Iraq's geopolitical train wreck
Submitted by Wes Clark on October 17, 2005 - 7:29pm.
Iraq
Here's a very thoughtful assessment of where we are in Iraq.
President Bush's national security adviser spelled out precisely why Iraq is now on course for a geopolitical train wreck. In an op-ed published coast-to-coast last weekend, Stephen Hadley makes unmistakably clear Iraq's new constitution is federal with provisions for regional governments that will not be allowed to intrude on the powers of the federal government.
Out of the window is any notion of Iraq as a unitary state, which it has been since its birth in 1920, through five previous constitutional iterations.
...Meanwhile, Shiite Iraq and Kurdish Iraq are already running their own affairs. The new constitution then becomes a license for both to set up their respective governments and widen their independence vis-à-vis Baghdad. And if Baghdad doesn't like it, it will be told to lump it. Shiite Iraq has its own army with two well-trained and equipped militias, funded by Iran, and the Kurds their fierce Peshmerga fighters.
The constitutional referendum left 34 important issues in abeyance. Fifty of the constitution's 130 clauses are incomplete. They are to be determined later when laws are passed to implement the federal architecture. Baghdad's power to tax is up in the air, state religion is still uncertain, human rights, at least for women, are unclear, the role of the police is unspecified, and the militias are to be disbanded, but the document doesn't say by whom. In the event of a full-fledged civil war, which some knowledgeable observers say is already under way subrosa, federal zones are tailor-made for ethnic cleansing.
...The United States was betting on the success of the democratic experiment in Iraq to defuse Iranian meddling. But Tehran's shadow keeps growing longer.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's jihadis are the only ones who have taken on Iran indirectly by declaring war on the Shiites. Neither Washington nor Arab capitals relish the idea of finding themselves aligned with al-Qaida's geopolitical objectives. Hence, the attraction of getting Iraq's Arab neighbors to take a more active role to prop up Baghdad. But long-time observers of the Iraqi scene seem to agree only a strongman can keep Iraq together. And that general is yet to emerge from the new Iraqi army. Such a figure would ensure that Iraq's three component parts stick together during a long transitory period.
As several countries have demonstrated over the past 50 years, there is no such thing as instant democratic capitalism.
...The uncertainty of Iraq's future, and its destabilizing impact on the Middle East, has already gotten several regional players to think of a nuclear future for themselves. A British intelligence report says both Egypt and Syria have sought to obtain dual-use capabilities from Western countries to advance their nascent, drawing-board nuclear programs. The same intelligence sources say nuclear Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have frequently discussed a nuclear future for the Wahhabi kingdom; both nations have denied this at high levels.
The United States has now failed to persuade Russia and China to allow the U.N. Security Council to take up a resolution that would impose sanctions on Iran for its failure to open all its nuclear installations to IAEA inspection. For the past 18 years, Iran, with the assistance of Pakistan's Dr. "Strangelove" A.Q. Khan, the transnational nuclear black marketer and father of his country's nuclear arsenal, has been working on a secret nuclear weapons program.
Note that this isn't about our soldiers, it's about our policy! Now, how DO we salvage something positive from all this?
Wes
to crosspost if it was Wes's thoughts, rather than just him blogging an article he recommends. Not that I don't appreciate him doing that here -- I love it -- but what we really need to spread are his ideas.
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
but wouldn't it be a start for President Bush to admit he made a mistake and ask for help from the allies he, and his administration insulted? Who can afford the Middle East to go right off the rails? So it's not just Iraq's neighbours, but every country in the world that relies on oil (which is most of them) that has a stake.
Yeah, I know I'm probably fantasizing, but just making an effort to answer your question ...
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
but it will never happen, not with this guy in power. General, I wish I had an answer-I fear we have passed the point of no return and there is no way out that is not bloody and painful.
is what the new Iraqi constitution appears to me to be...scissors, anyone?
I'm still not clear on what we're doing there in the first place, and why so many had to die to get us to the unhappy spot we're in now. It looks like all hell is about to break loose, while the rightwing noise machine is congratulating itself on the heck of a job we've done in bringing democracy to Iraq. What could be next, McDonalds and MTV?
how DO we salvage something positive from all this?
Assuming that isn't a rhetorical question, the answer is "not very easily, if at all."
Right now our best hope, a Shi'ite theocracy in Iraq, was our worst nightmage under Reagan, Bush pere and Clinton. More likely is a civil war.
Federal Iraq? I would love to see it, I believe in federalism very strongly, but most Arabs I have met don't understand it. It is not part of their political tradition, the word in Arabic is a loanword from English, and there are no federations in the Arab world. (This has nothing to do with Islam. Malaysia is federal. It's strictly an Arab problem.)
Federations always have a possibility to fall apart, whether in civil war or peacefully. Recently Yugoslavia fell apart violently, the USSR peacefully. Our own federation stayed together violently in the 1860s. A federal Iraq is likely to have an immediate civil war.
What is the least evil option here? It would be nice to have an Islamic peace-keeping force, especially from democratic Muslim countries like Malaysia and Senegal. But I don't see the Bush administration doing anything that intelligent while they follow the bin Ladin line of bankrupting the United States. The longer Bush II is in charge the worse the possible options get.
