• Recent
• About & Contact
• Contributors
• Archive
• Links

• Archives home
• « Previous
• Next »

I say withdraw to the north... Let the civil war spill over and hurt Iran who'd hate nothing more than chaos in Iraq without American troops.

You sound as if you assume that Iran would just sit there and do nothing -- if Iraq really does become civil war or unbridled chaos, I wouldn't be surprised if they carried out their own Iraqi Freedom campaign.

Withdrawing to the north and chillin out with the Kurds would really piss off our NATO ally Turkey... and who knows, if we frustrated Iraqi Kurds' attempts to redeem their brothers in Turkey, the Kurds might not be so friendly and Westernized anymore. It's easy to say to the Kurds "we give you security, you abandon Turkish Kurds" but if only a small group of Kurds reject that bargain, you are SOL.

If you do decide that a free Kurdistan is the best solution, it might be best to push for resettlement (bribed, not forced) for Turkish Kurds into Kurdistan, and do the same thing for Arabs to get them into southern Iraq.

I say push for a federal Iraqi state and try to work with the Iranians to end Shia violence so American/Iraqi troops can concentrate on the Sunni insurgency.

This all assume's a lack of political will to stay and lack of the necessary brutality to win.

This is it. This is why the superpower cannot win a war. Is there any doubt that a willingness to use brutal methods would have ended the conflict in Iraq already?

Perhaps they should make the political will irrelevant by withdrawing under the guise of a loss whilst maintaining a warlike intent and unleashing a long-term attack from the shadows.

The act of withdrawing with the US tail between its legs will work on two fronts. The first front will give the media the fodder they need for a few years to influence the nation, and international community, that the US is an imperialist blowhard. The second front would play up the arrogance of the enemy. It'll give the enemy the image of the cowboy America who can't hack real war.

Whilst these propaganda images are being implemented the US could concentrate on shadowy counter-strikes and long term strategy. They should also seriously think about returning to the nefarious aspects of covert action like assassinations, mass disinformation campaigns to ramp up paranoia so our enemies kill each other off and so on.

"Oh, and half a million troops weren't enough to win in Vietnam -- and might not be enough to "win" in Iraq."

Exactly. Troop levels aren't the problem, what those troops are doing (or not doing) is the problem. If only we fought wars like we used to. If Falujah had been handled in a similar fashion to Dresden then things might look very differently in Iraq today.

"Centrists and hawks alike fear that Iraq will face civil war and may become a failed state sanctuary for terrorists."

I am not concerned about a civil war. If they hate each other that much then let them have at it. The sooner one side prevails the sooner peace can return. But it is unacceptable for Iraq to become a sanctuary for terrorists as it was before the war. Those days are over.

All of this talk about Iraq being a quagmire and unsolvable ignores the elephant in the room: our military is unable to defeat a ragtag bunch of insurgents. The most powerful military force in the history of civilization is losing a war because it lacks the political will to kill effectively. This is a problem that will haunt us long after everyone forgets about the stalemate in Iraq.

Withdraw to Kurdistan. Try to cut a Kurd/Turkish deal if possible. Barnett has a piece about FDI going into Kurdistan. It is already functioning as its own state. That seems to be the only sensible course.

Possibly cut a deal with the Shia in the south, either openly or not. Arm the Hell out of them. Tell them that if they do unto the Sunni what the Sunni did to them after Desert Storm, we will consider it a "civil war" and sit it out. Within a short period there will be no Sunnis in Iraq. Many will be dead, most will have fled. Help the Saudis and Kuwaitis string razor wire so the millions of refugees end up in Iran and Syria, where they will raise Hell and make life miserable for everybody, basically jamming a stick in the eye of our regional enemies. This is premised on the idea that the Iraqi Arab Shia do NOT want to be dominated by Iran. That seems to be the case. We tell the Shia, keep this area open for foreign investment in the oil fields, sell it at the market price, and you can do absolutely anything else you want, and we'll help you keep the Iranians out.

While the American-sponsored ethnic cleansing is going on, we help the Kurds grab Kirkuk and the oil in that area, and push out any Sunni who live in the area.

We maybe base a rapid reaction force in Kuwait or in Oman or some place nearby.

This is, and is meant to be, extremely brutal, and nakedly self-interested. No matter what we do, we are hated. But, we are also despised as weak. It is one thing to be hated and feared, not ideal but tolerable. But to be hated and despised is to be held in contempt, which invites attack. By permitting the physical annihilation of an entire, large community that chose to oppose us, we will at last be sending a message of strength that the Arabs will understand and respect and fear. Cross the Americans and you die. Unfortunately that has not been sufficiently true in recent years.

