What is the right thing to do with Iraq at this point?

[jpgray]

In my opinion, we have lost all credibility and cannot broker any kind of peace. What would help would be opening up the reconstruction to any extant Iraqi contractors who have done this kind of thing before. For infrastructure which the Iraqis do not have the capacity to fix, the UN should decide who gets the contracts.

As for peacekeeping, the main impetus for the *justified* resistance is our own imperialistic 'crusader' image. We need to get out, leave the UN in command and control, and have culturally analogous nations like Egypt bring in troops under UN auspices. US support can consist of some ground, but mostly air and naval power, and perhaps some administrative and engineering duties if they are needed, but certainly we should not be the main peacekeeping presence in the country.

But just as important for the peacekeeping process is this pall of imperialism. As long as that exists, there will be rampant violence in Iraq. As long as it exists, we will have major problems persuading allies to come in and help out.

Then the problem becomes the ethnic division in Iraq and the possibility of Kurds and Turks going at it while the Sunnis and Shi'ites go nuts down south. What do you folks think is the right thing to do at this point?

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Leave.

Set a date a week in advance, notify the UN and the Arab League, and just leave.

The chaos and disorder will set in -- or won't -- three days after we leave, whether we bug out next month, or leave after an elaborately planned transition in 2006, or whenever.

Everything we touch there turns to shit.

[Warpy]

4. We go in, wreck their country, and bug out.

If they didn't dislike us already, this would inspire naked loathing.

First, cancel Halliburton's sweetheart deal and turn the books over to the GAO. Prosecute when necessary. Get their overpaid experts the hell out of that country.

Second, start taking bids from Iraqis themselves to do the rebuilding. Supply them with jobs, paychecks, and materials. Keep the troops largely out of the way as they go to work fixing their country. A guy with a job is a whole hell of a lot less likely to be a guy with a gun or bomb. That paycheck will do a hell of a lot more for him than any constitution written by people he probably considers his enemies.

Third, start charging Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and Bush with the appropriate crimes against humanity.

Fourth, grab that bastard Chalabi and put him in the dock with the rest of the liars. Just getting rid of HIM will improve our image in the eyes of the average Iraqi.

We allowed an out of control gang of fascist pigs to go in and destroy their country. The least we can do is allow them the means to fix it. If we don't, we'll deserve whatever their next several generations of terrorists can throw at us, here and abroad.

[IndianaGreen]

2. The US should do the same thing Israel ought to do

End the Occupation and bring the troops home!

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. Leave now. Lay the burden down

Out means OUT. Every crusader, every "consultant" and "covert operative" and every weapon they brought in. OUT. NOW.

Although "Iraq" as a nation is a creation of earlier map-carving exploits of Anglo-US business interests, the land now known as "Iraq" has just a smidge more experience in being a country than the US does.

The Majority World does not need the guiding hand of Great White Father to tell them what to do, contrary to popular western myth.

The number one "security" problem in Iraq is that there is a hostile pariah state occupying it and slaughtering its citizens for the purposes of stealing its oil.

If the US wants to "help" Iraq, it can write a blank check to every non-US, non-UN NGO on the planet and let them go in there and do what they can with the humanitarian disaster the US has created there.

Just as soon as it gets the fuck OUT

[jpgray]

5. So you say from your computer, safe and warm at your home

When your nation has its security and infrastructure wholly destroyed, foreign armies from neighboring countries may invade your land with impunity--competing for domination of your natural wealth. In this situation, outside help would be preferable to no help at all. Or in other words, 3.5 million dead Congolese would disagree with you--you leave Iraq to the warlords, neighboring countries may wade in at will to steal anything of worth while the three ethnic groups kill each other.

This isn't about race, this is about human history. No matter what culture inhabited Iraq, given this situation incredibly bad things will happen. One can argue what course of action will make it better or worse, but bad things are going to happen there for a long time yet. Leaving Iraq in a total power and security vacuum is risking another Congo. The UN at least should have some control there if the US moves wholly out, if only to avoid the conquest of Iraq by its neighbors while internal struggles divide the population.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Let's not play games here: the US wants to control the outcome in Iraq

and not for altruistic reasons either! America is borrowing a page from British colonialism:

A constitution drenched in blood
by Pepe Escobar, Asia Times
March 7th, 2004

This is the new Iraq - where the process for a new democratic constitution is greeted by the specter of civil war.