You tell us, General Clark. We trust your judgement. What is the least bad option here? And more importantly, how can we flank Bush to get there?
in Iraq mean that the Shi'ites and the Kurds essentially have control over the regions with oil and the Sunnis have region with none?
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
The Iraqi Constitution states that the oil and oil revenues belong to all the Iraqi people. Now whether that turns out to be in the long run is anyone's guess. Such a gawdawful mess that Buschco created. Ugh!
"...the measure of success is not 'Can you win?' It's 'Can you get your ideas adopted?' " ~ Wes Clark
Reading the bullet points of Iraq's new constitution, it is clear that the currently explored and drilled oil fall under these guidelines, but not new oil explorations. Those fall under the old Bremmer midnight rules and are thus, open to foreign plunder bidder. http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/tp34constitution.htm
The pipelines run the entire length of the country, and a few run the width as well. They are being attacked on a nearly daily basis, but without the pipelines to carry the oil....well-- you know.
right from the moment we created a power vacuum in Iraq and failed to secure the country. Since then we've done everything backwards--trying to impose a democratic system from the top down instead of giving our support to the creation of the structures needed for the Iraqi people to build it themselves from the bottom up. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A NATIONAL IDENTITY.
If ever there was a case for an intervention by cooler heads, this would seem to be it--but the Bush administration policies stand in the way! They're still selling the line that this is ALL about chasing down international terrorists (and bombing civilians to prove it!)--they don't want to talk to ANYBODY and they don't want anybody's help. But I don't see progress being made until WE make an effort to de-escalate the violence. It grieves me that any more American soldiers should have to die for such wrongheaded policies.
I know it's probably poor form to pimp one of my own blogs while on Wes Clark's but, I think you'd really find useful the speech I blogged the other day from the only Australian journalist who stayed, unembedded, in Iraq right through the war. He's also spent a lot of time in Afghanistan.
He more or less says exactly what you're saying, but goes into a lot more detail:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/1811
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
We didn't have much of one in our own revolution, or even until the War of 1812. Rhode Island was so afraid of Massachusetts that they didn't even send a delegation to the Constitutional Convention.
More recently, Nigeria was called "a mere geographical expression" by one of its founding fathers. As long as you have enough oil money to pay the soldiers you can hold the country together, even if the Ibos try to grab the oil and run. Nigeria probably did a better job of making up after its civil war than we did after ours, and they are on the way to creating a national identity, for better or worse.
To get back to Iraq, that's different because Arab nationalism is a reality, or at least more of a reality than Iraqi nationalism. I think Arab nationalism is bull. Arabic has been called a dead language they refuse to bury. Arabs will have to learn they are now different people, the way Romans broke into French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Romanians. Secular Arab nationalism is more and more discredited, though, and Bush policies are promoting Islamic extremism. The fight in Iraq may come down to Shi'ite theocrats vs. Sunni theocrats. Uggh.
What to do? We have to get Bush out, ASAP. That means impeachment, which means electing a Democratic Congress in '06. I don't even want to read all this stuff about '08 anymore. As long as Bush is in the White House, things will get worse.
but aside from the "bloody retreat" scenario, there's also Corzine's suggestion that raises prospect of Iraq becoming what Afghanistan became once the Russians withdrew (and we all know what that unleashed on the world). The prospects are dire, to be sure. And Juan Cole indicated (on June 22nd) that an early withdrawal from Iraq could plunge the US into another Great Depression.
I'm not sure how to salvage any good out of this situation. But, if anyone can find a way, I trust you, General Clark, to be that person!
watching all of this develop. I think things are going from bad to worse, and I don't expect the Bush administration to do anything right to change that. I think that new constitution is going to lead to the breakup of Iraq, and all the pain and suffering that will cause.
that we had to go to Iraq to begin with. Yes, it is a geopolitical nightmare with lots of holes that need to be plugged. There must someone in this administration that can see this. Or perhaps not.
Clark is DA MAN Clark2008
I note that this writer seems to think the only thing that might keep Iraq together is the emergence of a strongman. I'm afraid he is right. So many putative democracies that we have tried to foster end up this way--sometimes they make the transition later to democracy, but sometimes they do not. And in the meantime we get to associate ourselves (hold noses please) with dictatorships. Fuirther, if the divisions worsen, it is going to take a mighty stong man to hold it together and we may not be proud of his tactics. (Sigh--isn't this what we were puportedly trying to stop re: Saddam and regime change?)
Also, the part about being us afraid to ally ourseves in any way with 'people who support Al Qaeda' resonates a bit with me in the sense that I seem to see more Sunnis in Iraq who want a secular government and who are not afraid to give rights to women, yet we don't seem to want to associate ourselves with those positions for fear of alienating the majority Shiite leaders or appearing to support the Sunni insurgents.
Bush really really screwed us and Iraq the minute he decided to invade. If we are interested in spreading democracy and/or capitalism, we need to work for them a little bit at a time through cultural, diplomatic, and economic means, and possibly even a little bit of discreet sabre rattling, but not by all out invasion (which causes the social structure to crumble, the economy to come to a screeching halt, and the people to be bloodied and angry).
