As someone who spends enough time in Iraq, to really care about what happens to this conflict, lately I've gotten really disgusted with all of the political points people are trying to score by "rethinking" policies, offering up more troops, less troops, containing the violence, etc. Today's blurb was all about Charlie Rangel who wants to impose a draft; yesterday it was about McCain who wants to send 50,000 more troops over to the country. Then, there's others waiting for former Secretary of Defense James Baker's report, and while we're waiting, General Pace is coming up with own report. All of this is after a congressional panel dragged General Abizaid out to score yet more political points.

There is this strong desire to wind down Iraq, and draw down troops. Hey, I can understand that. Even people who don't care about how our troops are sacrificing their blood, sweat, and tears to do the heavy lifting over there, they are still watching the price tag and mumbling about the cost.

But is any of this really helping our troops?

I think it's a foregone conclusion in 2006 that "victory" is going to be very difficult to define for a lot of Americans and the politicians that we have voted into office. Someone could argue "well, we'll be victorious when the Iraqis are policing the country themselves, and we're no longer in the region." I'd ask those same people how things are going in Korea.

Catch it?

So, first, I'd like to point out some problems, what I KNOW isn't going to work, and what might work. Take it with a grain of salt. But, I think at this point "staying the course" has obviously been thrown out the window.

First, what isn't going to work:

1. More troops: No, more troops isn't going to work. A draft isn't going to work. Granted: Back in 2003-2004, you probably could have sent in 300000 troops and restored order to the country. But, that was still when there was some goodwill towards getting Saddam out of power. That goodwill has been spent, and we are now "occupiers" and not "liberators". If someone frrom Washington sends in even more troops, all that's going to do is push the envelope even further that we are there to occupy the country permanently. Violence will turn away from its sectarian nature and turn more against the troops. And, if you try to conscript people, then you're going to see a lot more bodybags and coffins coming back draped with US flags on them. Our troops are great at what they do! But they are NOT PEACEKEERS or COPS. They FIGHT and WIN WARS. Trying to push a square peg into a round hole makes it doubly difficult because our troops do not speak the language and they don't know the customs. Being a peacekeeper requires arbitration skills and a level of trust from those whom you are trying to keep the peace with. At this point, I just don't see it happening, and sending in even more troops is only going to make matters worse.

2. Moving Iraqi security forces around: This is also tricky. One could argue "Well, in this region things are calm, so let's move those security forces elsewhere". Bad, bad idea. Why? Because chances are that those security forces are either Shi'ites, Sunnis, or Kurds, and sending them into other regions where warlords are raising hell is offering little more than a death sentence for a lot of those forces. One of the biggest problem with the whole structure is that you have more affiliation and loyalty to the "tribe" vs. the government, and the corruption runs very, very deep because of the level of unemployment and poverty there. You keep hearing about kidnappings and bombings despite a heavy security presence. Chances are those security forces were bribed or threatened so that they would look the other way. Offering the assumption that you can just train them and send them out to any part of the country isn't being realistic about the power dynamics in this territory.

3. "Cut and Run". No, this isn't going to work either. You draw down the troops and this is just an invitation to even more violence that will eventually spill out into the entire region. Many arabs are very leery about the rising power of Iran, and often speak of a "Shia Crescent" which threatens to change the balance of power in the entire region. If we break now, we're going to pay for it in the years to come not only politically but economically as well. This isn't a realistic option at this point.

So, what can be done? What should be done? This is my take on it:

1. Divide the region. Yes, it's time to start seriously offering consideration towards dividing Iraq into 3 distinctive territories that are for the most part self-autonomous. While all of this violence has been going on, the Kurds have quietly tried to get their affairs in order and attract regional investment in the process. If this is in place, and the regional affiliations are making determinations towards their own leaders, their own government, and their own laws, then you might have an authority that might help to quell the sectarian violence. Due to this violence, many, many Iraqis are now migrating and settling into territories that are exclusively Shi'ite, Sunni, or Kurdish. As noted with the former Yugoslavia, if they can't get along, then it's time to consider the alternative.

