What exit strategies does the U.S military and U.S government have in pulling out of Iraq? Does it have the chance of leaving a well trained well armed Iraqi national guard and police forces to deal with the threat of Islamist insurgents? Is it possible to get people to register and vote and then have the prospect of the bulk of the U.S military leave without the whole state of Iraq collapsing? Or are we in a sitaution where as the situation of insurgency, crime and terrorism is so rife that even if we left it would make it worse?
Heres a strategy of mine for the U.S forces to leave in stages.
The ‘One city strategy’
We (the coalition) secure one area completely (I know terrorist attacks would still happen but let me continue) then recruit large amounts of local Iraqis, after being fully vetted and train them for security for 18 months. Then, after this time, we gradually pump alot of the money into the local economy. I think this could even be done simultaneously all over Iraq.
I think the situation of bad security is a catch 22, the Americans want to leave but can’t because of the amount of attacks they endure and have to protect local Iraqis from insurgents. But then the resistance wants them away too and attacks them again, which produces an endless cycle.
One thing they should do though is…
CLOSE THE BORDER!!! <unless they’ve already done this?>
Is this not basically our Afghanistan strategy? No, I’m not trying to be snarky or anything- have we not basically ceded the outlying areas to warlords while we build up Kabul?
I don’t know how well that is going, but it doesn’t seem to be a good long term strategy.
Of course, things might work out, assuming we were willing to make that kind of economic investment, free of the corruption that seems inevitable when we throw money around.
I don’t think there is a good answer, though I think that economic empowerment of the masses is the best way to fight terrorist recruitment and local resistance.
Still impossible. You realise that most of the borders are simply open expanses of desert? How do you ‘clamp down’? And you’re talking about the largest of Iraq’s borders. And the Syria-Iraq border is equally attractive to incoming insurgents.
I don’t think there’s gonna be a complete pullout.
The big perk of Iraq is that it’s located right about in the middle of the region. As such, it’s the perfect plan for strategic airfields, and that was probably the main motivation for the war. The WMD, “building democracy,” “feeding the military-industrial complex,” and plain old “blood for oil” arguments just don’t cut it as far as long-term rewards of invasion and occupation go, IMO. We already have a puppet in place, and a year or two down the road he or his successor will almost certainly approve large-scale US bases in Iraq.
Yes, you’re right. We’re there now though, so this is why I ask. We need to rebuild and help the security situation to at least make life bearable in their own country. We owe them this much.
I think it is. I don’t think its beyond our total control, even tightening control around checkpoints and areas where most terrorists are likely to pass through would be better than nothing at all. Making them have to resort to passing through longer and more inhospitable terrain makes its harder for them to attack people in Iraq.
No, they do this because they have no prospects to improve their lives, most of the militias inside Iraq are of the direct concequences of Coalition mismanagement, acting like a smart ass isn’t going to alleviate the situation, is it?
Security in the form of Police and Army training, I think if anyone bothered there is alot of potential for employing the Iraqis to rebuild the country themselves. I know that doesn’t alleviate the situation completely, but its a start. There needs to be more emphasis on security and stability than anything else to attract inward investment and more jobs. I think the mixture of the Coalition mismanagement and Clerics fucking the situation up will stall any attempts to get what both sides want. A stable country.
Second, before the deadline, do everything possible to help the Iraqi people and accomodate any requests from the Iraqi people within reason. (With the understanding that once the deadline passes, we’re out of this obligation)
Third, establish US military bases on Iraqi oil fields. Declare such lands protectorates of the United States, sorry no Iraqis allowed. Establish DMZs between oil fields and rest of Iraq. Apologize for inconvenience, but explain that “we are a nation of oil-loving bastards” Please don’t make us into a nation of crazy violent, genocidal bastards by attacking us, thankyewverymuch. Establish an Iraqi national subsidy program, whereby the proceeds of oil sales are paid in equal shares directly to registered Iraqi citizens (similar to the Alaska program). Invest a portion of the proceeds in an investment trust so that the subsidy can continue to be paid out when oil supplies dwindle.
