We know the Bushists aren't thinking clearly about Iraq. Is anybody?

[BurtWorm]

The Shiites and Sunnis seem to be locked in irreconcilable differences. The Shiites want autonomy over Southern Iraq, where 80% of Iraqi oil reserves are located. The Sunnis believe (reasonably, I think) that that would mean an end to Iraq as a nation. Since Iraq is a fiction anyway, perhaps this wouldn't be such a terrible turn of events. But, as if relations between Sunni and Shiite Arab Iraqis weren't bad enough already, would a constitutionally divided Iraq make things any better between them? Did the Bushists create the conditions for another Israel/Palestine in which two camps--one a corporate nation and the other a dispossessed people--remain at each other's throats for the indefinite future?

I would like to see the media and Congress pressing the Bushists much harder for their view of the situation, and for an explanation of what role they think an internationally isolated US can play, when organically, Iraq seems doomed to be divided and to wind up with nothing at all resembling the WalMart "democracy" the Bushists may really be stupid enough to think they can foster there.

I know there are tons of critics of the Bushist program for Iraq. But is there anybody who has a clear view of what the very best (realistic) solution for Iraq is? It certainly is not the phony constitution the Bushists are trying to rush the Iraqis into. Do we really have to wait three frickin' years for an intelligent approach to the Iraq problem?

[expatriot]

1. Bush has severely limited our choices, there are no real good ones.

The idea of an immediate pullout _is_ scary but being there for another decade or two is scarier. Bush has left everyone involved without any "good" options.

[BurtWorm]

2. The problem with our remaining there is that we serve no purpose.

Has anyone ever stated clearly what purpose our troops serve there? I know they claim they're there to keep the insurgency at bay until a political solution is found. But if civil war is inevitable--and it's looking more and more inevitable--then we're just there to forestall the inevitable.

[leftchick]

5. well they sure as hell aren't "providing security"

except for the Green Zone puppts. And that is resented by average Iraqis. They also serve as great targets for the rebels. :(

THEY NEED TO COME HOME!!!

[AndyTiedye]

13. Their Purpose is to be Targets, It Seems

Our troops provide convenient targets for all the really pissed-off people over there.
They even make them drive around in unarmored or barely-armored
vehicles to make them really easy targets for roadside bombs.

Bigwigs like Rumfilled get to drive around in real armored vehicles,
that cannot be blown up by IEDs, of course.

[JDPriestly]

3. The Iraqis have to find their own solutions.

Can you imagine what a mess we would be in if the English had played a role in writing our Constitution or deciding how we would set up our country. The Iraqis have to negotiate/fight out their own solutions to the questions you pose. Quite frankly, it is none of our business. Saddam did not pose a realistic threat to us at the time we invaded, and we should not have interfered. To the extent that Saddam posed a threat to his own people, we should not have acted virtually alone (with only token support from a few other nations) to correct the situation. At this point, the right thing to do is to simply and silently support whatever the Iraqis want -- although some of their choices are likely to be pretty stupid and wrong in our view.

The decisions you are discussing can't be made strictly on a rational basis. Emotional and cultural factors that we do not understand must also be considered. Power struggles are part of the bargain. Remember the compromises our Founding Fathers made about slavery. Huge mistakes. They caused us to suffer horrible problems and doomed our nation to a brutal civil war, but, arguably, our nation would not exist had they not been made. The Iraqis have to make their own compromises -- their own mistakes. It's like with children. At some point, a parent has to let go and allow the child to make his or her own mistakes.

[BurtWorm]

4. The question is, though, which Iraqis?

Or even, who are the Iraqis? I think the parties involved will are doomed to shed more blood and create greater inequities than existed before Saddam was deposed.

The US broke Iraq, but I don't think anyone is going to be able to fix it.

[enigma000]

6. Asymmetrical Federalism

That just might work. The theory behind Asymmetrical Federalism is that while power is disseminated from the central, national government to the provincial level, certain provinces have more power than others. It was discussed in Canada back about a decade ago, but went nowhere.

In British terms: the Kurdish north is the Iraqi equivalent of Scotland. The Shiite Arab south would have less provincial power – sort of like England. The Sunni Triangle, meanwhile, looks like being the fledgling Iraqi federation's Northern Ireland for a while to come.

The compromise the constitution drafters may make is to defer the truly difficult questions for a few years until things settle down. Design 90% of a constitution, submit it to the people for ratification and once passed (knock on wood) have elections for a constitutional government that all ethnic groups participate in.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

7. I think your missing the point of our being in Iraq

Do you think they really give a damn about those people? Do you think we are over there for any other reason than oil and making money for the military industrial complex? Its obvious how to solve the middle east problem.....get out. They hate us for keeping military bases there and for how we have operated there in the past...we build you up then we turn against you...we supported Bin Laden and Saddam in the past...also we aren't a fair broker in the fighting between Israel and Palastine. They want strife in the middle east...it gives us an excuse to be there and making tons of cash.

[BurtWorm]

8. Of course the reason we're there is to open a market for American capital.

That's what our wars are always ultimately about. (Except maybe WWII. That might really have been about opposing fascism.)

But I'm not speaking as an American when I ask this question. I'm speaking as a concerned citizen of the world who believes peace is inherently better for all people than war (except in extreme circumstances). It's crystal clear that the US can't and won't solve the problem. It's clear, furthermore, that the US has been more obstacle than facilitator. But it seems that the whole world is sitting back and allowing this travesty to go on, letting the Bushists have it all to themselves.

And in this country, even the Democrats and the press are passively watching it all happen. This is not a normal for a healthy democracy, to be so passive when so much is at stake. It's as though we've all been drugged.

[BeFree]

9. It's like this

A friend of mine, a liberal who thinks we ought to stay, was soundly trounced when it was pointed out to him that he trusted the US government to do the right thing, when he knows as well as I that the government is a bunch of crooks.

So, what does the future hold for Iraq? Well, if we stay there with our guns drawn it will never have peace. But if we pull out our troops and send in real peacekeepers, they do stand a chance of having peace. But as long as Iraq continues to be just another huge (the biggest ever?) republican government program, war is the only realistic outcome.

[enigma000]

10. That's a good plan

Unfortunately I suspect that the rest of the world is not interested in sending in "real" peacekeepers to Iraq.

And why would they? Would the French, Germans and Canadians be willing to send tens of thousands of troops to fight and die to cleanup America's mess?

This will be solved by the Iraqis themselves. How ever long it takes.

[BurtWorm]

11. Which Iraqis will solve it?

I suspect the Shiites will eventually find a way to get backing from Iran. Maybe the Sunnis will get backing from Syria.

The US really has no legitimate horse in that race.

[BeFree]

12. Actually, peacekeepers wouldn't be soldiers

They would be peace corp types. And no, none would be American but America would finance the operations.

It ain't gonna happen though. But it is the only way the Iraqis would ever see peace soon.

Bring our troops home, NOW.