<snip>

A united Iraqi nation resisting the massive presence of US and other foreign troops in its territory, even after the transfer of sovereignty on June 30, would be a troublesome prospect. So no wonder articles have already popped up in the New York Times and the French daily Le Figaro calling for a partition of Iraq. The argument is that the unity of the Iraqi nation is a mirage: the country can only be governed by brute force (Saddam Hussein-style, but without the massacres). Over the years, Washington figures from many sides of the political spectrum have consistently voiced the same opinion.

According to the British imperial maxim of "divide and rule", three small states - Kurd, Sunni and Shi'ite - would be much easier to control than the Iraq construct put together by the British themselves. The operation would also fulfill neo-conservative dreams of deporting Palestinians from the West Bank to a putative Sunni mini-Iraq. Defenders of the idea mention Yugoslavia as a successful example of a modern partition.

The drama of building a new Iraq centers on how tribe, religion and national, regional and ethnic identities can be integrated into a national political system capable of incorporating all parties and reflecting real power balances. This immense undertaking cannot possibly be addressed by a body, the IGC, chosen by the occupying force and totally divorced from the general population, which calls it "the imported government". Those who want the partition of Iraq simply don't understand how religion, ethno-nationalism and statehood coexist in this eastern flank of the Arab nation. Iraqis want a united country: they regard themselves first and foremost as Iraqis; then as Arabs (80 percent of the population), members of the great Arab nation; and then finally as Sunni or Shi'ite.

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=3461

[jpgray]

14. The US shouldn't control Iraq. Whose posts are you responding to?

The US gets out, that I agree with. How do you avoid other nations coming in and doing what they please to a divided Iraq with zero defensive infrastructure?

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. So if a street gang breaks into your house, kills your grandma and

the baby, beats up your wife and the other kids and you, trashes the place, steals the silver and the computer, and ties up what's left of the family in a mud-pit in the back yard, then announces that they have decided to stay to help you rebuild and make sure that you run your household they way they think is best.

Sound good?

[IndianaGreen]

11. Another analogy: Let Mike Tyson spend time with his rape victim

to help her "get over it"!

[jpgray]

12. Read my post next time. The US should get out, but Iraq needs security

A nation without internal security that contains valuable natural resources is a prelude to a bloodbath.

[DuctapeFatwa]

43. The Iraqi people are not little children or simple primitive beings

They are regular people like you, with intelligence and organizational skills and a cultural heritage that goes back considerably farther than Europe's, let alone the US.

They had poets and architects while Europe was learning to use tools.

They can defend their own borders without the help of western colonial imperialists, especially if the US will get its operatives the hell out of the neighbors too.

[RichM]

19. Ironically, this is exactly why Iraq was better off with Saddam in power.

He was the iron hand that held all this sh*t together & kept things more or less stable. He HAD to rule like a brute. Being a brute was practically a job requirement, to maintain Iraq's situation.

[The Magistrate]

6. Unfortunately, Mr. Gray

There is no right course to take at this point; any course is fraught with possibilty of great blood-letting and injustice, and it is not possible to hazard any reliable wager on which might produce the least. The entire situation ought to have been avoided in the first place, and for precisely that reason.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[jpgray]

9. Well, if we just bug out at once we could have another Congo on our hands

Though maybe not, since oil is important and people from Africa are not. How many thousands of Turks are in northern Iraq right now?

[The Magistrate]

17. And If We Stay, Sir

We are likely to have something similar. My proposition is a serious one, Sir: there are no good courses available. Life is sometimes like that. In the long run, one of two things will happen. The place will split into three natural constituents, a thing which in history never happens without a good deal of bloodshed, or it will be held in one piece by an iron-fisted central rule, a thing which in history never happens without a good deal of bloodshed.

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[IndianaGreen]

18. I will add that Turkey will never allow an independent Kurdish state

Turkey is already upset at the treatment that Turkmen have been subjected by the Kurdish majority in Northern Iraq.

[NNN0LHI]

10. I was just getting ready to post what you said, Sir. But not so eloquently

We can't leave and we can't stay. I don't know what to do. I just hope President Kerry knows what to do.

Don

[ewagner]

32. I am afraid you are correct.

I am personally leaning toward a settlement that erases the 1922 boundaries because it would not require the installation of a strong man government ot hold the place together. That of course would be a partitioning of the country which I believe is the solution which will result in less bloodshed than the others.

[IconoclastIlene]

13. Let Destiny decide..

They were given the gift of a hand wrapped present; unlike our founders who fought and died and bled and froze.

I know what is going to happen when they are free to really decide their future, and I don't think it will be what we were propagadized into thinking would happen.

I hope I am pleasantly surprised otherwise.

I won't hold my breath.

