S.C. Iraq solution think tank

[Misternatural 0]

I have read many of your posts..I believe there are a large number of viewers here who have the ability to formulate some viable strategies pertaining to the future of the Iraqi situation.
We have seen what the U.S. Govt can do...I'm sure you can do better.

Now that we are in a seemingly un-reconcileable situation;

Here are some questions;

Should we resign ourselves to accept the fact that the original plan to invade,depose a dictatorship, and get out quickly (five years) is not going to work and view the situation as a very long term-if not permanent occupation of a country in the form of an American controlled nation-state "a la Roman Empire"?

With a full military pull out, Can an un controlled-all out civil war result in a stable Govt.

Can a democratic westernized nation state begin to form, regarded as positive change in the Middle East which fosters free trade, and stability?

Is this another step toward an apocalypse as a result of Christian infidel invaders in a land of Islam?

Can a completely Muslim security force from around the world be assembled to reduce sectarian violence in the absence of U.S forces?

Can an established Muslim nation be offered the opportunity to foster parent the new Iraq in its transitional phase?

Can the United Nations be re integrated in a coalition stabilizing force?

Can China be invited to lend forces, with Iraqi oil as an incentive?

Can the country be divided into sectarian "states"?

Have I been watching the "Mclaughlin Group" too much?

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Should we resign ourselves to accept the fact that the original plan to invade,depose a dictatorship, and get out quickly (five years) is not going to work and view the situation as a very long term-if not permanent occupation of a country in the form of an American controlled nation-state "a la Roman Empire"?

No.

Quote

With a full military pull out, Can an un controlled-all out civil war result in a stable Govt.

It's possible, but not likely in Iraq, due to the history of the people that were thrust into this arrangement 80-or-so years ago.

Quote

Can a democratic westernized nation state begin to form, regarded as positive change in the Middle East which fosters free trade, and stability?

Not without help. It requires a long-term approach militarily, politically, and in a literal sense, psychologically.

Quote

Is this another step toward an apocalypse as a result of Christian infidel invaders in a land of Islam?

No.

Quote

Can a completely Muslim security force from around the world be assembled to reduce sectarian violence in the absence of U.S forces?

In theory yes, but these countries are inherently mistrustful of each other. Their agendas would not hold such a coalition together.

Quote

Can an established Muslim nation be offered the opportunity to foster parent the new Iraq in its transitional phase?

No, there are no other democracies in the region that would know how to foster such an environment. All the monarchies in the middle east are struggling to keep themselves established and know nothing about representative governments (with possible exception of Jordan).

Quote

Can the United Nations be re integrated in a coalition stabilizing force?

I can not think of a time where the UN has successfuly done that in the past, nor do I think they would be able to in this instance.

Quote

Can China be invited to lend forces, with Iraqi oil as an incentive?

This kind of "global" presence is not really in their doctrine. Communist states do not involve themselves in "nation building" as much as "nation takeover".

Quote

Can the country be divided into sectarian "states"?

That does seem appealing in some ways, but that would not spare Baghdad from the violence. So, I would say no.

Quote

Have I been watching the "Mclaughlin Group" too much?

No. It's a decent show, though I admittedly don't watch it much.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Misternatural 0]

An interesting conundrum for sure
It seems that before any reconstruction and reconciliation can take place the sectarian violence needs to be either allowed to come to a head by a long civil war, or forcefully squashed.

The results of a civil war of course would be unbearable blood shed and atrocities for the world to witness in the age of TV. and the possibility of the establishment of a rouge state. In which case the U.S would be inclined to re-invade and neutralize...resulting in more War.

On the other hand the American civil war resulted in a somewhat stable govt. Granted... we had a constitutional framework in place already.

How did we work this out in Kosovo? can that model work here?


Suppose the violence was reduced to a point where stable sectarian states could be formed. Should a mass relocation mandate be forced upon the residents & what incentive would there be for them to leave their homes?

