Biden Plan on Iraq
As some readers suggested, the Biden/Gelb op-ed in the Washington Post on Iraq was much compressed. More details are available in a recent Biden speech, which actually addresses some of the concerns I expressed about the op-ed.
Biden speech on Iraq.
As I say, you have to admire Biden for recognizing the mess and for thinking seriously about what structural programs could be implemented to provide a way out of this mess.
Ambassador Peter Galbraith, who was in Croatia during the Bosnia crisis, has spoken of what a mistake it was to go on trying to keep Yugoslavia together on the old basis when ethnic loyalties and passions had clearly taken over. That is why some new arrangement for the relationship of Baghdad to the rest of the country has to be imagined. If we just drift on like this, disaster looms.
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/02/2006 07:31:00 AM
|
Facebook
9 Comments:
One key difference, largely ignored by Sen. Biden and Mr. Gelb, between Bosnia and Iraq is the role played by the United States in their respective slides toward civil war. Whereas the US played a largely passive role while Bosnia descended into its breakup and war, the US fostered and encouraged the factors which are currently leading to Iraq's descent. This will not quickly be forgotten in the region.
In addition, one should not be misled into thinking Mr. Gelb's encouragement of Iraqi partition is a new idea. He floated the same idea in a NY Times op-ed back in 2003, to much anger and consternation. His refloating of this idea through the prism of Democratic party politics is opportunistic, dangerous, and will ultimately be damaging to the Democratic Party's perception in the Middle East.
Biden needs to retire. He favored the war, and last I checked, he is still calling for more troops. Get these sellouts like Biden, Lieberman, Clinton and Feinstein out of the Democratic Party, so we can all move on.
I think it is a fallacy to assume that the US engineered the breakup of Iraq, but this will be the theme for decades in the Arab world. The US accellerated the process, failed to address incipient civil war, and set free a cauldron of sectarian and ethnic conflict. However, I wonder whether this might have eventually occurred even if Saddam died a natural death and civil unrest eventually toppled Qusay or Uday, or whatever thug followed him.
Various events set in motion the near inevitability of some sort of breakup - for the Shia', a signal event was the killing of Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr in 1979 (I think by a nail in the forehead?), which accellerated the formation of specifically Shia' political parties. Once that trend started, there was no reversing it. The uprising and the deliberate, sectarian nature of Saddam's government just cemented it.
The second event was the Anfal campaign of 1987-88 against the Kurds. That sealed the divorce. The Kurds within Iraq will never be anything other than sullen, angry population unless they are granted autonomy so broad that it basically mirrors independence. For the old ones, Anfal will always be in their memories. The young have no identification whatsoever with the Arab Nation.
Sadly, the Arab world won't see it that way. I do feel that a breakup is probably inevitable, and it frightens me that the Bush Administration will still be in power, because delicate diplomacy will be needed to avert disaster. I applaud Biden for coming out and saying what many of us working in Iraq have been thinking.
The only - in fact THE OBVIOUS - solution of the Iraq problem, at the same time keeping the Iraq together, securing peace, and providing the Iraquis again with the incomes necessary for their living, is : Reinstall Saddam Hussein, leave as fast as possible, and call it a lesson learned.
Gen William Odom of the mostly NeoCon (thanks Juan!) Hudson Institute is back on the hustings, this time in the current issue of Foreign Policy
An excerpt:
Go to Original
Cut and Run? You Bet.
By Lt. Gen. William E. Odom
Foreign Policy May/June 2006 Issue
Why America must get out of Iraq now.
Withdraw immediately or stay the present course? That is the key question about the war in Iraq today. American public opinion is now decidedly against the war. From liberal New England, where citizens pass town-hall resolutions calling for withdrawal, to the conservative South and West, where more than half of "red state" citizens oppose the war, Americans want out. That sentiment is understandable.
.... getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal, all the countries bordering Iraq would likely respond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons, we cannot stop them. But we can engage them.
None of these prospects is possible unless we stop moving deeper into the "big sandy" of Iraq. America must withdraw now.
Juan,
Iraq has massive debts, whom does Senator Biden think should honor that debt?
This reminds me of a scene in "Get Shorty" where Travolta is talking with Hackman the Producer that lost some 250K in Vegas and says something like: you're trying to tell me you did something stupid and you don't want me to think you're an idiot! The US has no say in Iraq's future, asume, get out, and let the People of Iraq make there own History.
The way things are going in the US these days, you don't seem to have very much credibility in Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Constitutional Law, International Law, Federal Government, Disaster Relief, name it.
I am not talking about the Administration, I am talking about the whole American Political Elite.
There is a lot of cleaning up to do in your house.
Don't fight for something you don't have anymore...
Thomas
Unfortunately, there are not any easy OUTS to our involvement in Iraq. WE are involved now whether we like it or not.
Our President, daft as he might be, is still the Commander-in-Chief of our Military.
We must now address our House of Rep. for a redress to a VERY serious military crisis that is developing in the world because of our actions as a NATION.
We entrusted our President, along with our House of Rep., both Republicans and Democrats to involve us in two wars within the past six years, neither of which have created 'seedlings of democratic leanings.'
We are dealing with religious fundamentalist groups, much like the Christian fundamentalist groups with whom our president has been making deals and cajoling for the past six years.
Its time to pay the piper.
Juan, even before he became Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith started working on Iraqi Kurdish causes and acting as a close adviser to their political leaders, and he has continued to do that since. So he certainly is not a "neutral" source to refer to, to bolster your claim that Iraq needs to be split up into-- what are you calling them today? "stans"?
Your readers can check out my analysis of your proposal here.
Post a Comment
<< Home