[RichM]

15. (Aside from leaving) Pay reparations, apologize to the world, prosecute

the criminals in our government who are responsible for this enormous act of gangsterism. The prosecution should proceed along the lines of the Nuremberg Trials - the charges of "conspiracy to commit aggressive war," etc, being exactly the same. The executives of the major US media corporations should also be charged with conspiracy to incite aggressive war.

The outlook does indeed include possible fighting amongst Kurds & Turks, and Sunnis & Shiites. This could be quite a mess, but it's not up to the US to make decisions about it. The US role should be limited to paying for damages, possibly including paying for some UN peacekeeping operation.

Perhaps the Shiites have a right to most of the power - after all, they are a majority. Perhaps the territory should be divided into separate states for each major ethnic group. Such questions are for the parties themselves to decide - not for anyone in Washington.

[jpgray]

16. I agree with you, but there needs to be internal security from somewhere

Argue all you want about where it comes from--best case it comes from within Iraq--but it needs to be there.

[The Magistrate]

22. You Will Not Like The Shia Regime, Mr. M

The theocracy it would become would be an affront to every ideal dear to left and progressive people.

An independent Kurdistan would become the prey of Turks and Persians, and could not hold them off: it never has been able to, and nothing now has changed in that equation.

The Sunni area has no resources, and would be a poverty stricken backwater dependent on international charity.

In any case, Sir, these things will not be decided by debate in salons, but by the guns of ethnic and religious militias.

"To a bloody war and a sickly season!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[RichM]

26. Yes, I know - but my not liking it shouldn't determine the outcome!

My main position is that self-interested parties - such as governments essentially representing oil corporations, infrastructure developers, & armaments interests - should have no say whatever. My own personal preferences in the matter should likewise have no influence (thus placing Halliburton, ExxonMobil, LockheedMartin & myself all on an equal footing).

I can imagine a stabilizing role for the UN, however, once the US relinquishes all attempts to control the oil, the contracts, & the region. (There are already several major US military bases that have been built there.)

[The Magistrate]

30. Perhaps, Sir

But it does seem to me the institution of an extraordinarily reactionary regime, that will certainly undo some of the social advances imposed by the Ba'ath, ought to be at least deplored by left and progressive persons. Most of the persons who will suffer in consequence are in no position to give informed assent to their dis-enfranchisement and degredation, and it is questionable whether people ever can really give free assent to such.

"You can't fet there from here...."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[zulchzulu]

20. Kerry's plan looks pretty good to me

From the site:

Return to the International Community and Offer a Real Partnership to Rebuild Iraq

John Kerry believes that we must obtain a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations authority in the rebuilding of Iraq and the development of its new Constitution and government.  He would:

Transfer Responsibility to the UN for Governance. Kerry will go to the UN with a proposal to transfer responsibility to the UN for governance and the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq. 

The UN would succeed the Coalition Provisional Authority and the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General would become the overall international leader in Iraq. 

The UN would work with the Iraqis on the substance and process of the Iraqi government and the electoral process to give it legitimacy and to organize the writing of the constitution.  Kerry cautioned that this cannot happen overnight and that the CPA will have a key role in ensuring a smooth turnover. 

Build an International Coalition. Kerry will reach out to the European nations to build a coalition in support of operations in Iraq. He will eliminate Bush’s discriminatory contracting procedures and offer a genuine partnership of responsibility in return for a genuine partnership of burden sharing – troops and money.

John Kerry will work to expand participation and share responsibility with other countries in the military operations in Iraq. Kerry will also increase the size of the U.S. Army in order to meet the needs of a new century and the new global war on terror. 

Kerry is calling to add 40,000 troops to the active-duty Army. The United States should add the equivalent of a current division, about 20,000 combat troops, to the active duty Army.  Under Kerry’s plan the United States should also add an additional 20,000 individuals to the active force with specialties in post-conflict skills, such as civil affairs and the military police in order to relieve the excessive burden on our reservists. 

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

[IndianaGreen]

21. I did a search for the words "withdraw" and "withdrawal" and couldn't find

I did a search for the words "withdraw" and "withdrawal" and couldn't find them in another post that refers to Kerry's plan for Iraq, nor in the link that you provided!

Despite all of the rhetoric, it seems like withdrawal of US troops is not part of the plan.

[The Magistrate]

23. Sen. Kerry's Scheme Is Not A Bad One, My Hoosier Friend

It amounts to stalling for time and trying to fob off responsibility onto someone else, and that makes about as much sense as any other thing proposed. Of course, no one will be eager to step into the disaster any can see looming, so it does not seem too likely to me anyone will appear on whom responsibility can be fobbed off anytime soon.