Fourth, create an alternate Israeli state somewhere in the US where there is plenty of empty land. I’m thinking either Montana or perhaps New Mexico. Create replica sacred religious sites using modern technology. Allow Israelis to use land in exchange for their agreement to allow a Palestinian state in the West Bank.
Fifth, create a decent Palestinian state so the Arabs can quit with their griping.
Finally, tell the Arab world that while we are being more than accomodating right now, please don’t fuck with us again or we will make them truly sorry.
It is conventional wisdom that lack of jobs equals more violence. Only problem is, it’s not true. A sizable fraction of the estimated 20,000 insurgents in Iraq are part-timers: they have a job and a gun.
There’s also a nice bit in that article about how most insurgents “are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society, not a Taliban-like Islamic state.” Sorry, you can’t pin all the fighting on Sadr in the same manner that the White House has tried to pin it all on foreign fighters.
I’m probably taking these bad ideas a bit too seriously, but do you realize that the government of Iraq is basically entirely dependent on oil revenues? As in, if you give all the money to the Iraqi people, the government will have no money to run schools, hire police, pick up trash, or fix the health care system?
And, by the way, I don’t think most Israelis want to move to Montana, even though it is a very nice place.
All in all, I think those are the worst suggestions I’ve heard since that “nuke Mecca” thread a while back.
Well, the huge queues outside recruting offices for those security jobs which do appear suggest that the problem isn’t the failure to offer these jobs. But part of my question was the implication of who pays the salaries. With a non-existent tac-collection or civil-service structure, where should the money come from?
And the additional problem is the insistence that anybody with Ba’ath links cannot occupy such positions. Which automatically rules out a large chunk of the population.
Perhaps you’re exaggering that last bit. If the US handles the oil extraction and sales, then the corruption and Saddam revenue stream is gone, so the Iraqi citizens actually receive more cash, not less. All this steady cash creates a hearty Iraq economy, which lets their government tax sales or income at a reasonable level.
And some Israelis might appreciate being able to move somewhere safe. The ones who don’t want to move can stay in Israel, but just have to leave the section of the West Bank set aside for the Palestinians.
After whatever pre-established interval had gone by, and it was reasonably apparent that the duly-elected or semi-elected or semi-US-appointed government was not sufficiently in charge of things for the US to simpy pull out and let them sink or swim on their own, I would work internationally to create a new “Coalition of the Willing”, recruiting especially hard from Bosnia, Turkey, Muscat and Oman, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Egypt, and other states that are Islamic majority, OPEC, or Arabic, to obtain forces that would work to establish the safety and stability of Iraq for its citizens and its governors. The US would remain involved but as an equal participant on paper and, off paper, would mop us funding shortfalls as need be and do what it could to mediate between dissenting participants or push towards more democratic / less authoritarian means of establishing social control, and also towards more tolerance & civil liberties.
Off-record, we would say that Saddam Hussein had received US support in a previous era which had turned out to be a US mistake, which was why we thought we had any reason to critique his regime, we felt responsible for inflicting him on Iraq and it was therefore necessary to take him out. We would also acknowledge that we hope to be a petroleum-purchasing customer of Iraq and anticipate that Iraq will be part of OPEC. We will deny ourselves “conqueror’s opportunities” for setting up corporations to manage this without being invited to do so, but have investment capital if it is desirable. We also acknowledge that we have archeological interest in Iraq as one of the birthplaces of civilization and we acknowledge that poor planning on our part led to looting of museums in the course of our invasion, and that as a consequence we would like to invest money in archeological research of Iraq to be distributed among internationally recognized archeological teams including those from China and the US as well as local organizations, but to operate under the auspices of this organization (for now) and the Iraqi state (ongoing).
Who says that they are even interested in supporting with troops a prospective Iraqi state which could become democracy and seriously pose a threat or even undermine their own regimes. You’re right on the issue of America owning up to its previous errors in supporting the Baa’thist regime.
Let’s not delude ourselves. There must be a reason for Saudi Arabia being prosperous and Iraq having problems. Does anyone trust the Iraqis to manage their own resources?