Iraq: A bigger problem than you think

[justinsb]

I said in a post yesterday that the economic cost to the United States and the loss of military lives were both sad, but not on the top of my list of "why it was a bad idea to go into Iraq". Someone else added "The true cost to America is that we are becoming a pariah nation, a rogue nation that believes our economic and military strength gives us free rein to conduct ourselves without accountability. As empires across time have learned, that just isn't so." Which is true and would be on the list but is still not the top reason. The main reason it was a bad idea in my opinion is this.

The U.S. has let a pretty nasty Genie out of the bottle (appropriate imagery for that part of the world). A US pullout could embolden militant groups on both sides and spark a civil war (ok a bigger civil war than what exists now.) A major civil war in Iraq could quickly draw in - Iran (which is almost entirely Shia and sees Iraq as the Mecca of Shia Islam), Syria (which is almost entirely Sunni, and Baathist and would feel compelled to defend their brothers on the Iraqi side) and Turkey (which has a large Kurdish population and wants to insure that there isn't a Kurdish homeland, despite an old UN resolution calling for one.)

If Iran, Syria, and Turkey get involved there is a good chance that Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and possibly Greece will become involved and from there it's just a free for all - Israel would almost certainly get dragged in and who knows how far it spreads after that. The US has created a situation where they cannot stay, or leave and regardless of what happens the US will be held responsible for the consequences. In other words, the problems in Iraq really haven't started yet and surely won't end with the Bush administration. Even if WWIII can be averted, this will haunt the US for decades.

The only solution that I can see is to assume that this will happen and have all the parties to a negotiating session - Iran, Syria, Turkey, and all of the various parties in Iraq - but again, the US doesn't have the clout to lead such talks - the French might, but Bush has successfully alienated the French. At any rate, cut and run is not an option, it will not bring a close to this.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. You mean it's NOT a good idea to take a baseball bat to a hornets' nest?

Oops!

[justinsb]

2. lol..or to put it another way

There isn't one single solitary thing that the Bush administration has done right in all of this - they have found the worst case scenario and gone with it on every level and most of this could have been avoided if ANYONE in the administration had read a single book on Middle East history.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. So there is a good thing that can come from this:

If they are PAYING ATTENTION, the necons and other warmongers (and their enablers/followers) will realize the folly of assuming that:

1) military solutions work
1) war is clean and neat and follows the plan
2) invasion has no "uninteneded consequences"
3) you can ignore history

[justinsb]

5. Well, I guess it depends

they might think about that for awhile, but should Haliburtons profits sag I don't know that they'll remember the lessons.

[BlueEyedSon]

7. Are you assuming that was their #1 motivation? I'm leaning toward

the Thom Hartmanm analysis these days (although at the outset I was pretty sure the reasons were peak oil & dollar hegemony).....

"They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate"
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-22.htm

[justinsb]

8. Just an example really

I'm assuming that their #1 motivation was profits for themselves and their friends.

[BlueEyedSon]

14. Personal Q, if you don't mind:

Do you feel any better about things being in Canada?

[justinsb]

15. Yes I do

on a global level things are still bad but in my day to day life, I live in a city of 100+ distinct ethnic groups and 125 first languages, gay and straight people, Europeans and aboriginal peoples, jews and palistinians, serbs and croats, people from every corner of the globe live side by side peacefully and I am constantly surrounded by concerned citizens of the globe who are working together and in concert with the Federal Government to try to solve global issues such as global warming, poverty, illiteracy. prejudice and all forms of violence.

So when I look at the planet, the problems are still there, but when I look at my country, my city, my friends and neighbors there is hope and concrete action to achieve lofty goals.

[Donna Zen]

20. If they viewed this as a failure

then they might see something. They see this as generational and anyone who sees it differently is just a wuss. Stay the course.

19th c. thinking: the Great Game Redux

The side with the most oil wins the war.

Sure there is big money involved, and plenty of oil, but in the end this is about power. IMHO, they actually think that they are doing something that is "good" for the world, and that the rest of us our too stupid to see how smart they are. The blood on their hands is just the price they pay for taking such good care of us, the misguided slobs.

Of course I disagree, but that is what I think goes on inside their heads.

Empires don't need no stinkin' ballot boxes.

[BlueEyedSon]

24. Hmmm... I guess that worries me too

If total chaos and perpetual war ARE the goal ("Mission Accomplished!"), they would not see Iraq/GWOT as a failure.

[Donna Zen]

3. especially when the garden is filled with snakes

[whistle]

6. Ha, Iraq is not the total military theater in the middle east.....

...this is why the U.S. is going to be in the region and at war for a very long time:

[justinsb]

9. I know it's not the total military theatre

but you could hardly have picked a worse place to start.

[Donna Zen]

10. A contact group:

What you are advocating is for a "contact group," such as was set in Kosova before the war. General Clark has called for the formation of such a group for years now. The French may be alienated, but the foreign minister of the EU, Solonas would certainly be on board. There are also a moderate Arab majority in the Gulf region who are willing to get on board.

Juan Cole agrees with you--and me--that cut and run is not an option.

Don't forget Egypt when listing the countries that will rush to the region if the war widens. We are only arming the Shias, and this emerging "civil war" can morph into a genocide. With most of the surrounding nations being majority Sunni, it is unrealistic to think that they will let this happen. One other note, Greece is a NATO nation.

The concept of invading Iraq, or as some neocons put it, going to Jerusalem through Baghdad, is the worst foreign policy mistake (mistake seems too mild a word) that has ever been executed.

In a global economy, foreign policy is domestic policy.

[justinsb]

12. That is the only way I can think of

to avert disaster from this - to pretend it already happened and get on with negotiating the peace. Cut and run won't work because it's a small planet and there is only so far you can run.