2. Role of the Central government. So, if the territories are autonomous, where does this leave the Central government? Well, they have less to worry about. They can in turn concentrate on simpler aspects of negociation across all 3 regions. What should those considerations be? First, establishment of a common currency and a banking system. Second, holding final authority over oil revenues and profits, and dividing them amongst the various territories. (In other words....set up Iraq in the manner in which the EU is set up in which they have economic ties and a common currency but are self-autonomous in all other ways. This is necessary because quite frankly if there is no central authority you still risk civil war over a battle for the oil rights and profits.) This Central authority will also have a lot of authority in terms of withholding funds if one of the territories gets out of line, or tries to war with another. No cooperation, no oil revenues, and no currency. And, as an additional agreement, all oil reserves and pipeline right of ways are held as the property of this central authority.

3. Regional investment. I can't stress this enough: Without regional investment, IRAQ WILL FAIL. We can't per se just keep dumping into Iraq indefinitely and expect the Iraqis to make up the rest themselves. It's a foolish policy. Furthermore, the whole idea of "democratizing the Middle East" fails because you've cut out the regional nations in even having a say as to what direction Iraq goes in the future. What is the suggestion here? Create a panel comprised of neutral and friendly nations with a chair held by the United States. This panel will have final say in reconstruction funding to the Central Iraqi authority and which regional companies (yes, that's right) get the awards to rebuild the regions in question. Thus, if you have other nations building there, they are less likely to send arms over there. No one wants to see an investment blown, or a failed contract. And, in terms of insuring the contract, the regional company that accepts the reward is in turn also responsible for insurance in the event that the project fails, or if it is destroyed due to regional attacks. (yes, that would imply that they would hire their own private security forces in order to see the project through.) Also: At this point, we shouldn't discourage Iraq from talking to Iran and Syria. Maybe WE don't have any kind words for either nation, but at the same time this is about Iraq's future, and no matter how you slice it those nations are their next door neighbors.

4. Turkey and Kurdistan: Yes, this one is tricky. There is a lot of bad blood between the Kurds and the Turks. But at the same time there is room for bargaining on this front. Geographically speaking, if the oil leaves Iraq, it's going to go through the Kurdish territory and into Turkey. With this pipeline, the EU now has another source in which to get their energy vs. Gazprom. That is good news for the EU which is currently bent over a barrel with Russia. (Putin shut off the spigot on them once by cutting off the Ukraine. It wasn't pretty.) With this bargaining tool, Turkey has something to barter with for EU membership if they want it (and thus taking away an argument from France). As for the security measures, the United States would have to settle on an agreement to patrol the border here to ensure that there is no violence between Turkey and what would be "Kurdistan", and ensure that oil gets where it needs to go. (In other words, what I am arguing here is a "DMZ Zone" similar to what is evidenced in Korea.) To some degree, the Kurds would get stuck with permanent US military presence, but I don't see any way around this one.

5. US Troop positioning and the future: So, where does that leave our troops? Well, the permanent base would be in Kurdistan. As for the Sunni and Shi'ite territories, we withdraw completely and let them settle their own affairs. In exhcange, the US retains airspace rights, and the US will respond with logistics and aerial support if it is requested. The Central Authority would also have the right to call in the United States military to settle border disputes if need be, or enforce the policies of the Central authority. But, to some degree, those regions would become autonomous with no US occupation in them.

In conclusion, I think there is a strong argument here that Saddam Hussein kept these peoples in check with an iron fist. There was a reason for this and we are now witnessing why he did it. I haven't dismissed Iraq as a total failure, nor do I disagree that the cause is not worthy. But, I DO believe that the real solution isn't a stiffer policy, but a smarter one.

Why can't they get this right?