Bear in mind though that the writer is Arnaud de Borchgrave.....formerly of Washington Times (Moonie owned) currently of UPI (Moonie owned) and pretty known for not-so hidden agenda driven writings.
He was at Newsweek once long ago, but hadn't heard about the apartheid story. Would fit in with the Reverend Moon however so I might not be shocked were it the same.
And that stopped clock is only right once per day....in Military time. ;D
You can read about the Reverend Moon here
http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/revmoon.shtml
And you can google de Borchgrave...he was involved in that false story about the soldier who went to Iraq to become a human shield and then changed his mind after being there about the war and the reasons for it. Turned out it was an invented, non-existent soldier. The name was something like Robert Ellis or something very common. I can find it later and post it. But it's easy to research deBorchgrave. David Brock worked with him at the Washington Times and has more in his "Blinded by the Right" book. Will try to come back later with more links.
Teach me to blog on an empty stomach!
Here's a link on deBorchgrave as well-
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Arnaud_de_Borchgrave
Checking out de Borchgrave was my first act too. Although in this case, I agree with the General that Borchgrave has produced a thoughtful article. My hesitancy would be to rely upon it as a source in an internet battle. Not because of the content, but because the discussion is more than likely to become all about the source.
People wearing ornaments and fancy clothes, carrying weapons, drinking a lot and eating a lot...:shameless thieves.--Lao Tzu
-the article posted just below about "Kenneth Joseph" on CounterPunch. It's an interesting tale that ties in with the lead up in Iraq and how to paint the Iraqi reaction to our invasion in the press. Really is fascinating to study, if it weren't your own country...
Yes, it is a thoughtful piece (this one here). It's just that my body does this reflexive cringing motion whenever I see any of the original neocon writers names under a headline. But I can get over that! ;P
Content in many of these shameless thieves hands can be molded like supple clay. -- anonymous
that Iraq stayed "together" for so long was because Saddam was such a nasty SOB, who in essence, "took no prisoners." (And when he did he usually beat them to death.) It's unfortunate that this type of person seems to be necessary to bind a country "together." Where is a George Washington or Simon Bolivar when you need him? (Hey, we could use a modern version of these guys in our country, as well. Got anybody in mind?)
Who?
As you've stated before, General, George Bush has turned his foreign policy completely over to the Pentagon, with no other assistance from him or any other part of the United States govenrnent. Our men and women in uniform are paying the price for his purposely lackadaisical leadership. When you have the mindset that you're the CEO of the United States, who has a "don't bother me with details, I have a vision" attitude, who puts in the minimal effort, who takes month-long vacations, and who wishes only to improve the bottom-line of his family, friends, and cronies, this is what you get.
Oh man, I knew it.
They're gonna end up putting Saddam back in, aren't they?
That may be an apt punishment for him, actually,
making him be president of Iraq.
they had in Iyad Allawi. But, I gather it's gone a bit like the Vietnam experience. Anyone with US support, automatically has no local support.
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
The borders of the region were arbitrarily laid out by the British after WW I. Perhaps it is time to seriously think about a peaceful, negotiated partitioning, as was done with the former Yugoslavia. Obviously, this would require all neighboring countries to be involved in the negotiations, as well. Although southern Iraq may turn out to be a Shi'ite theocracy, perhaps we could hope for a secular New Kurdistan?
Oh, wait. I forgot. Mr. Bush doesn't do diplomacy.
MAKE OHIO BLUE
I was looking for a good way to say let the 3 ethnic groups separate peacefully. Rich said it much better.
Blue State of Mind
is two fold. You have left the Sunni middle in a position to be permanently poor. There is no known oil there. The other two regions have the oil, and won't share. Furthermore, like most countries there are areas with majority Shia and majority Sunni, but the minority lives there too. We are setting up a situation for massive ethnic cleansing.
The neighboring countries will get involved, and a major war in the middle east is the likely outcome. What a disaster.
The Sunni do find themselves in a pickle under this scheme. But that's why the process has to be NEGOTIATED. There is a MYRIAD of compensation options that could be explored, provided the leadership is in place to encourage dialogue & compromise. Right now we have a rigid hard-line stay-da-coarse PNAC/ NWO secure-the-oil, gouge-the-american-peeps 1984 admin that thinks NOTHING of what The Public thinks or wants. The Common Good? Quaint.
At this point (imho) some sort of agreed partitioning (WITH the Sunnis and Baghdad as part of the equation) may be the best option, as a loose coalition of inter-dependent states based around Baghdad. If we include the states of OPEC (members include Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela - our friend Hugo Chavez!!) at the table, then we may possibly create an atmosphere where the new states can survive and prosper for awhile (at least until the oil revenue runs out).
Just a thought.
