Iraq: What do we do now?

[Stinky The Clown]

We find ourselves in Iraq, at war.

That's a fact. We can argue about how we got there, who's at fault, who did or didn't vote for the IWR, the appropriateness of those votes, etc., etc.

But we're there. That's the truth in the reality based world. People on all sides are dying at an alarming and tragic rate and in horrifying numbers. The "insurgency" is insurging. The "thugs" are thugging. The "troops" are trooping. And on it goes.

But what do we do now?

Let's say you're in charge, starting at midnight tonight, and can whatever you want there. What do you do?

For me, leaving doesn't seem a good option. The power vacuum will be filled by those with the most guns. Or those with the most hate for the US.

If we stay, using our current tactics, we do nothing but foment more hate. We are, indeed, the best recruiting tool for anti Americanism and anti American action.

Given where we are, where do we go?

I've thought and thought about this ... and I just don't know. There is no simple, clear answer that has a guaranteed good outcome for everyone involved.

What are good outcomes?

An Iraq that is safe and secure for its citizens. That is at least as good as it was with Saddam in power. That would be good. An Iraq with a reasonably stable government that the majority of the people want, whether fundamentalist or secular. That would be even better.

The US out. That's good. With our "good" reputation intact? I hardly think we can even dream of that.

What is the best strategy, given the reality today?

[kentuck]

1. I would announce a withdrawal date, on the condition that....

the opposing forces could agree to have a stable and honest election. Then I would arrange for a group of small conferences between the leaders of these opposing forces. And I would say that if they could get their shit together, Americans would withdraw. What better incentive could you give them?

[leftofthedial]

2. At 00:01, in the first minute of being in charge

I would begin leaving, with the intent of having every American out of Iraq within 30 days.

[IrateCitizen]

3. Exactly. US troop presence is the heart of the problem.

It's not like the violence will suddenly dry up should we leave -- but it's not like things are becoming any LESS violent while we're there.

"The problems of the world will not be solved by the same thinking that created them in the first place." -- Albert Einstein

An Iraq in charge of its own destiny is the only silver lining in this dark cloud. Sadly, such an Iraq will likely NOT be free from bloodshed and violence. However, if we are truly interested in allowing Iraq to pursue its own destiny, as opposed to propping up another petty despot to replace Saddam (Allawi seems to be progressing well on this front), then it's the only way we can go.

[leftofthedial]

6. I hate to sound cruel

but they will have whatever level of "civil war" they require to achieve a stable situation in Iraq. I do not believe that Iraq is a viable nation as currently constructed. Our puppet government and any elections they could possibly carry out in the foreseeable future, will make things worse, not better.

[IrateCitizen]

10. You're sounding realistic.

People said the same thing about Vietnam, but the bloodbath envisioned after we left never materialized.

I'm not saying that Iraq will be the same (because we will be forced out, eventually), it's just that the scenarios being depicted by those who say we can't leave may or may not come to frution. Only one thing IS certain right now -- and that is that our current course of maintaining a military presence in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster.

[leftofthedial]

11. we are part of the problem

not part of the solution

[Stinky The Clown]

5. But do we not have some moral obligation to the people who's lives ......

..... we have totally fucked up?

To simply leave is to invite more killing, maybe even a lot more. Iraq is 3 disparate groups, each of which distrusts the other as much as they distrust us. How do we leave when there is simply no recognized (or even recognizable) government?

I understand your sentiment and am not arguing with you .... but how do we just up and leave?

[IrateCitizen]

7. Perhaps a better question -- how do we stay?

We have eroded basically ANY amount of trust that ordinary Iraqis had immediately following the overthrow of Saddam. Knowing many Marines who were "on the ground" for the invasion and aftermath, they will say to a man that any sort of gratitude quickly eroded into outright hostility. It didn't take acts of violence to realize this, all they had to do was look into Iraqi's eyes to see the burning hatred.

Knowing this, how on earth do we stay and make it better?

[leftofthedial]

9. The killing will happen anyway

Iraq is a "frankenstein" artifact of colonialism, not a true "nation."

We are doing nothing to facilitate peace among the various factions. Our presence is a galvanizing driver for the killing.

If I was also "in charge" here in Bush's Murka, I'd provide a major portion of the hundreds of billions we are wasting presently to kill Iraqis to whatever domestic and/or international entities step in to help rebuild.

As long as our troops occupy Iraq there will be no peace in Iraq.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Wow, I **like** that idea .......

....... "I'd provide a major portion of the hundreds of billions we are wasting presently to kill Iraqis to whatever domestic and/or international entities step in to help rebuild"

Like some rock band who trashes a hotel suite .... get the hell out and pay for the cleanup, by others.

Seriously, that seems like a really good strategy.

And I would add to it that we swear off any possibility of control of **their** oil.