I think the establishment of states is unrealistic unless the U.S or U.N. makes a massive effort to allow each state equal economic viability as the oil is unequally distributed in this land.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Amazon 7]

ITs time to break up Iraq since they cant live together let them live separatley.

The Turks will not like it.. they fear a Kurdistan on their border.. Pull our troops there and park them and help them build our stable democracy in the region..


Help the Sunnis explore for oil in their vast western desert... and help them all move there... either that or they will be dead at the hands of the Shia militias.

And allow Shiastan to be one of the largest oil producers in the world.. they may be similar to the Iranians in religion but the Iranians do not care for the Arabs.. so they will remain a country.

Use our strength where we have it.. and that is not as a buffer for a civil war between murderous religious factions that only have one thing in common and that is our presence there.

The best thing is getting our people out of the middle of this fiasco... unless Bush wants to geta ll of the Administrations children into uniform and into Iraq ASAP.. now that I would support in a heartbeat.. Let the people who thought up this stupidity have something to lose like the rest of America.

[steveorino 7]

I'm curious if what happened in Viet Nam when we unilaterally pulled out, would happen in Iraq?

I "think" so, but I'm not sure.

What happened? For starters we quit having 50,000+ Americans die in a rice paddy. Many tribal people became victims of genocide. Their internal factions stabalized (but remember, it was based on idealogy, not religion) In short, the little guys (like the montagyard) lost out. We lost face, but regained face, at least militarily, with some small quick victories, like Grenada and Panama. The biggest failure I see though, is while the junior officers of Viet Nam who later became senior officers learned some lessons and it was evident they did with our skirmishes in the 80s & 90s, they are now repeating many of the same mistakes. It s called quagmire.

steveOrino

[billvon 3,120]

>Should we resign ourselves to accept the fact that the original plan to
>invade,depose a dictatorship, and get out quickly (five years) is not going
>to work and view the situation as a very long term-if not permanent
> occupation of a country in the form of an American controlled nation-state
>"a la Roman Empire"?

The original plan did not work and is not going to work. That doesn't mean that a permanent occupation is a good idea either. Look at the Russians in Afghanistan.

>With a full military pull out, Can an un controlled-all out civil war
>result in a stable Govt.

Absolutely. But we may not like the stable government that results. (Saddam Hussein's government was stable.)

>Can a democratic westernized nation state begin to form, regarded as
>positive change in the Middle East which fosters free trade, and stability?

No. The people who live there aren't Westerners.

>Can a completely Muslim security force from around the world be
>assembled to reduce sectarian violence in the absence of U.S forces?

It could be, but the only way that can happen is if we leave the area. Right now, many muslims see working with the US as "working with the enemy." It would be like us joining forces with Al Qaeda to stabilize Pakistan.

>Can an established Muslim nation be offered the opportunity to foster
>parent the new Iraq in its transitional phase?

Yes, but we won't do it. We would not give Iran (for example) the opportunity.

>Can the United Nations be re integrated in a coalition stabilizing force?

I think it could have been. We ignored their advice and offers of help a the beginning of this war, and have been eviscerating them as much as possible over the past 20 years or so.

Today it would take a LOT of work to make that happen. The upside of that is that it could be a joint effort involving Iranians, Syrians, Saudi Arabians etc and these troops are less likely to be seen as foreign invaders.

>Can China be invited to lend forces, with Iraqi oil as an incentive?

"Hey China, they're killing us by the thousands here and things keep getting worse. You want to send fifty thousand troops too?"

I don't think that would work.

>Can the country be divided into sectarian "states"?

No, but it could be divided into religious states. I suggested this several months back. The Middle East's borders were drawn by western conquerors; perhaps it's time to let the people of the Middle East draw the lines. (And we could keep Baghdad; that would give Bush his 'victory' which seems to be an undebatable requirement.)

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Pull our troops there and park them and help them build our stable democracy in the region..

You never learn do you

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Amazon 7]

They actually want us there last time I checked.. and that would guarantee no stupid moves from the Turks.....The Kurds KNOW who their friends and enemies are.