(I'm not an international negotiator, but I play one on da blogs! )
© richsezclark4prez :)
MAKE OHIO BLUE
The Gulf States were created by the British and other colonial powers (Bahrain used to be part of Iran and has some of the richest oil reserves) as were the other Middle Eastern countries. Like Africa, the loyalty is more to tribal group than one of these countries created by colonialists. Into that particular dung pile did we jump, face first, as a nation.
Have Iraqs' 3 major sects ever shared any real sense of national identity with each other? The substance of this 'new' constitution, or more accurately, its lack thereof, is very disturbing. In essence, this constitution seems to lay down the pretext for 3 self-governing independent states, rather than the basis for unified democratic Iraq shared by all her citizens.
President Bush and the neocons liberated the demons from Iraq, the Padora's box of the Middle East, towards a course for civil war and unrest; ...but, now you're arguing that it's he has driven up nuclear proliferation and instability, as well? Why do they constantly fail miserably in diplomacy?
Under Bush, it's apparent that America is in more danger now, than we were prior to our invasion of Iraq. As you said, we must "change the course;" but imo, that begins with the impeachment of President Bush for gross incompetency in leadership towards the security of America, as well as the world community.
*************************************************************************
"Debate, Dialogue, Discussion, Disagreement - that's not wrong -that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it!" - Gen. Wesley Clark (US Ret.)
We all knew this. You can't keep three disparate "countries" together without a strong man. We created the same situation as the Balkans.
Can we find "good"??? That's a pretty tall order. One would hope that like Vietnam, we could at least learn a lesson. Oh.. wait...
I think there's a possibility to find good in every disaster, if we just look hard enough. Hussein was evil. Somehow, some way, they'll be better off without him. We just have to keep trying. It's going to suck in the meantime, but somewhere out there, there's a light at the end of the tunnel. For everything, there is a season.
Are there lessons we can learn from South Africa? http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/1861
Hope for the best in our mid-term election and then wait until 2008 for a change in leadership. The current team will not vary from their script.
It seems that the will of the individual groups are going to have to give way and a tri-state solution may have to be reached. Before we started this mess there was talk that a move toward independent Kurdistan would be a cause for civil unrest. Now, with the power base being basically sucked out, there may be a need to move toward this to prevent the complete disintegration and civil war. It seems to me that the Kurds are biding their time.
With such clear dividing lines, it seems almost impossible for all Iraqis to redevelop an Iraqi nationalism within the next decade or so. And without detracting neghbors being legitimately involved in guiding the Iraqi reformation process rather than providing support for unrest, it may simply be impossible for a new Iraqi Federal government to get legs both internally and regionally.
Iraq will need the support of all of its neighbors to get through this intact. And the arrogance of the current administration in refusing to bring these folks together may ultimately be the deciding factor for Iraqs success or failure.
We can only hope for now that the oldest civilization on earth may show the wisdom of its age.
There seems to me to be a disconnect between progress as Bush sees it in Iraq and real progress toward a legitimate goverment. This is because of the continued involvement of the U.S. and the current Iraqi authorities. Should we just acknowlege that perhaps Iraq will eventually break away from the structure of government under this current constitution and set up a government completely different from what we hoped for? Would peace happen quicker once we are no longer a presence, and can we just accept that they will eventually sort it out? If we can't step out now, which I don't think we can, while we are there why not end the language that says we are in Iraq as warriors against terrorism, and describe ourselves as peacekeepers instead and send in ambassadors of peace to help them sort it all out? If we speak to the Iraqis about national allegiance, perhaps they will be able to identify themselves as a true sovereign state. We continually refer to Iraq as a country full of "insurgents" or "terrorists"... negating the majority of Iraqis who are peaceful citizens. I think it's time to honor them by ending this old dialogue so that they can feel some success (even with all their problems) and perhaps they will seek peace among themselves. At the same time, if we sent in ambassadors of peace, perhaps the rest of the world would see the U.S. as a peacekeeping country. Unfortunately, Bush is never going to try to change his negative dialogue about Iraq. The issue concerning growing insurgencies in Iraq festers because Bush is so afraid that without continually causing fear of terrorism that the jig is up and his base will wake up to the fact that this war was a HUGE mistake, and based on lies. So instead, on one hand he says they have been successful with the constitution, and on the otherhand he says Iraqis must be feared. Where is the honor in that for the Iraqi citizens, and do we set them up to fail by the old dialogue?
Yes, one of the things we must do is change the language. We should stop calling it a "war." "Policing" has a bad connotation.
How about a "Campaign for Peace"? "The future of Iraq lies in a secure Iraq."
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
If we stop calling it a "war," does that have ramifications on the pay and other benefits earned by our military?
...in the first place. The last declared war was World War II.
By simple statute or fiat, the region could still be called "hazardous duty pay," couldn't it?
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
But no governing body, national or international, has officially defined what "terrorism" or "terrorists" are? For example, would all rebels and insurgents then be considered 'terrorists'? Furthermore, shouldn't any government that commits genocide or atrocities against its citizens be classified, as a 'terrorist state?" But then, wouldthis mean that Bush is supporting a state-sponsored 'terrorist country, given his alliance with the government of Sudan?
