Tashah

• Milestones

· The United States commences the Iraq War in March of 2003.
· George Bush announces the end of major hostilities in May of 2003.
· Saddam Hussein captured in December of 2003.
· Iraq elections held in January of 2004.

• Private Analysis

The United States initiated the preemptive war in Iraq in the spring of 2003. The major goals of this initiative were to eliminate all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, remove Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party from power, eliminate terrorist elements from Iraq, free the Iraqi people from a repressive government, and introduce democracy to Iraq.

It is now the summer of 2005. No Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been discovered to date. The United States military admits that many regions and cities of Iraq remain beyond its control. The borders of Iraq remain porous. Iraqi insurgency forces continue to inflict heavy casualties on the US military and civilian population. Scandals such as Abu Ghraib have heavily damaged the image and reputation of the United States. Tribal and religious animosities persist. Coalition partners are removing military assets from Iraq. The Iraqi infrastructure remains decrepit and problematic. Unemployment is rampant. It is impossible to secure the hundreds of miles of oil-pipeline that is essential to the Iraqi economy. High ranking officials of the Iraqi government continue to be assassinated along with foreign ambassadors. The Iraqi constitution as it is currently being formulated denies the equality of law to Iraqi women. The occupation of Iraq has not diminished global terrorism. The financial cost of the war and occupation is well beyond all initial estimates. The morale of US forces in Iraq is on the decline. The occupation continues to rend the very social fabric of America.

All in all, not a very pretty picture. The US has indeed uplifted Iraq in many ways... but at a tremendous and increasing cost in blood and treasure. Additionally, the core problems persist with ferocity. The Iraq of today in no way resembles the dynamic neocon visions of a liberated Iraq. Instead, the worst nightmare has become reality... Iraq has morphed into a quagmire.

• Alternative?

The United States cannot just pack up tomorrow and withdraw from Iraq. The consequences of a total abandonment would be staggering. Mindful of this, I present a different alternative path for your consideration... a partition of Iraq.

Iraq is in essence an artificial construct of European colonialism. It was cobbled together from the defunct Ottoman Empire without benevolent regard of the ethnic, sectarian, and religious differences that existed and flourished over the breadth and scope of this territory. Indeed, it was purposefully constructed in this manner to maintain the divisions which deny a cohesive unity to the collective population. Despite the eventual Iraqi independence from the colonial powers, these divisions remain as valid and vibrant today as they were under Ottoman and European rule.

The critical element in a partition of Iraq would be the establishment of an independent Kurdistan. The Kurds of northern Iraq have always bristled under the yoke of the Arab dominance that emanated from Baghdad. Hundreds of thousands have perished in fierce resistance to Saddam and the Ba'ath. The Kurdish peshmerga forces have never hesitated to assist the United States in any military endeavor in Iraqi territory. Indeed, it was the Kurdish peshmerga who filled the military vacuum when Turkey refused to allow US military forces access to Iraq from its territory. Although predominantly Muslim, the Kurds have never allowed Islam to frame their political ideology.

The strategic and tactical advantages of an independent Kurdistan to the United States has many upsides. A consolidation of military forces into a smaller and more managable geographic area. The Kirkuk oil fields could be better secured and pipelines better protected. Arab insurgent attacks would be drastically minimized. Syria would be bracketed between Israel and Kurdistan. US military strength could be redirected to the neglected Afghan theater. The US would continue efforts to instill democracy to the remainder of Iraq, and from a more secure base of operations. Pressure on the US military would lessen, and troops could be rotated more frequently. Those are some of the upsides, but realize also that there are also many dangerous and debilitating downsides.

In closing, I will neither assault nor defend this alternative because I well appreciate the domestic and global ramifications of this radical approach. Embryonic and skeletal in this initial sketch, modification and tweaking would be both expected and incumbant. This is simply a political/military alternative I have been mulling over. I would be very interested to read your thoughts on this proposal and invite everyone to boldly comment.


Tashah

__________________

Billo_Really

Their partitioning Iraq alright!

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

Tashah

Lol... I appreciate the cartoon. No doubt, elements of corporate America are indeed feeding well off the corpse of Iraq. But the corporate gorging on Iraqi pork doesn't address the numerous political and military problems I articulated in the preamble.

The cartoon is merely a figurative partition. What I suggested is an actual partition of the northern third (Kurdistan) of Iraq. This would have distinct tactical advantages for the US military abeit at a strategic and global political price.