Reestablishing fear of America will do something to make up for the catastrophic loss of the war, which is going to be a cross between Somalia and Vietnam at the rate it is going.

I'm gonna throw out some wild ideas just for some churn. My primary influence here is this article in the London Review of Books on the SIGIR findings. The reconstruction fund and embassy have both spent out the 40 billion dollars for rebuilding they had, with little to show for it. Infrastructure is barely up to pre-Saddam levels. Several ministers and a plethora of lower level officials have absconded with millions in cash. Private contractors and security forces are burning money. So:

* Pitch the end of the war to the U.S. public as this: our job is to fulfill specific existing infrastructure and development projects to date, a definable finite list, and then we leave. Civil wars are not our matter, but doing what we promised to do is. If we build a school and Iraqis burn it down, we're not fixing it. But if we promised to build a hospital somewhere, we don't go back on our word. Unfortunately, that has too often been the case. It at least gives a clear, concrete exit goal.

* Nationalize all private contractors and security firms operating in Iraq. They are beholden to two masters, the US govt and the almighty buck. Draft them. Retroactively prosecute those who violated military codes under military law. Let the Supreme Court find it unconstitutional later, a la FDR.

* Reorganize the Peace Corps as being solely devoted to Iraq reconstruction. Promote Peace Corps work as being the international version of Mississippi Burning.

* Give the French and Russians oil concessions in Basra return for making security along pipelines their problem, not ours. They wanted it all along, let 'em work it out.

* Replace Condi with James Baker and shuttle diplomacy the hell out of the region.

* Coordinate with Jordan on refugee conditions; if order and stability is created there, they might be a more reliable "exile" community to send back in than the last one. Train up their own security force with Jordanian assistance.

* Prosecute the bejesus out of any corrupt Iraqi nationals fleeing abroad with government funds.

* Replace Karen Hughes with Bryan Adams, who is internationally popular. Have him convert to Islam and issue a mea culpa on Al Jazeera. His Canadianness will be a plus.

* Give the GAO guns and deploy them in Fallujah.

* Find and employ Gurkas, Hessians and Cossacks, but don't go through Blackwater.

* Send back Paul Bremmer as a grunt. Also deploy: 50 Cent, The Game, Darryl Worley, Lee Greenwood and Toby Keith.

* Tell China we've figured out how to fix the trade deficit. They can have Iraq and we'll call it even.

This is the problem with engaging in wars of namby-pamby Wilsonian intent. If you go into a country as an ostensible "liberator", then you can't very well use the Dresden tactics. So you wind up a sitting duck traffic cop tying up all your manpower on shipping MREs to eachother and being absolutely monomaniacal about "force protection". 140,000 GIs would be PLENTY if they weren't configured as a "self-licking ice cream cone" operation.

As to the Iraqi Kurds -- they've got the BEST of all possible worlds right now --- left alone with de facto independence and everyone's attention focused elsewhere. If Iraq became stable (ha ha) they'd be much worse off as they'd have the other 80% of the country on their back making them play ball. If they became a recognized nation they'd be worse off because Turkey, Syria and Iran would be rather eager to teach them a lesson.

I'm not so sure that championing the Kurds is ultimately in the US interest anyway.

Why disengage at all? We have suffered very few casualties to date. This real estate may prove valuable if/when we need to go into Syria and Iran.

The only way I see to salvage anything half-way decent in Iraq is toget both Europe(doubtful) and all of Iraq's neighbors in on the job.

We need to get European nations to contribute troops, even if it is only to deal with more peaceful areas to allow US forces to concentrate on the two toughest nuts(Anbar and Baghdad). Their price will probably be contracts for reconstruction as well as running oil fields in Iraq.

Also, we need to get all 6 of Iraq's neighbors working on the same page, or least reading the same book. This probably means working out some sort of grand bargain with Iran. They get the bomb(essentially a foregone conclusion at this point) and normalized relations with the US(an embassy and trade). They give us recognition of Israel, stop supplying weaponry to Hezballah et al, and crack down as much as possible on the Shiite militias, and police the border from their side.
Syria will need to do something similar. Their big carrots would be real negotiations with Israel about the Golan and trade with the US. THey would have to police their borders and round remaining Iraqi Baathists and their money supplies.
Jordan should basically keep doing what they do, except hopefully to be even tougher about it.
Saudi and Kuwait need to make sure that their citizens don't go to Iraq for jihad, they also ned to step up to the plate and give money.

I don't know if it will work, but that is the only way I see doing anything positive from here on out.

Otherwise, we just need to get the hell out of their as soon as possible.

Jon: I agree, if we stay, we'll need an overarching regional agreement. If not, I tend to agree with Lex.