Sadly, President Bush and weak leaders like him prefer to play on these terms to serve their political agenda. Ultimately, the failure to properly address and define "terrorism" or "terrorist" in an international body, only promotes its aims, as his record has shown.
"Debate, Dialogue, Discussion, Disagreement - that's not wrong -that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it!" - Gen. Wesley Clark (US Ret.)
The term was supposed to change to Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, but Dubya said he didn't approve that change and I guess he can't get all that out of his mouth. He's hooked on "terra" and "waronterra." The rationale for the change to GSAVE made sense. It is what we need to be doing.
Daniel Pipes recently pointed out that the President has finally come around to calling it a war against militant Islam. Pipes has long been calling for such a war, though he is not in the Jerry Boykin crowd that wants to go to war against Islam in general. Pipes also early recognized that "terrorism" was a tactic, not an enemy, and that we were at war with specific groups. Bush couldn't do that because he wanted to deflect our anger onto a secular state, not the religious fanatics who actually attacked us.
But I don't want to sound like a defender of Pipes. He is capable of using the phrase "war on terror" himself to confuse people between Iraq and al-Qa'ida, and doesn't hesitate to smear Dems. He has supported the Iraq war through thick, thin and exposure of it's false rationales until I have to feel sorry for how the guy has twisted himself in knots. Apparently he never admits a mistake. Here I just want to address the question of "war" vs. "struggle" which both you and he raise, though from different points of view.
The two approaches are simply not mutually exclusive. You can have, indeed must have, forensic scientists working on the London bombing while you have Special Forces combing Afghanistan looking for bin Ladin. There are even hybrid categories like "war crimes" and even "illegal war."
Most of all, let's remember who our enemy is. The people who attacked us are not Saddam Hussein or anything to do with him or Ba'athism. They are not terrorists in general, they are a very specific set of terrorists. And as General Clark said during the campaign "I'm not running against George Bush because he's fighting terrorists. I'm running against George Bush because he's NOT fighting terrorists."
We need to focuse our struggle, or war, or whatever you want to call it, on Usama bin Ladin and al-Qa'ida. Then we need to use all available appropriate methods (war, law enforcement, exchang, education and information programs, even the Fulbright program) to win.
propaganda machine since Nazi Germany. Why can't or why haven't we brought it to bear with a simple message to the Iraqis? To wit, "we want to leave Iraq for Iraqis, and we'll be out of here as soon as your country settles down into some semblance of order and civil government. Please help us achieve those goals so we can remove our armed forces."
Why not?
radio, TV, Al Jeezera, religious services, etc. and most importantly, word of mouth. It seems they can let people know about voting. The hard truth may finally get through to the EVILDOERS of the PNAC and CO. and we may be forced to leave despite their EVILDOERING plans to turn Iraq into a psuedo 51st state. (Sorry, EVILDOERS, reality bites.) The key to success in Iraq, quite frankly, rests upon the voters in this country - we must put more anti-Iraq war DEMS in Congress in 2006.
No doubt.
Why not?
I really don't know the answer and I must say that I am getting more pessimistic by the day that anything good can come of it. At most, I'm thinking we could try to make something not too too bad of the mess but I have absolutely no faith that that can even happen with this crew in charge.
Sepaking of Iraq, here's an interesting event for anyone in the NYC area:
Wednesday, October 19, 7-8:30 PM
Iraq Confidential: How We Got Into Iraq and How to Get Out
Join SCOTT RITTER, former UN Weapons Inspector and author of the
forthcoming Iraq Confidential (Nation Books) and SEYMOUR HERSH,
prize-winning investigative journalist, New Yorker writer, and author of
Chain of Command, for an incisive discussion on how to extract ourselves
from the Iraq quagmire.
at the New York Society for Ethical Culture,
2 West 64th St @ Central Park West, NYC.
A book sale and signing will follow the event.
DOORS OPEN 6 PM.
FREE -- NO RESERVATIONS. Seating is first-come, first-served.
This event will be televised. For questions, please call 212-209-5400 or
go to www.nationbooks.org.
Presented by Nations Books and co-sponsored by The New York Society for
Ethical Culture and Democrats.com.
to come out of this war is that it exposes BushCO for the liars, thieves, cheats, frauds, philanderers, and incompetent schemers they really are. Now if people would only stop, look, and listen.
I got it!
Send you, sir, and Richard Holbrooke to the region as personal ambassdors with complete authority to negotiate a better arrangement.
(I'm only half kidding.)
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
- Step up the training of Iraqi forces.
- Preferably out of country. Germany?
- Also train the Iraqi leadership in how to train new recruits.
- After six months of intensive training, repair to Kuwait, Qatar, etc.
- A highly mobile force ready to put out fires beyond the Iraqis' capabilities.
- Increase by several orders of magnitude the non-military presence
- Judges, lawyers, engineers, accountants, small business entrepreneurs, public policy experts, government adminstration experts -- everything necessary to build a thriving society providing JOBS for the average Iraqi.
- Establish a non-military MEATO: the Middle East Alliance for True Opportunity, will all countries taking part.
Okay. I got started. Now add your own ideas.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
has an article about Training called Training Whom for What?