[whosinpower]

4. A fully declared timetable

First of all, there must be an open and accountable election process within Iraq, written by, and for the Iraqi people. The tricksy part of this is not to appear to merely be puppets of the west. Along with that, there should be an open and firm timetable of withdrawl of US/allied troops/military.

So many issues and problems within the current system, fostered by Paul Bremer and his cabal...so many issues that side with foreign corporate powers and not one that sides with the Iraqi people. The vision itself is flawed - that vision of being a free, democratic and capitalist heaven. 2/3 of all enterprises in Iraq (Under Hussein rule) were state owned. When Bremer took over, he fired all those people, who are now effectively unemployed, or underemployed. Unemployment in Iraq is at a staggering record. Bremer wanted to privatize everything - which is a corporations wet dream, but it has direct, tangible, negative impacts on the society of Iraq - and that has to contribute to the unrest of the nation.

All those decrees that Bremer declared are fully functioning and will continue to be in place regardless of whomever is elected. This needs to be undone. Iraqi people should control their vision of how they want their nation to progress. A nation that is rich with natural resources should not be owned/controlled by foreign corporate powers, whose only interest is in their bottom line, regardless of the hardship of the population.

I see no easy way out. Right now, there is a disconnect with WHY there is rising insurgency - and no active dialogue to address this. (at least, no dialogue that we are aware of) I have always been a firm believer in diplomacy. It is, after all, diplomacy and negotiation that always ends wars and fighting. World War 11 did not effectively end until all parties made some sort of agreement. How can we end this, when we refuse to even talk to the apposing party/parties?


And, insofar as the rising civil war scenario that is often portrayed in the media....I say Bushsh!t. Sunni and Shia are united in fighting the occupation. Those attacks that target one religious group are only for the benefit of inciting a civil war, which is, actually to the benefit of the US. Before you flame me, here me out...right now there are 14 major permanent military bases being built in Iraq. The US NEEDS unrest to justify being there. But, in reality, the US needs to be there for reasons other than civil unrest.
Control of the middle east, control of the oil/gas are all necessary to continue the lifestyle/economy/hegemony of the US.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. I agree completely that we are the reason Iraq is as it is today.

But I disagree that there is no chance of a civil war. The Sunni and the Shia have a natural and long standing aversion to, and distrust of, each other. The Kurds would just as soon break away and be on their own (which could well engage Turkey in the whole mess).

I can't pretend for a moment to understand the mindset of the Iraqi people, but it seems to me any current "alliance" between Sunni and Shia is temporary. Another Chimpus Khan's successes as being a "uniter".

As for the 14 bases ..... I am with you on that! It is a crime that we're building them there. It is nothing less than an occupying force. Imperialism. And plainly wrong.

[whosinpower]

18. Well. perhaps it IS only temporary

BUT - temporary is better than not at all....and perhaps, just perhaps, with a common goal of ousting the occupation, the Shia and Sunni can find some other common ground with which to work towards making the alliance/unity issue more permanent. It is the US that wants to continue or foster the split between the factions.

We know that the Shia and Sunni have been at odds with each other for generations - but they both occupy that land, Iraq belongs to all of them - and they know it.

I am Canadian - so if we had a foreign power militarily take over Canada and occupy it - I would bet my entire life savings that most of Quebec would fight alongside the rest of the nation to oust the occupation(especially if it was an occupation similiar in breadth and form of the US occupation of Iraq)...even though, they want their own sovereignty. We still distrust each other, but the common goal has more importance than mere local distrust.

[Ian David]

14. My Iraq plan

I would immediately begin to withdraw all troops from Iraq and establish Kurdistan as an independent nation. Then use the troops to secure and stabilize Kurdistan.

This would require negotiating with and reaching detente with the "insurgents."

Perhaps we would agree to securing their borders from outside aggression, and not interfering with anything internal.

If Bush did this, he would leave the border unsecured and then wait for Iran to invade Iraq. Then Bush would send troops back in to "liberate" Iraq again change the regime in Iran.

So, my policy would be: Withdraw, Free Kurdistan, Secure the borders, and Leave them alone.

[IllegalCombatant]

8. support our troops - outsource the war - to iraqis

i would start withdrawing our troops immediately, just like jfk planned to do in Vietnam, it's their country let their big guns sort it out instead of our big guns trying to force our guys down their throat.

why do you not support their struggle for control of their country but do support our struggle for their country?

[IrateCitizen]

13. EXACTAMUNDO!

That is an unbelievably succinct way of putting it, friend. I hope you don't mind if I share that little soundbite with my friends in Iraq Vets Against the War (http://www.ivaw.net).

[IllegalCombatant]

20. thanks ic

please use anything you think may be useful.

i would love to see that sound-byte take off and hopefully become policy.

gl :toast:

[Bragi]

15. My plan

I would acknowledge that the US cannot do any good by staying in Iraq, and announce 1) that troop withdrawals will begin immediately, and all troops will be gone in 90 days, and 2) that the US will go to the UN security council immediately with a resolution truly internationalizing the task of rebuilding Iraq.