"The only way I see to salvage anything half-way decent in Iraq is toget both Europe(doubtful) and all of Iraq's neighbors in on the job."

And what exactly are they going to accomplish in Iraq? The Iranians want their to be a civil war, as do their proxies the Syrians. A Shia dominated theocracy is the ultimate goal of the Mullahs in Iran so how does crafting a rand bargin" with them lead to peace?

No European forces are going to support the US in Iraq and if they did send troops they would be as impotent as the forces already in Lebenon and Afghanistan.

I still don't see a need for redeployment, it is not as if the bloodshed in Iraq is even reaching a 1/10th of the level of a full blown war.

Arm them all. Redeploy to sunny Kurdistan. Watch the fireworks. Watch it spill over into Iran and Saudi Arabia. Grab another beer and watch from the sidelines. Set up a "safe zone" (in the north, of course) for those Iraqis who'd rather not play the religious war game. Come to the Saudi's aid late, after they've been allowed a long, slow draught of anarchy. Let those who are so inclined bleed themselves out, Sunni and Shia and Shi'ite and whoever else wants to get involved.

FOX network could even broadcast "Monday Night Jihad" and you could root for your favorite terorist team. -cp

Mike - the Allies could get away with Dresden only because there was a just cause in WWII, and the response was proportionate to the challenge. A similar approach in Fallujah would have unleashed a storm of horrified protest around the world, and driven other powers closer together in an anti-US alliance. The crueler America is when there is no just cause, the harder the fall from top dog status will be when it eventually comes. I think most patriots in the USA realize that to betray America's ideals - its "soft power" - is a serious, serious waste.

And it is foolish to play at war. Your comment betrays a lack of respect both for the Allied veterans of WWII and for the victims of that conflagration. See the quote from War and Peace in another thread. In fact, read War and Peace.

"The Allies could get away with Dresden only because there was a just cause in WWII, and the response was proportionate to the challenge. A similar approach in Fallujah would have unleashed a storm of horrified protest around the world, and driven other powers closer together in an anti-US alliance."

In your opinion there is no just cause. The majority of American citizens would probably disagree with that sentiment. What exactly made WWII a just cause that doesn't make Iraq a just cause?

And quite frankly I don't care, nor do most Americans, what the world thinks of us. As a general rule the more the world despises America the more justice is prevailing. Having traveled the world extensively I can safely say that few countries enjoy the freedom and justice found in the US, and even fewer support that justice outside of their own country.

"I think most patriots in the USA realize that to betray America's ideals "“ its "soft power"Â? "“ is a serious, serious waste."

As a patriot myself, I would have to disagree with that. "Soft power" is a European concept that only makes sense when you have no "hard power" to actually get things done. And I think again you are assuming that any of this is a betrayal of American ideals.

"And it is foolish to play at war. Your comment betrays a lack of respect both for the Allied veterans of WWII and for the victims of that conflagration."

Who is playing at war? I have many relatives who fought (some who died) in WWII so please don't insult me by saying I disrespect them. WWII is a model because it is the last major war that the US has won. Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, and now Iraq/Afghanistan all were abandoned or cut off before victory was achieved.

WWII is a model because it is the last major war that the US has won.

WWII would be a model, if we were fighting a powerful nation state. Unfortunately we aren't, we are dealing with an insurgency.

IIRC the bombing of Dresden horrified even Churchill, the man who wanted to "make the rubble bounce."

Point taken, I am not advocating mirroring the exact tactics of WWII rather I am saying that the attitude and will behind those tactics be used to instill a far more brutal methodology into the military.

In 2003, for example when Fallujah was finally handled it would have sent a powerful message to the insurgency if the women and children had been allowed to evacuate, the town given a chance to surrender and then fire-bombed into ashes. The insurgency problem would be greatly diminished today if only because to many of them would have perished at Fallujah instead of escaping.

"IIRC the bombing of Dresden horrified even Churchill, the man who wanted to "make the rubble bounce."Â?"

Well it certainly didn't horrify LeMay, Patton and others who viewed it much more realisticly as the consequences of war. Of course it was horrible, so was the fire-bombing of Tokyo which killed 80,000 people in 20 minutes. You can't halfway fight a war, it will never end. WWII ended because we slaughtered so many Germans, Japanese and Italians that to continue was impossible.

Mike S.
1. The US can't take on the entire world. NO country can.
2. If soft power is just a European conceit, how come the Chinese are starting Mandarin language schools in other countries and using their trade ties to effect changes in their foreign policy? How come we spent some many years in the Cold War sending Jazz musicians overseas and setting up radio stations? Heck, why are the Native Americans still alive?
3. Last I heard, the human race was really good at holding grudges. If fear isn't replaced by other incentives to cooperate at some point, the fearful will strike back the second they're able to.