[Skyrad 0]

I really don't mean this in an issulting way but maybe you haven't checked out whats happening in the Kurdish part of Iraq. Kurdish Islamic extremists are growing in strength and if the US set up in there and pull out of the rest of Iraq all that will happen is that the US forces there will be attacked by Kurds and also from Iraqis from elsewhere and quite possibly by some Turkish elements as well. I remember alot of Americans thinking that the Shia would throw flowers at them for 'liberating' them from Sadam and would be the friends of the US in Iraq. So much for 'friends'

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Misternatural 0]

We certainly have the oil exploration infrastructure in place to help develop these new economies.
Irrigation could also be achieved with such vast drilling expertise and perhaps the building of reasonable housing and communities in the desert. Nice housing is a good incentive to move.

But nothing can happen without security,and a stable govt- a viable police force or something to keep the chaos & murdering under control.Sadly, how is that achieved without the military?
thats the crux of the biscuit.

Incentives, thats the key, what do these people want, I mean besides killing Americans. There must be something?


Another major problem is the presence of western infidels in this land, which is a huge insult to many of these people....we need to figure out how to empower the Iraqis so the progress is accepted by them.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Misternatural 0]

Thats a good point about China, but they will desperately need the oil for their growing economy though. In fact, we may be fighting them FOR Iraq in the future if we don't switch to alternative fuels. which as you know is another solution to reduce the skirmishes world wide and the funding of "terrorism".

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[billvon 3,120]

>but they will desperately need the oil for their growing economy though.

Probably true - but I would imagine they see Russia as a better option. More oil infrastructure and fewer people trying to kill them.

In any case, does it make sense for _us_ to promise Iraq's oil to China? That would seem to be a job for Iraqis. And as a sovereign nation, it would be up to them to ask China to help out.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I'm curious if what happened in Viet Nam when we unilaterally pulled out, would happen in Iraq?

I "think" so, but I'm not sure.

What happened? For starters we quit having 50,000+ Americans die in a rice paddy. Many tribal people became victims of genocide. Their internal factions stabalized (but remember, it was based on idealogy, not religion) In short, the little guys (like the montagyard) lost out. We lost face, but regained face, at least militarily, with some small quick victories, like Grenada and Panama. The biggest failure I see though, is while the junior officers of Viet Nam who later became senior officers learned some lessons and it was evident they did with our skirmishes in the 80s & 90s, they are now repeating many of the same mistakes. It s called quagmire.

And don't forget, they then managed to invade Cambodia (invading a neighboring country).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Misternatural 0]

Quote

In any case, does it make sense for _us_ to promise Iraq's oil to China? That would seem to be a job for Iraqis. And as a sovereign nation, it would be up to them to ask China to help out.


The oil in Iraq is their oil to distribute absolutely, that is probably the main if not most valuable export commodity but it is a great bargaining chip they can use.


The problem is that they really are not a sovereign nation right now as a result of this mess. What are they? a collection of tribes? sects? in any case it's not cohesive and may never be. Especially since the Bush is trying to foster a sectarian govt. and army.
The point you made about Religious states is very good. Hopefully they can form states. and Baghdad becomes a neutral capitol. However will the U.S. or U.N. accept a religious state if it develops into lets say, a brutal religious extremist regime ?

Sectarian states may be more prone to adopting a rule of law.

But will a division of states and a "relocation" result in an Israel Vs Palestine like problem?

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

• Quote

[billvon 3,120]

>However will the U.S. or U.N. accept a religious state if it develops
>into lets say, a brutal religious extremist regime ?

You know, at some point you have to say "it's your country, decide what you want to do with it." We can't impose our will on people forever. At some point we have to let them make their own decisions.

>Sectarian states may be more prone to adopting a rule of law.

Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the few completely sectarian governments in the Middle East. We didn't like that one. On the other hand, we have a military dictatorship (Pakistan) and an Islamic monarchy (Saudi Arabia) that we are pretty friendly with.

So I think we will be able to deal with whatever government arises out of the ashes of Iraq if we choose to. If not, well, we can always invade again. (Or mind our own business.)