"You can't get there from here...."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[IndianaGreen]

25. Kerry's plan smells of Vietnamization

I prefer Kucinich's plan which is based on the concept that the US should leave Iraq within 90 days (it will take that long to bring everyone home!) and the UN should be the one that works with the Iraqis in helping them establish a government.

Here is part of Kucinich's plan:

"Other Democrats join the Bush Administration in explaining that 'We can't cut and run.' I say we can't continue the damage we are causing and cannot begin repairing it until we withdraw our occupying army. We must pay for what we destroyed. We must pay reparations to the families of innocent civilians we killed and injured. But we must work through the United Nations. We must allow the United Nations to facilitate the creation of a democratic government that will be acceptable to the Iraqi people. No government created by the United States will be. It is better that we recognize this now than after the next 500 deaths.

"If we stay the course it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction. It was wrong to go in and it's wrong to stay in. The demands of an occupation are overstretching our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces makes us vulnerable at home. The reserve call-ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for hometown security. Americans are asking, is there a way out? I say there is. This is my plan to get the U.N. in ... and the U.S. out of Iraq! This plan will bring our troops home within 90 days of U.N. approval, and strengthen American security.

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php

[The Magistrate]

27. The Difference Is Minor, Ma'am

Ninety day deadlines have a nice ring, but it is unlikely any replacement force could be got together by the United Nations in less than a year. This is liable to rather postpone the onset of a ninety day period which is, after all, to commence with United Nations approval of a United Nations force going in. A United Nations garrison will be attacked by jihadists and nationalists and ethnic sectarians just as the U.S. forces are, and probably more fiercely, as it will be easier to succeed at it. Of course, if there is no force, that will be the instant the civil war breaks out in earnest.

"It can always get worse."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[IndianaGreen]

29. The point is to bring our troops home in 90 days

Let Iraqis govern themselves. The Shia militias and a reconstituted Iraqi army can keep the peace. We are not wanted there, and we should leave!

[The Magistrate]

31. But It Would Not Be Ninety Days, My Hoosier Friend

It would be ninety days after the United Nations Security Council voted to send a force to replace the U.S. garisson, and my grand-children might well learn to read by the time that happens.

Nor will the Shi'a militias and a reconstituted Iraqi army keep the peace in the abscence of foreign forces; they will simply be two of the factions breaking the peace in civil war.

"You can't get there from here...."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[hedgetrimmer]

33. The U.S. needs to walk, and when it does the U.N. will step in.

Waiting for the U.N. to take action may take a long time unless you give 'em a little nudge like walking out of a country you just sandbagged.

If the U.N. does not step in, then the aftermath falls blame onto the international community, first for not intervening against the U.S. and second for not doing anything after the sandbagging.

We do not belong there, we never have and there is no amount of idealistic rationalization that will ever offset that fact.

many blessings-

[The Magistrate]

34. Why Should They Do That, Sir?

What earthly reason would they have for stepping in, either by agreeing to replace the U.S., or by entering should the U.S. depart without pre-arrangement?

Nor will any "blame" attach to the "international community" for such inaction. Who, after all, is to attach it to them? The other countries of the world will certainly see no reason to blame themselves for failing to clean up after the U.S., and they are quite aware that they lack the power to halt military adventures the U.S. may choose to embark on.

What your reference to "idealistic rationalization" is occasioned by is beyond me. The situation is as it is; it was readily predictable, and that was one of the soundest arguments against the venture in the first place.

"Reality is that which, when you cease to believe in it, continues to operate."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[hedgetrimmer]

35. Then so be it.

There comes a time when the truth of one is the only truth there is. That truth is the binding force of any individuals reality. The truth you advocate is vacant from any reality, it is a persistance into the unattainable "idealistic rationalization". Not at any point in time is the U.S. ever going to get a government into Iraq and have a settlement of peace and prosperity (financially or otherwise). Every government, whether one realizes it or not is always in the hands of the people and those people are the people who can blame themselves... everytime we look in the mirror we are the ones to blame.

If the U.N. does not step in, then so be it... the U.S. still needs to step out pronto, if not sooner.

There is nothing else to be said of this matter.