<snip>
So in Iraq we put much of our faith and our hope in the process of training the Iraqi Army. The unstated assumption is that Iraqi men do not know how to fight and if only exposed to western methods will be able to deal with the insurgency. Even sharp critics of the war call for better and more training as if it would provide a way out. The unexamined but false assumptions behind this policy are monumental.
Start with the question of who needs training. The insurgents clearly do not. Nor do the various militias who have challenged the government from time to time and are clearly better fighting units than the Iraqi army units we have trained. The militias guarding the various Iraqi leaders, including the President and Prime Minister, are effective fighting forces. None of them requires US air power or embedded allied forces to fight effectively. The insight is simple: Many Iraqis know how to fight and will do so when they are led by leaders to whom they have a clear allegiance. The United States and the vague notion of a unified Iraqi government is not sufficient.
We need to consider who we are actually training and what we can hope to accomplish. While we will not know the precise number until later, there is every reason to believe that many of those we recruit in the army and the police are actually part of the insurgency and at the very least provide tactical intelligence. Many others come for the pay and to get a rifle and other equipment that they sell before deserting. We know that desertion rates are very high. Finally there are the ones who stay perhaps for the paycheck or the opportunity for graft. Certainly there are some who stay because they feel allegiance to a new united Iraq, but these are no where near enough. It should not be a surprise that we are left with the forces that -- unlike all the others in Iraq -- cannot fight alone and show no sign of being able to any time in the future.........
a counter-insurgency group instead of a traditional-type army. Or at least a good part of the army. (But then maybe we don't know much about counter-insurgency.) In other words, an insurgency against the insurgency.
Why not?
The people of Iraq need training in the principles of freedom and constitutional democracy. Understanding government's role as fiduciary in nature, protector of the social contract, existing by the people, of the people and for the people. Defining and securing "self evident" truths and the right to self-determination is critical for popular "buy in." With that understanding, you focus on the principles that bind rather than those that divide. Unfortunately, there has been little debate, discussion or training on these basic principles of any democratic union. And as the General points out, many of these principles have been left as "open agenda items" in the Constitutional process. These basic seeds of democracy have not been sown, primarily because the gardner, himself, apparently doesn't get it.
So true, so true.
I have written over and over (in the Yahoo! groups) that so many parts of the world don't come from centuries of the Western/Greco/Judeo/Christian tradition of the notion of what democracy and concern for others' rights mean. Of the four components I cited, the Greek tradition is probably the most important. The Romans borrowed from the Greeks and often used Greeks as tutors.
It takes decades for a culture to inculcate a new set of values and feel what they mean deep in its peoples' bones.
In our case it may be a simple matter of timing. Our country was founded at the height of the Enlightenment, and the ensuing Romantic period didn't hurt, either.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
When the administration banned the Ba'ath Part, too many of the educated people fled. Under Saddam even dentists had to be Ba'athists. Now they've gone back on that, but the damage was done. They need to figure out a way to lure those people back.
A bit like the controversy of using Nazi party members in post WW2 Germany. Low level beaurocrats had to belong to the party.
"...the measure of success is not 'Can you win?' It's 'Can you get your ideas adopted?' " ~ Wes Clark
Even if user 226 came up with the perfect solution, actually salvaging something from the wreckage, and even if most all the informed observers agreed that the idea would be a vast improvement, the reality is that IT WOULDN'T MATTER. The President of all the people would still just "stay the course." http://tinyurl.com/aj9bg shows just how well the Iraqi army is standing up, or, more particularly, how what we've created isn't working and is actually counterproductive to the ostensible purpose. 3 years and 3 months to go to make it even worse.
Are you SURE that you want to be on the clean-up crew after this administration? Would any sane person?
I just keep getting more flummoxed. Why? Because you like dell, all roads lead to the primo of all "dead enders," George W. Bush. How can a solution arise from that dark alley?
People wearing ornaments and fancy clothes, carrying weapons, drinking a lot and eating a lot...:shameless thieves.
My opinion is that Iraq as we knew it was an artificial construction, left over from British colonialism which was held together by a strongman, Sadaam until we so unwisely intervened. And now with the situation spun out of control, maybe it is time for a fresh look.
Sir, I completely agree with your thoughts regarding the necessity of engaging the other Sunni nations such as Syria and Jordan as well as the large Shiite nation of Iran.
Everyone is talking about how the Kurds in Kirkuk will have oil as will the Shiites in Basra and the South and that the Sunni nation in the Middle will not have oil. That is true but the Sunni nation state centered in Baghdad will have other potential advantages. They will have control of how much water goes South to the Shiite state which is dependent on water from the Tigris and Euphrates flowing through the Sunni Center. Perhaps a water for oil deal can be made so that gallon for gallon, water from the Sunni Center is exchanged for oil.