[Donna Zen]

16. Have you read Cole lately?

Yes, we need a contact group that includes Iran and Syria. When General Clark suggested that at the most recent HASC hearing, Perle scoffed: "talk to Syria? What a ridiculous idea!"

Anyway, yes, a contact group would help contain the battlefield, rule one in military planning that the junta just tossed aside.

Cole also proposes an interesting idea. He said that if the war broadens and worsens, the cost of oil will sky rocket which hurts emerging countries even more than it will hurt our economy. Those countries have adequate military capacity to replace our forces, which are now just an irritant in the mix. He said these nations have a vested interested in finding a successful conclusion in Iraq. We would of course have to pick up the tab, something that the many liberals would bristle at since it smacks of a mercenary army, but with so few options, it may be the best course for everyone.

BTW, NATO only has a 10,000 troop excess and that would be insufficient.

The fly in the foreign policy ointment is putting enough pressure on the American junta to force them to get their grip off of the oil. I don't see it happening. Sad.

There is no longer an alternative to success. None.

One more point: it is being said that Syria is on the verge of a governmental collapse. Of course the bushites are not talking about this, and the congress is busy formulating ways to use the flag as a political wedge issue, so they don't have time for this pesky problem. I'm just wondering why this take on Syria is the CW.

[justinsb]

18. ?

the CW?

NATO can't do it anyway - the only thing that would be achieved by NATO taking over the occupation is more terrorist attacks in Europe and the Europeans know that. They have been fighting Islamic extremism for a few decades and know alot more about how to do it, and how not to do it than anyone in the administration.

[Donna Zen]

19. Conventional Wisdom

as bush said to Bernstein: when you create chaos you can put anything in its place.

I guess that's the foreign policy.

[magellan]

11. I'm afraid I have to take the side of the Iraqis

It appears that many of them long for us to get out so they can put things right, because the political and religious tensions are mounting under this puppet government.

Here's a quote from Baghdad Burning by River (a girl who I think is Sunni, kind of like I'm Catholic...more or less secular, IOW).

"It is outrageous because for many people, this isn't about Sunnis and Shia or Arabs and Kurds. It's about an occupation and about people feeling that they do not have real representation. We have a government that needs to hide behind kilometers of barbed wire and meters and meters of concrete- and it's not because they are Shia or Kurdish or Sunni Arab- it's because they blatantly supported, and continue to support, an occupation that has led to death and chaos."

[justinsb]

13. I understand that

but how will things be put right? Who in Iraq right now has any power to 'put things right', how do you suppose they would go about it? I'm not saying 'stay' what I'm saying is that a withdraw must be negotiated with all of the various parties and the neighboring states. To pull a 'fall of Saigon' on this would be to invite a war that would quickly spread across the region and into Europe and Africa.

[magellan]

17. Honestly, I don't know

But it seems very obvious to me that our presence there is having more of a destabilizing effect than a stabilizing one, with each passing day. The Iraqis are seeing signs that tell them we aren't leaving for a LONG while -- what's being built in the Green Zone, bases like fortresses going up -- and this is causing a lot of resentment. They want a timetable of some sort. A short one. They're losing patience with being occupied. The unrest it's fostering is hurting all Iraqis.

There's no simple answer. But I think the 'we broke it, we fix it' concept is selfish. I want to fix the bloody mess we've made too, but in my heart I know the only real option is to give the Iraqis a REAL opportunity to do it themselves, without imposing our will on them. In the best possible world, we would TRUST them, give them the tools and help they ask for, and BUTT OUT.

That isn't going to happen, though. Because our interests there were never altruistic or a matter of our own national security.

[RethugAssKicker]

21. You don't know that for sure

We created this mess.... This is no other just option. We MUST get out of Iraq NOW. We are the enemy , we are wrong, we are the occupiers, we are the murderers.

[justinsb]

23. Yes, but you will very likely create

an even bigger mess, cause even more damage, and lose even more lives if you just run away now. How do you think the Iraqis will solve it themselves? My guess is all out civil war? (do you think this won't happen and why?) If that happens, then it will spread like a brushfire. A cut and run approach will make a crime into an even more serious crime.

[Spazito]

22. Unless or until the PNAC group loses their hold on the bush admin

the question is moot. The bush admin, under the control of PNAC neo-cons do NOT intend to leave or transfer their control over to an international body. The intent was and is to use Iraq as a staging point for a complete re-make of the Middle East.

Conversely, there will be no group willing to participate in what you propose, which I agree with, until the US relinquishes control and agrees to leave. What will continue to happen is what is happening now, countries are mouthing support for Iraq, etc, but are deliberately not putting anything of substance behind it because we all understand that pulling bush's fat out of the fire while allowing bush et al to continue to have control is a dangerous thing.

Until the bush admin is out of power, either in 2006 by losing the Senate and/or House or, more likely in 2008, and an administration in power that is willing to: admit Iraq is a failure; relinquish control in Iraq; institutes a foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than military power, I see nothing of substance changing.

[Donna Zen]

25. PNAC is the bush administration

just as the MSM is the government.

They didn't control the Senate agenda when they voted for the IWR. Not everyone with a "D" after their names disagrees with this concept. Some Dems are on record as believing that this invasion was the right thing to do, with or without WMD, with or without the UN.

[Spazito]

26. I think there are bush admin people that are not PNAC albeit, less

now than in the beginning as those in opposition have been purged and they are not in the top admin positions for sure. I agree faux 'dems' like Lieberman support the PNAC agenda for very specific reasons. If the dems were to win back the Senate and/or House, the number of dems that would want to continue the PNAC agenda would be a very small number and would have NO clout, imo, and that is the important point.

As long as the bush admin is there, there will be no change in the Iraq 'policy'.