For your own understandings "idealistic rationalizations" is in regards to any notion or explanation that the U.S. should have any further presence in Iraq. I am sorry that my statement was beyond you, I thought it was self-explanatory.

many blessings-

[The Magistrate]

37. What Is 'The Truth Of One', Sir?

A statement is true or it is not, and so long as it relates to any matter outside an individual's own mental processes, is true or not for all individuals, and determined to be so by whether or not it is congruent with the reality it describes. It is possible, of course, that some individual may be inadequately informed in some field or matter, and therefore be incapable of making such a judgement about a statement. A person with a degree in physics could say anything he chose about sub-atomic structure, for instance, and it would be impossible for me to decide if the statement were true or false. But this is a reasonably straight-forward question concerning likely politico-military developments in a particular portion of the world, and the likely reactions of persons seeking and wielding power in various venues that impinge upon it, and the likely consequences of the various choices available. It is hardly physics, or meta-physics, or philosphies of being.

You seem to be under the impression a particular coiurse is advocated here, and it is not. It is only the likely outcome of various courses that is being spoken of. The course you seem to be advocating will certainly produce a great deal of bloodshed, and likely a signifigant restriction on the liberties of many people. So will just about any other course that could be adopted in the situation. That is what makes it a very bad situation: not only are there no clear roads to any good outcome, but it is even difficult to identify any course which it could be sensibly argued would be likely to bring less suffering than the others possible. For my own part, being unable to identify any such "best of the worsts", it is impossible for me to advocate any particular course of dealing with the circumstance.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[DuctapeFatwa]

46. Using war loot to bribe other countries to join the US in war crimes is

not leaving.

Kerry's plan looks pretty good to the corporations who will make money from it.

It does not look as good to the victims, who are, although it is a tough concept for many in the west to grasp, human beings.

[hedgetrimmer]

24. First, maybe we should try some "group therapy",

the bush family first... then send some intervention into iraq and take their kids away... cut their benefits... drive up their defecit, outsource jobs and place tax-cuts that only benefit international corporations and the uber-rich...

On second thought, we fucked up our own country lets leave theirs alone and get the funk outta there. Then maybe some with ability and agility can help, by the way we should give them blank, signed checks by everyone who signed the PNAC or the PPI, everyone in the current adminstration, and everyone who voted in favor of the invasion... that ought to sum up enough cash to get the ball rolling.

[tinanator]

28. turn Bush over to the World Court

thats the right thing.

[Vernunft II]

36. Ship Saddam back home and let him clean up the mess.

Facing the choice between him and a fundamentalist muslim theocracy similar to Iran I predict that most of the population will welcome him home.

[pacifictiger]

38. what a pandoras box

he's opened!!! Cannot leave now or there would be even more chaos and retribution against anything american down the road. The only thing is to try to maintain security while at the same time bring in legitimate brokers that 1) understand the cultures involved; 2) are willing to act as genuine, smart, commonsense facilitators to come up with some solution that will work for the iraqis; 3) are willing to do it for altruistic reasons. That leaves out the americans and the brits. The big question is, does any group of people like that exist in the world today?

[Vernunft II]

39. The point is that the various splinter groups in Iraq

don´t want brokering, they want to settle old scores. They finally get to cut throats again since Saddam´s troups are scattered in all winds.

There are only two ways now.
1) be the big bad guy Saddam was and stomp all opposition or
2) back out and watch the carnage

Everyone with the least bit of insight in political realities in the region could´ve (and in fact DID) predict just that but of course, "if you´re not with us you´re with the terrorists"...

*grrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

[BruinAlum]

40. Turn it over to UN control, help rebuild the infrastructure, and when Iraq

is stable, get the hell out. That means taking the OIL contracts away from Hailburton too, and all corporate contracts out of US control.

At any rate we can't just "up and leave", as that would be disasterous for the Iraqi people. We have to help clean up the mess and not leave them open to worse than what they had before we went in there and bombed them.

[IndianaGreen]

41. The Iraqis don't want us there! Why do we insist on staying?

By the time March 2005 rolls around, Iraq will be a Democratic war!

[BruinAlum]

42. Pulling out on a moment;s notice is not only irrational it's irresponsible

It would leave them open to genocide and chaos.

Yeah, I know, that's okay with you.

My response was pretty clear and reasonable. i don't have anything to add.

[IndianaGreen]

44. The Iraqis don't want us there! Why are we ignoring their wishes?

Why do we insist in acting like a colonial power?

[BruinAlum]

45. I answered your question

[IndianaGreen]

47. You are silent about the wishes of the Iraqi people for us to leave

It is as if their opinions and concerns don't matter at all, that we know what is best for them. White man's burden?

[BruinAlum]

48. No, I just don't take your opinion of what all Iraqis want as fact, and

because my experience with your posts is that your accounts and characterizations cannot be relied on for accuracy.