>But will a division of states and a "relocation" result in an Israel Vs
>Palestine like problem?

Well, I hate to say it, but right now the Israeli/Palestinian conflict looks like it would be preferable to what's happening in Iraq now. Just compare the number of dead.

[Misternatural 0]

Many would argue that as long as we are nannying them along they have no reason to take matters into their own hands. This may work as long as the U.S. is prepared to watch the carnage of a full on civil war,and take the blame for it.

>Well, I hate to say it, but right now the Israeli/Palestinian conflict looks like it would be preferable to what's happening in Iraq now. Just compare the number of dead.

Yes, and thats what it will come down to, the lesser of grim scenarios; insurgencies exist in many places around the world namely Bosnia and Columbia, it's not great, but it's politically tolerable.

But how about this;

First stop the rhetoric about "Victory" it's not about that anymore & it just fuels the insurgency.The U.S. and coalition forces deposed a dictator and removed a brutal regime- be happy with that.

Then a formal apology by Bush at the U.N. for brushing them aside through all this.

Next,a diplomatic-political surge lead by some neutral faction (The U.N.,a mutually respected muslim leader or some other organization) to negotiate a cease fire between the sects with a promise of the simultaneous pulling back of American troops in the streets.

Get Sunni and Shiite leaders to state what it would take for each to disarm.

Find a political incentive to maintain the cease fire.

Get the coalition back together

Once the cease fire is effective the insurgent strong holds should stand out.

Deal with them then.

The new Iraq can only grow if there is a secure environment without a dominant American presence. Thats going to be a real trick.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Then a formal apology by Bush at the U.N. for brushing them aside through all this.

That will happen just about the time that Hell decides to freeze over

[Misternatural 0]

well if you like that one then here's another pipe dream;

A campaign to convince the Iraqis (the ones shooting at Americans- not the friendly street merchants) that the insurgents are the real enemy of their future reconstruction.

or how bout this one;

The Bush administration takes the elevator in the ivory tower down a few floors, opens up a window and sees the protest in the streets. then says;
"Oh I get it now Condaleeeeza, this is a Democracy, I- I have to listen to the people."

BTW Condi did pretty well under fire in front of the committee's grilling yesterday, her hair held up too.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Amazon 7]

Quote

her hair held up too.

Better living thru chemistry

[Misternatural 0]

that woman has had some funkadelic sculptures for hair. Remember back when it looked like she had two eggplants taped to the back of her head? Daayam.

Anyway sitting in front of a battery of sputtering wrinkly jowel faced senators- while they blast you with pointed questions and criticism for three hours can't be fun.

Speaking of a guy with no hair, I listened to Dep Nat sec advisor to Bush - J.D. Crouch today in an inteview with Charlie Rose; I have to admit that there was a few seconds where the guy actually made sense, that the military strategy could work .
But i snapped out of it.
The plan is heavily reliant on the allegiance of Maliki to the U.S. (even though he plays many sides to survive politically)

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[SpeedRacer 1]

Force-feed bong-hits to everyone in the Middle East until they mellow the fuck out.


Just a suggestion.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Force-feed bong-hits to everyone in the Middle East until they mellow the fuck out.

Just a suggestion.

It's still too hot in the summer time there. People get agitated when it gets hot. The buzz would wear off too quickly.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[warpedskydiver 0]

Can we just put Xanax in the water sources?

It would be far cheaper than the current operations.

[Misternatural 0]

>Force-feed bong-hits to everyone in the Middle East until they mellow the fuck out.

Somehow I knew you'd come over here and turn this into a cornucopia of foolishness, for the love of crap! don't you realize the severity of this matter.

OK, what about pulling the troops back and spraying a fine mist of LSD over Baghdad. and while were at it- over Washington too.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[billvon 3,120]

>OK, what about pulling the troops back and spraying a fine mist of
>LSD over Baghdad. and while were at it- over Washington too.

How do you know they haven't already done that? Might explain a few things . . .