1.) I am not advocating taking on the rest of the world. There is a difference between taking on the world and not letting your foreign policy be set by the collective opinion of the EU.

2.) Let us further distinguish between using "soft power" to accomplish "soft goals" like spreading your native tounge around the globe and using "hard power" to accomplish "hard goals" like toppling dictators that threaten your country. The problem is that the EU wants to only use "soft power" and never considers the use of "hard power". This is primarily because they either lack "hard power" or the will to use it.

3.) One day the US will lose its top spot. If it lost it tomorrow the rest of the world's nations would pounce on it so fast it would make your head spin. This despite the fact that no nation has ever used more restraint when it had such a disparity of power in the history of the world. That isn't a good thing or a bad thing, it is just the world we live in.

I like a lot of what "Ralph Peters":http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/11/2129512 layed out. Give the Iraqis a timeline to decide whether they're willing to fight for freedom. When the time is up and American strategists continue to "want it more than they do" redeploy to Kurdistan.

Mike, one principle you may be missing here:

Niether Germany or Japan maintained sympathetic neighboring populations ready to throw caution to the wind and wage jihad against the Allied "aggression." There's a regional aspect here that didn't exist during WWII.

Lex,

The Turkish thirst for (and lack of) oil could serve a hefty point of leverage in fostering a Turk/Kurd deal.

Excellent take on the Arab/Persian Shia dynamic.

"Niether Germany or Japan maintained sympathetic neighboring populations ready to throw caution to the wind and wage jihad against the Allied "aggression."Â?"

Might that be because they were wearied of war by the time the Allies occuppied their country? Both Japan and Germany were in utter ruins, no one was willing to fight on for something that had destroyed everything they knew. The same cannot be said for Iraq which is largely intact despite the war.

Still you make a very good point about the differences in the culture. One thing to consider about radical Islam however is that even in the worst case death-cult scenarios like we see in the West Bank and Gaza were an entire nation is given over to madness and longing for death and destruction very few people would be willing to actually die for their beliefs.

The terror cells that are supplying foreign fighters to Iraq would be far less willing to do so if within 3-6 weeks of their arrival, all of the fighters had been killed by US forces. The fact that some such fighters have operated in Iraq relatively safely now for almost two years is the strongest recruitment tool possible. I know it flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but their is not an endless supply of jihadis. Furthermore, no jihadi wants to fight in a hopeless losing struggle that they will certainly die in. They would much rather fight in a struggle they know they can win and will survive to enjoy the fruits of victory.

This is why Zarqawi (before he was killed) exclamed to his masters back in Waziristan that recruiting new members to the jihad was extremely difficult at that moment because the sentiment around the Middle East and Iraq was that the Americans were proving to have far greater staying power than anyone first anticipated. This was at a time when Bush's popularity was riding highe and the idea that we might actually leave Iraq with in a year or two wasn't even being seriously considered.

"BTW, Ralph Peters seems to agree with me on this.":http://www.savethegop.com/archives/2006/11/15/iraqi-madness/

Recent Comments

• Lexington Green on Israel a Strategic Ally?


• Lexington Green on Israel a Strategic Ally?


• Chirol on Think about that slowly. . .


• Brontides » Blog Archive » Becoming Brazil on Oman’s Unique Foreign Policy


• Curzon on Think about that slowly. . .


• s on North Korean Humor


• Chirol on Think about that slowly. . .


• ElamBend on Think about that slowly. . .

Travelogues

• Chirol's Travels to Tunisia
  A short trip through Tunisia
• Curzon's Journey Across the Far East
  Viet Nam, China and Japan
• Chirol's Syria Diary
  Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine
• Curzon's Anatolian Dispatches
  Around Turkey in March 2005
• Younghusband's Iran Diary
  Three weeks in the Islamic Republic
• Chirol's Ottoman Odyssey
  Turkey and Cyprus
• Chirol's Balkan Memories
  Croatia and Bosnia in 2002

Speak Victorian,
Think Pagan

ComingAnarchy.com is the Robert D. Kaplan-inspired site where “Curzon”, “Younghusband”, “Chirol” and “Munro-Ferguson” blog on issues of world affairs and politics. Learn more about the site and its contributors, see the latest discussion to the left, and have feel free to browse through the archives.

Text © ComingAnarchy.com since 2004.

Design based on Make It Worn by Bart-Jan Verhoef, implemented to Wordpress by Szilágyi Péter.

Powered by Wordpress.

Get the RSS