seeming inability to do either one, despite the fact that he wants to, and really needs to.

But maybe you can fill us in on how you’d improve on Bush’s policies there.

10

There is no roadmap to a peaceful legitimate Iraqi government. What we’ve got right now is just squabbling. The real even starts when we pull out our military, be it a month or a decade from now. Extreme violence punctuated by grudging equilibrium is the normal course of human social evolution. Might as well just get it out of the way.

11

Thank you so much for your helpful comments, Furt. I wish to point out two facts of which you are presumably not aware:

  1. The war in Iraq is not yet over and we don’t know the final tally of casualties. One of the skills acquired as an adult is the ability to foresee possible consequences. Those adults who are concerned about what their foresight seems to indicate are the ‘screaming idiots’ to which you refer.

  2. I am more than familiar with details of the Vietnam conflict–greatly more so than you, I’m sure–as I was there, in Vietnam, in 1968, getting shot at.

Where were you in 1968? Just getting started on wetting your diapers…or pants? Have you managed to stop that yet?

(I do apologize to all others for this violation of Gaudere’s rule; it was a point of personal privilege.)

Can we get on with the conversation now?

12

:confused: I didn’t say that they were. By what standard can Iraq – as things stand now – possibly be considered “worse than Vietnam?”

Nope, hadn’t. Noted.

Well, I wasn’t implying that was the end of it; but it’s the obvious broad excluded middle between the OP’s #1 and #2.

You already did. I firmly agree with nearly all of what you and Avenger said. In fact, the only parts I’d disagree with are:

4a) I don’t think we’re responding with indiscriminate violence; the sources I read suggest that the responses are carefully directed. Of course they are not perfectly directed; and any civilian deaths are a bad thing, in both the short and long run.

But ignoring or passing the buck on people like Sadr would be even worse. Until such time as we do turn over power, it’s our responsibility to put down factional violence. If we don’t an Iraqi government that is not of their liking (i.e. secular) will have to. There is inevitably going to be innocent blood, now or later; and I’d actually rather it be now and on our hands than on the hands of a newly-elected government that is obligated to put down rebellious factions that we ducked. If the cost of making the eventual democratic government of Iraq a success is that more Iraqis dislike us now, I’ll take it.

5. I don’t want to see any other Arab countries involved because A) Given their support or at least tolerance of Saddam, most other Arab nations are not exactly loved or trusted by Iraqis right now, and 2) I do not think Iran, Syria, Saudi, etc. want a free, democratic, pluralistic Iraq. Fox/Henhouse.

And while I’d be happy to see the UN get involved the transfer of power, I don’t see how completly giving them charge is any different than cutting and running. You want to leave US troops there, but put the UN in charge? That makes no sense to me. I think its terribly simplistic to say “they don’t exactly like us there.” Some do, some don’t, and most are in-between. The vast majority of people are not shooting at US soldiers are therefore not discussed on American TV news. The ones who are shooting are likely to shoot at any foreigners in charge, including the UN. In fact, as stated above, many of them are likely to shoot at any Iraqi government not of their preference.

All the polls (for what they’re worth) I’ve seen, combined with what I read the Iraqis themselves saying on their blogs, suggest that they want us to leave but not right away. So long as we keep to the promises of 6/30 and 1/1, I think the large majority of Iraqis will go along.
As to all the rest, I’m with you.

13

I invite you to read your OP and note your use of the word “now.”

If you wished to say “this *may become * worse than Vietnam,” you should have said so; you did not.

Not that even that is remotely probable; in a year-plus in Iraq, there have been ~700 soldiers KIA, and there is already much support for bringing them home immediately. Are you going to argue that it is remotely plausible that troops will be there long enough for the number to exceed 58,000?

14

From here, it seems inevitable that a civil war with at least three sides (Kurdish, Sunni and Shi’ite) will break out as soon as the Coalition troops leave. This might be avoided by dividing Iraq into three states. We discussed this in a recent thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=249363 One drawback to this solution is that the Sunni state in the center, in and around Baghdad, would be left with little or no oilfields.

15

I suggest that you read the OP. I said “…that some are now calling worse than Vietnam.” I did not claim that statement for myself. I refer you to the last two or three issues of Newsweek magazine from the front covers all the through about halfway back.

However, in light of your more lengthy response in the spirit of reasoned debate, I will be happy to withdraw the snottiness of my last post and let the issue be debated on the issues, without name-calling…if you will.

In regard to comparisons with Vietnam, I think it’s very fair to point out that it started slowly. Very slowly. When the U.S. first got involved in the civil war in Vietnam, U.S. casulaties were numbered in the dozens only through the first year or so. However, LB Johnson was determined to stay the course–a phrase with some current resonance–and the U.S. got in deeper and deeper with no reasonable way to get out.

