Anbar province, the largest in the nation, was written off by generals a year ago. The heavily Sunni region which includes the western part of the country was completely unstable, but now progress is apparently being made, and the US could hand it over to Iraqi control by March or April, Reuters reported a few days ago.
I have had several requests from friends to outline my position on Iraq, and I think this is a good context to put it. Here it is, as I wrote it in response to "A Moderate" commenter:
First of all, let us establish that, as citizens without inside knowledge of the situation, our policy opinions may not be implementable.
The first policy change should be to end the lucrative no-bid contracts given to Halliburton and other contractors. If you don't know about this, let me highly recommend Inside the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasakeran about the Green Zone.
Secondly, we should engage in active efforts to bring the neighboring countries of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to the negotiating table. The UN and EU might also like to have a role in the discussions.
We must meet with Sunni and Shiite leaders in establishing common goals and decide on reasonable benchmarks. We must make clear that our continued military and monetary support is contingent upon their cooperation.
Next, we must, although we may not want to, discuss the situation with al-Sadr, the militant Shiite leader. Only by toning down the Shiite retaliation can we make Iraq a democracy.
We must, over the course of these meetings, never take the possibility of a three-state solution, especially if there turns out to be oil in al-Anbar province. (The Sunnis oppose this solution because they have the least amount of oil. Anbar, however, is a heavily Sunni area, and there are reports that there may indeed by oil there. If the reports turn out to be true, our solution would be much clearer.
The US needs to use the the threat of removal of resources as a political tool.
Throughout this process, the last thing in the world we want to do is inflame Iran. We only have the money and troops to deal with one problem at a time. We shouldn't become sycophants towards Iran, but we should treat it with respect and listen to its opinions. I believe that Iran is dangerous and I don't like Achmadinejad, but we need them on our side (or at least not against us) when it comes to Iraq.
Iran has long borders with Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Pakistan, and they control a large amount of the world's oil. They can cause us a lot of trouble (a lot more than they are now) and Bush is a fool to suggest that we are in a position to have a conflict with them, armed or otherwise.
Once benchmarks and the consequences of their not being met are realized, the US can begin to gradually reduce troop levels. The Iraqi military should be trained well, and wages should be raised to ensure that no lack of people will want to join. These people must meet strict requirements to be given access to weapons.
As for the surge, I think that the improvement is just a lull. I demand firm proof that the surge is working before I believe it. It seems so counterintuitive. I don't remember who said this, but I will paraphrase because I believe it to be very true: Wars don't go well. They just go less badly. They are right. War is a corrupting influence which intoxicates, dehumanizes, and brings out the worst in us. Both sides engage in the same murder and atrocities, but each justifies their own crimes by the others'. For more on this topic, I recommend Chris Hedges' excellent book War is a Force that Gives us Meaning. Iraq is not going well as long as innocent civilians are dying by the hour in the streets.
I have had several requests from friends to outline my position on Iraq, and I think this is a good context to put it. Here it is, as I wrote it in response to "A Moderate" commenter:
First of all, let us establish that, as citizens without inside knowledge of the situation, our policy opinions may not be implementable.
The first policy change should be to end the lucrative no-bid contracts given to Halliburton and other contractors. If you don't know about this, let me highly recommend Inside the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasakeran about the Green Zone.
Secondly, we should engage in active efforts to bring the neighboring countries of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to the negotiating table. The UN and EU might also like to have a role in the discussions.
We must meet with Sunni and Shiite leaders in establishing common goals and decide on reasonable benchmarks. We must make clear that our continued military and monetary support is contingent upon their cooperation.
Next, we must, although we may not want to, discuss the situation with al-Sadr, the militant Shiite leader. Only by toning down the Shiite retaliation can we make Iraq a democracy.
We must, over the course of these meetings, never take the possibility of a three-state solution, especially if there turns out to be oil in al-Anbar province. (The Sunnis oppose this solution because they have the least amount of oil. Anbar, however, is a heavily Sunni area, and there are reports that there may indeed by oil there. If the reports turn out to be true, our solution would be much clearer.
The US needs to use the the threat of removal of resources as a political tool.
Throughout this process, the last thing in the world we want to do is inflame Iran. We only have the money and troops to deal with one problem at a time. We shouldn't become sycophants towards Iran, but we should treat it with respect and listen to its opinions. I believe that Iran is dangerous and I don't like Achmadinejad, but we need them on our side (or at least not against us) when it comes to Iraq.
Iran has long borders with Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Pakistan, and they control a large amount of the world's oil. They can cause us a lot of trouble (a lot more than they are now) and Bush is a fool to suggest that we are in a position to have a conflict with them, armed or otherwise.
Once benchmarks and the consequences of their not being met are realized, the US can begin to gradually reduce troop levels. The Iraqi military should be trained well, and wages should be raised to ensure that no lack of people will want to join. These people must meet strict requirements to be given access to weapons.
As for the surge, I think that the improvement is just a lull. I demand firm proof that the surge is working before I believe it. It seems so counterintuitive. I don't remember who said this, but I will paraphrase because I believe it to be very true: Wars don't go well. They just go less badly. They are right. War is a corrupting influence which intoxicates, dehumanizes, and brings out the worst in us. Both sides engage in the same murder and atrocities, but each justifies their own crimes by the others'. For more on this topic, I recommend Chris Hedges' excellent book War is a Force that Gives us Meaning. Iraq is not going well as long as innocent civilians are dying by the hour in the streets.
1 comment:
This post seems a bit naive. Iran publicly considers America to be the Great Satan. The founder of the Iranian regime Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini even took American embassy workers hostage for 444 days. Iran and its proxy militias like Al-Sadr want Iraq to be an Islamo-Fascist proxy state of Iran, not a democracy. During the Iran-Iraq war, for example, though Saddam did start it and though many Iranians did have legitimate nationalist aspirations in wanting to defend their country from Iraq, Khomeini viewed it as a gift sent from god. He rejected Saddam's cease fire offer in 1982 and continued the war, with the slogan "The road to Jerusalem goes through Karbala". Ever since the 1979 revolution, Iran always wanted Iraq to be an Islamo-Fascist terror proxy of Iran. You acknowledged that Iran's regime is dangerous. But from your discussions with me, you don't understand the religious fanatic nature that Iran's terror regime is. America should do all it can to crackdown on Iranian meddling in Iraq such as infiltration of the Iranian network and also pressuring the Iraqi government to crackdown on Iranian influence. Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism. According to the 9/11 commission report, Iran and its proxy Hezbollah supported Al Qaeda. Iran supports the Taliban and supports the insurgents, who are killing American troops. Iran and its proxies have bombed our [American] troops with EFP explosives. Cooperating with Iran when it comes to Iraq is a horrible idea. Iran must be stopped from obtaining nuclear weapons. Though I prefer to support the Iranian people in brining regime change, bombing Iran may have to happen if it'll stop the regime from obtaining nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime must be obliterated!
Post a Comment