We simply cannot sustain or maintain the current disadvantageous status quo. We have placed our military in almost the same untenable tactical position that the Russians faced in Afghanistan. Despite lofty strategic goals, this is a lose-lose military scenario.

What I suggested, in essence, would reward the tireless Kurdish assistence to US interests vis-a-vis Iraq while at the same time allowing our military forces a friendly and defensible safe-haven from which to assist the millions of Iraqis who desire and continue to struggle for a more representative form of government. The partition would not be a US abandonment of Iraq, but rather a coming to terms with the painful realities of an occupation and a device to reposition our military forces for greater tactical advantage. Hmmm. Perhaps this line of reasoning is more Israeli than American. Anyway, it's just a proposal for consideration.

Simon W. Moon

I'm not sure what I think about the idea. On the one hand, there's a certain amount of partitioning of sorts already underway.
My impression of the whole ME is that for most folks in most places the tribe/clan/family allegiance come much higher up the list than nation. I suspect it's from generation upon generation of having governments imposed from the outside in one form or another. I think that this has led to a fundamental meme of distrust for the govt. Often the govts have been seen as either incompetent and/or unwilling to manage things that we take for granted. Like some have said that the Mafia grew out of the lack of adequate police enforcement in Sicilian neighborhoods (true? I dunno). The lack of police protection was made up for by strong familial ties. The same forces are at play in US gangs in and out of prisons. There's a need for prtection and a lack of adequate official means to obtain that protection.

So, already, there're Arab, Iraqi Shi'is whose militias have become the police force. they have the official position, yet the operate along older, tribal, ethnic and religious divides.

The Kurds are already (still) mostly autonomous.

Of course, Turkey has repeatedly voiced it's objections to an official Iraqi Kurdistan.
I'm not sure how well Iran's Arab neighbors would welcome a second Shi'i State. There're already allegations that Iraq'll be Iran's quasi-proxy state.

So, while there're already some elements of separation greater than the hoped for federalism, the prospects of a divided Iraq may be destabilizing to the region.

I'm too ignorant to gauge the depth of these things well enough to find an justifiable opinion.

This has kept me from posting here in this thread. I liked you OP and all. I just wasn't sure of what I had to say

__________________
"That is the problem... [we] fell in love with the idea that politicians-- even the slickest and brightest presidential candidates-- were real heroes and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children. -H.S.T"

GarzaUK

A free Kurdistan? If the US could indeed make a free Kurdistan they would have.

But I'm afriad as soon as a independent Kurdistan is set up, Turkey will invade it. Alot of Kurds live in Eastern Turkey, who will no doubt rebel against the Turkish Government. Don't forget those explosions in Turkey the other week were not Islamic guerillas, but Kurdish.

If Turkey invaded from the North, the US would be in alot of difficulties. In fact the worse thing that could happen to Iraq would be the parition of it.

__________________
They tried like hell. They called him an élitist, a radical, a socialist, a Marxist, a Muslim, an Arab, an appeaser, a danger to the republic, a threat to small children, a friend of terrorists, an enemy of Israel, a vote thief, a non-citizen, an anti-American, and a celebrity. ~ George Packer

Simon W. Moon

Depending upon the situation, we could be obigated to come to Turkey's aid via NATO.

Bestial_Pagan

If US leaves now, there will be a total chaos. Iraq´s neighbors will slice it up. There was better alternative in 1991, but Bush senior did not take it to end. And Iraq is artificially created by France and GB, to speak of the reasons. God would I love to punch that coward def frog in the face.

__________________
http://www.mypicsaver.com/uploads/a00442ed9a.jpg

nkgupta80

US will leave when the pliant Iraqi government they set up is in full control, and they can conduct business in the country without any serious threats.

cnredd

I've NEVER understood that....

Bush41 was told BY THE UNITED NATIONS to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, but NOT to enter Iraq and remove him....That is exactly what was done....

And people accuse him of not doing enough...Doing more would have gone against the United Nation's wishes.

Now Bush43 is told BY THE UNITED NATIONS to wait for the completion of inspections and NOT to enter Iraq and remove him....The exact OPPOSITE was done...

And people accuse him of doing too much...He is already going against the United Nation's wishes.

Let me get this straight....

The right thing to do for Bush41 was to NOT listen to the UN and invade Iraq.

The right thing to do for Bush43 was to listen to the UN and NOT invade Iraq.

There is only one logical reasoning for this, and it is plainly obvious....

The United Nations suck....

__________________


www.politicalwrinkles.com

Billo_Really

If you belong to an organization, are you not obligated to follow their rules?