So…based on a comparison with the first year of the U.S. Vietnam involvement with the first year of U.S. Iraq involvement, I’d say, yes, Iraq is much worse than Vietnam already. And could very easily get worse and worse in the future. Could we not learn from the experience in Vietnam?

I agree that the various Middle East governments have no wish to get involved…but a great many of their citizens do…and the Iraqi border is just as porous as that of Afghanistan. The low-key Iraqis who want a return to sanity will try to stay undercover while, I greatly fear, every radical Muslim who hates Western civilization and Western morals will find his way to Iraq and join the conflict.

I think that there is indeed a good possibility that we will find the war escalating for years to come.

As RTFirefly asked, how do you propose to build a stable government under those conditions?

16

Step one: make up our damn minds about this “democracy” thing: Do we really mean it? Do we really mean to say “Look, its up to you. You screw this up, all Hell is gonna break loose, big time and down town.” The Shia can win any real democratic election. They can vote to screw the Kurds out of thier autonomy and confiscate “thier” oil for the good of Greater Iraq. They can vote to take their past sufferings out of the hide of the Sunni, and they can fairly call it justifiable vengeance, if not actual justice. They can vote to make Iraq Western Iran. That would be thier right, in a democracy.

Of course, to do so will virtually ensure misery and pain for years to come. But that’s the catch, isn’t it? If we really mean to deliver “democracy”, that means we are willing to deliver the power to totally fuck up. It can’t mean anything else. There is no such thing as restricted democracy, democracy “lite”.

Power to the people is the power to be wrong. If we haven’t got the stones for it, we should say so and take the lumps. If we won’t accept the potential for complete and utter disaster that may very well result from a real democracy, then we should just admit that we’re full of shit and we will stay and occupy Iraq for its own good. For years. At a cost of blood and treasure I can’t even imagine, much less approximate.

But we’re getting real close to “put up or shut up” time.

17

Yes, and I said “some” would be idiots, which I stand by. I semi-included you because you were quoting them, presumably because you gave them credence.

I’m assuming this is not what you’re arguing, but rather that it will be worse.

Yes we could, and did. As it is, we are light years from Vietnam. If we assume that from this moment forward, each and every month is* ten times worse *than our worst month to date, we will reach 58,000 casualties in early 2009. I repeat: do you really think this is remotely plausible? Do you really think the populace would stand for that? Sweet Christ, if things were that bad you’d have Republicans demanding Bush’s head served on a stick.

Well, seeing as how they aren’t democracies it doesn’t much matter. But I am not saying they don’t want to get involved; I said they may want to be involved only to screw things up.

Already are. Which is why we’re trying to break the worst elements there, and then pass the baton in a quick and orderly fashion.

Maybe, but as things stand now, it won’t be primarily our troops out there after 1/1/2005. We’ll keep troops there in bases to prevent a military invasion by Iran or Syria, but the streets of Iraqi cities will be patrolled by Iraqis.

Is it ideal? No. Might it fail? Yes. But the effort is far more in the US’s long-term interest than running away is.

18

Yes, and I said “some” would be idiots, which I stand by. I semi-included you because you were quoting them, presumably because you gave them credence.

I’m assuming this is not what you’re arguing, but rather that it will be worse.

Yes we could, and did. As it is, we are light years from Vietnam. If we assume that from this moment forward, each and every month is* ten times worse *than our worst month to date, we will reach 58,000 casualties in early 2009. I repeat: do you really think this is remotely plausible? Do you really think the populace would stand for that? Sweet Christ, if things were that bad you’d have Republicans demanding Bush’s head served on a stick.

Well, seeing as how they aren’t democracies it doesn’t much matter. But I am not saying they don’t want to get involved; I said they may want to be involved only to screw things up.

Already are. Which is why we’re trying to break the worst elements there, and then pass the baton in a quick and orderly fashion.

Maybe, but as things stand now, it won’t be primarily our troops out there after 1/1/2005. We’ll keep troops there in bases to prevent a military invasion by Iran or Syria, but the streets of Iraqi cities will be patrolled by Iraqis.

Is it ideal? No. Might it fail? Yes. But the effort is far more in the US’s long-term interest than running away is. What’s your plan?

19

Or you can design a federal constitution with distribution of powers and required supermajorities to mitigate that sort of thing; they already have.

I see no problem with “democracy with limits.” It’s exactly what was done in WWII, and after the civil war. The south was brought back in, but there was no confusion that there were certain things that were not going to be tolerated anymore; e.g. slavery. It may not look or sound nice, but it’s far better than what they’ve had, and far safer than just throwing a ballot box out and telling them to sink or swim.

20

You could, but do the Iraqi’s want that (i’m not saying they do or don’t, but I don’t think you have any idea either)? And what if the democratically elected government decide they want to change the constitution and have their ‘supermajority’?

All democracy has safeguards, the point is that it has to have legitimacy.