This won't happen, of course, not because it wouldn't work, but because it would require Bush acknowledging that the whole fiasco was a mistake.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Get the hell out.

Staying there, trying to 'fix' what we broke is a losing option. It will wind up just like Vietnam, where we stayed searching for 'peace with honor', afraid that if we left the communists would come in, purge the south, kill thousands of the S.Vietnamese elite and imprison anyone who helped the Americans. So we stayed, and in the meantime killed another 30,000 troops and million Vietnamese, and to what end? The communists came in, purged the south, killed thousands and imprisoned thousands.

Our sticking it out didn't change the outcome at all except for causing hundreds of thousands more deaths.

We need to get out immediately, give the UN the reparations money we owe the Iraqis and let them handle the rebuilding, no matter what faction winds up with the power.

The longer we stay, the worse it will get.

[HamdenRice]

19. First of all change boneheaded tactics and strategy ...

One aspect of our involvement that is NEVER discussed in the major media, or for that matter much in alternative media, is how incredibly boneheaded our tactics in Iraq are. Because bush believes that "tourrists hate our freedom" and are some kind of finite and essentialist group of "evil dooers", the military has adopted a tactic based on this insane assumption.

The basic tactic that evolves from this assumption is that anyone who shoots at Americans is revealing himself to be a terrorist. Therefore, US troops "patrol" cities IN ORDER TO DRAW FIRE! Anyone who fires on American patrols is assumed to be a terrorist, and US forces then use overwhelming force to kill the suspected terrorist.

If the US drastically decreases the number of patrols, then there will be less conflict between the US and Iraqi forces. The US should only intervene if there is violence (civil war) or some particularly egregious intimidation going on within Iraqi indigenous communities.

US patrols are now the cause of violence, not the response to it.

Second, a real US president would address the Iraqi people and try to explain how we came to this impass. This would include apologizing and losing face, which bush is incapable of doing.

Third, a real president would immediately begin trying to put together an international, and primarily Arab/Muslim UN force to control Iraq only to the extent that Iraqi forces are unable to control the country.

Lastly, any US leaders need to recognize that there are problems to which there are no solutions. There may be no good outcomes in Iraq. Any resulting disaster that occurs would not be the fault of the new leader, but bush's fault.

[Ian David]

21. Have we killed more civilians than Sadam has yet?

I'm just curious.

Who has killed more Iraqi civilians: Bush or Sadam?

[HamdenRice]

22. I believe we have ...

I could be wrong, but I think the bush estimates of the number of civilians Sadam killed was in the range of 30,000 per year. The current 100,000 death toll under the US makes the occupation more deadly than the Sadam regime.

Moreover, it was easier to avoid death from Sadam than death from Americans. I think I read this on Riverbend blog or an article by some other Iraqi. But the basic idea was that if you were not involved in politics and kept your mouth shut than you had a good chance of not getting disappeared or tortured in Sadam's Iraq. As repellent as that sounds to politically active people, this is the attitude in many repressive countries. People want to be able to control the risks they face.

Under US control, there is chaos, and death comes randomly -- from bombings by insurgents, from air to surface missiles and bombs that go astray or target homes and streets, from crime, from kidnappers, from seiges and from sickness and starvation. This makes people feel much more afraid, less secure and less in control.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. Thanks to all who have posted thus far. I learned a lot from your comments

I still have no clear notion that is acceptable to me and follows my own moral compass, but you've helped me with some excellent ideas and viewpoints.

I still, however, can't get past the idea that it was our country - **my** country - that fucked things up over there and that we have an obligation to make it, at the very least, as good as it was before we went in.

True enough, there was repression under Saddam. But as someone pointed out, it was a reasonable assumption that if one were to be politically uninvolved, one could live in a reasonably good way and with relative safety.

Someone pointed out that the whole country was a geopolitical Frankenstein from back when the Brits created it. Someone else suggested the best role for us would be to let things happen inside the country and just control the borders and, if they were to happen, the internal partitions.

I really like the idea about getting us out and others in and then having *us* pay for the reconstruction.

No easy answers .....

[nickshepDEM]

24. Im not good at this foriegn policy stuff but ill give it a shot.

If I took over and actually I would like to see Bush do this but we all know he wont. I would publicaly apologize to the people of Iraq, America and the rest of the world for the irreversable damage we have inflicted in Iraq. Next, I would then ask for assistance from our former allies and anyone interested in helping us and the Iraqi people out of this mess. Most importantly, I would not be naive to other countries and foriegn leaders opinions and ideas like Bush has been since the beginning. Lastly, I would set a date for elections. When the elections were over and the new government took was in place I would pull out all American troops. Sometimes an "Im Sorry" just isnt good enough but I think thats all we have left to offer.

:'(