In addition, the major scientific and educational institutions are in Baghdad. In addition, most Sunnis are secular and before the war, Iraq was the leader producer in the Arab world of women scientists. We might be able to rebuild the Sunni scientific and educational institutions and subsidize the brainpower of these people who after all wrote the world's first language, developed its first laws and would clearly be ready to move into knowledge based commerce. Let the Shiites in the South keep their women veiled and uneducated; let's rebuild Baghdad and the Sunni Center as the medical and scientific Mecca of the Arab world.
drsusan
lateral thinking. Hadn't heard anything like that proposed. The Sunnis have got to feel they've got something to gain out of this, that's the key. Whether the US would worry that they're training scientists who might help al Qaeda is probably the logical question that sceptics would ask. But without offering some incentive to the Sunnis, many of them are going to do that anyway.
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
to describe the complex demographic makeup of the region. Talking in terms of Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish sub-states, only, describes these states in terms of religion and ethnicity, only, as if all persons of a single religion or ethnicity share all beliefs, ideals, goals and aspirations. That's like thinking of America as needing to be comprised of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Latino, Black and White States. It's an artificial distinction along divisive lines that, history tells us, lead to bloody strife. I think the better solution would be to divide the country into several more States, potentially along geographic lines, like our states, where each is comprised of groups of Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, suffis, progressives, secularists, non-secularists, etc. People of diverse interests and goals share space and participate in the basic democratic process, period. Laws to protect one class from harasment and discrimination from a dominant majority should be guaranteed, JUST LIKE WE DO IT HERE.
were as well, drsusan. Thinking about what the Sunnis resources would be. The water and the educational institutions. I read sometime back Iraq was not only rich in oil, but also the ME country with the most water. Also, read it was the Sunnis who had the benefit of the education. You have put this so well, tho, I couldn't add much more. The question is how? How do we do any of the things mentioned here when this adm doesn't recognize, or want to admit, there is a problem? All the talk today is that this "election" was a success. It all comes down to being able to implement the plan/ideas......again.
I always thought a partition was inevitable. With the neocons running the show, the hard way (civil war) is far more likly than any alternative. In practice, the city of Bagdad may have to be partitioned also. Think of a Berlin where everyone has an AK-47 and access to RPG's.
The water for oil concept is not bad in concept, but in practice it may be difficult to impliment. It relies on all parties becoming suddenly rational. The religious dynamic in the region seems to make that problematic.
But all conjecture and strategy run into one massive roadblock. Bushco and the neocons. Even impechment may not save either republic (ours or theirs) since the neocons have their deep bench positioned directly in the line of succesion.
------------------
. . "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." --Herbert Spencer: Nineteenth-century English social scientist
What I'm getting from Borchgrave's article is a rationale for some form of attack on Iran. There seems no way to stop their push for nuclear weapons, something that gins up a Gulf arms race, and creates a far more dangerous world.<---just what our kids need (snark) Nevertheless, amid all else: the civil war, the breakup of Iraq, the genocide of Sunnis, and on and on. It is that frightening and destablizing scenario at which the writer aims; nevertheless, I wouldn't rely on his solutions.
What do we do? Stragic strikes? I would hope not, because of all of the other surrounding woes in the region, that solution will make the entire mess into a bloody cauldron of anti-Americanism. No, as the bad ole witch said: these things must be done delicately. First, we need stragic alliances to form a buffer to Iran, we must not act alone. Enough is enough already. I think that the time to deal with Syria is long past due; and from the sounds coming from Syria, there may be an opening. Also, with the growth of Iraq's internal militias, our forces need to be pulled back to the borders.
And most of all, it is time to speak of many things. What are the political goals of all the players? What concessions can be made? What leverage do we have beyond our troops?
We have been left with rather frayed and fuzzy political goals ourselves. I doubt if the DC dead enders are even sure what they are...well, maybe keeping Rove out of jail and holding power is about all they know for sure. The will of the American people for this war is a ghost that only exists because of the distorted political landscape: red v blue (another stupid construct.) What comes next, will probably be shaped by elections and personal ambitions more than by what is good for America.
If we narrow our goal to restoring some balance of power in the Gulf, which of course includes the nukes problem, then we might be able to work our way toward a solution. Our troops need to become a force for the postive, not a disruptive distraction that is played against our own interests.
Oh right! Bush is in power! I almost forgot in my musings where things really stand. And to all the wonderful optimistic thinkers, please tamp down the joy mongering: he will not be impeached.
People wearing ornaments and fancy clothes, carrying weapons, drinking a lot and eating a lot...:shameless thieves.
anything out of this debacle in the Middle East without first demanding a change in the White House. Now that the world has witnessed the strategic blunder that the Bush administration is capable of, I sincerely doubt that any forthcoming future efforts by the current administration will be met with cooperation by other nations. And it is precisely those other nations who will need to be brought into the calculus of this equasion.
We cannot mend the error of Bush's ways without the assistance of the global community. Yes, it was a mistake made in the name of the United States of America. But the United States of America is larger than the Bush administration. As a people, we need to step forward and demand this self-appointed president step down! And if he refuses to do so, we need to take the necessary steps to remove his power from him.
Aside from impeachment I know of no other way to go about it. The world must see that we the people of the United States of America recognize the failure of our leadership and are demanding not only new, but qualified people to hold positions of power in this country. The question is, can we wait for the 2008 election cycle to take care of this for us? I honestly have my doubts.
When the Bush administration is gone and we have acceptable leadership in place, I feel we will have gone a long way toward reaching a new level of respect throughout the world. At that point we can begin to move in a different direction, with fresh vision and a hope for a better tomorrow not only for us but for all of mankind.
"You may say I'm a dreamer.....well, I'm not the only one." -- John Lennon
Looks as if an opening is available to you.
The bleak article takes on a familiar tone of George failing at democracy.
So why not issue a challenge? Gather a bunch of your brainy cohorts and get over there to do what George won’t do. General, seize the moment. Call for a peace summit. Invite George. It would show him accountable. Pull a Cindy Sheehan in a global sense. Marshall the troops of peace.
Salvage something positive -- opportunity.
You know as hard as I can think, I've been contemplating something that might be salvagable and yet I cannot think, given we have Bush in power, of any way open to us along traditional lines that will get anything whatsoever out of this situation -- either for the American people or for the people of Iraq. However, were you to seize this opportunity, not for yourself, but for the good of all, something might be saved.
Politically, it would be risky. But your multiple contacts and supporters in the world of diplomacy at home and abroad could be lined up ahead of time to support such a radical move and perhaps to actively participate in it. Given the mood of the country now, you might get considerable public support too. Try to bring in some prominent politicans and military who, like us, originally wanted to "Do the right thing" after Bush's fatal mistep, but who, by now have decided the situation is beyond repair. Call for us to give the money we would have otherwise spent on the war into economic development for Iraq for a few years. Try to bring in high-level people from the Middle East and even from Iraq. Make it a call for an independent high level problem-solving summit re: Iraq using diplomacy; the goal should be negotiating an agreement permitting the Iraqi people to establish a less harrowing and more fruitful way of life.
This might be the exact time to do something extragovernmental but quasi-official. Katrina showed people that the Bush government is not really functioning and in fact people were drawn to New Orleans to help just because they saw the government couldn't handle it.
Also, this move would not be aimed at an immediate withdrawal of our troops but instead at a resolution of the problems that keep them there.
by getting the reconstruction money back from whomever stole it and using it for what it was supposed to be for. I think the people of Iraq would be a lot less angry if their lives could get back to some semblence of normal. If they got the electricity back on reliably, got the water running in the whole country, and got the economy running people would be a lot less inclined to fight. We have deep ideological, ethnic and religious differences in the US, but we don't have wars here because we all have full bellies, and houses and jobs, and we don't want to mess that up.
all that that means . It's disgraceful how they are living. The reconstruction money... where is it? (like I need to ask).
and with good reason. . .how the hell can anybody come up with a rational exit plan now. . .everything much too discombobulated and no hope that Bush will ever change his obstinate failing policy.
Therefore, as sheer brainstorming, I would like to throw out some outlandish, creative ideas. . .even if they appear far-out, they may spark some parts of a feasible plan:
1st: If "only a strongman can keep Iraq together, and that general is yet to emerge from the new Iraqi army," it's our military occupation that's in the way of this strongman materializing from the masses. Anyone backed by US would be a sure failure. . .so first and foremost, US policy has to withdraw ALL our troops NOW. The resulting vacuum of power would eventually fill with the desired strongman. The trick will be how to wrest legally Bush's power over the use of the military. . .well, what happened to the War Powers Act limiting war expenditures to 90 days post-Vietnam war or what about a national referendum asking for a direct majority vote on whether or not to pull out our troops immediately? Hasn't Bushie been King on the Mountain long enough. . .time to charge up that hill, no?
2nd: If the nuclear ambitions of Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, and Syria are the real boogeymen in all this mess, than I say it's time for a UN summit modeled on Woodrow Wilson's point for each ethnic population to have a fair chance at self-determination at the statehood drawing table. Also, unlike the Versailles Peace conference which excluded the Germans, ALL the combatants should be able to participate. . .yes, I mean even include the al-Qaida jihadists. Al-Zarqawi could send some intermediary, not unlike Gerry Adams was one for the IRA for the Good Friday Agreement for Northern Ireland accords. If the world continues to insist on ignoring the jihadists for summit discussions because that would be caving in to terrorists, the terroism is going to continue, IMHO. Have the summit in Alexandria, Egypt, the capital of ancient Hellenistic culture to symbolize the need for the new mideastern geopolitics to accept coexisting religions/cultures as the Hellenistic culture did. And as for Bolton-Bush obstinance against such an open summit, once again the other powers that be. . .China, Russia, France, Germany, UK. . .time for them to insist on flexing the UN's diplomatic muscles, especially after the Bush administration is indicted for falsifying intelligence info to get the IWR passed.
Well! Take what you like and throw out the rest. . .consultations without fees. . .I know it's easy for me to rattle off these ideas from my safe, stable surroundings here in little ole Rhode Island. . .yet I truly hope some of my peacemaking ideas materialize somehow, someday, soon. . .I can dream, can't I?
For Clarksanity in 2008
We can't pull out the troops now. We can't do an immediate withdrawl. No one would like to more than me. Two in particular. But this is what Wes said about that a little over a month ago:
