The Surge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

The point is that you cannot 'solve' Iraq without active engagement of it's neighbours. Iraq was created as a bulwark against it's neighbours as well as a compromise of the various demands for partition and non-partition.

There is no way to create Iraq in the image of the US. You are not going to create a western-centric capitalist democracy there.

---

With you 100%, and have been since you typed almost the identical post back in 2002, regarding Afghanistan. At the time, that concept threw me - I'd never realized that I thought a "a western-centric capitalist democracy" was the one answer to everyone's problems. I had to concede that Kabul does not (and can not) be Washington D.C. And now I likewise concede that neither can, or should Baghdad.

Or London, or Beijing, for that matter.

I'm not even interested in trying to impose such (though my national leaders still might). All I've been trying to do here is, since we here are smarter than my current crop of leaders (and I do think that's true) what would we have done or decided differently than a 'surge'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

My hope for an inspired, truly new approach, from the guy we pay to be our primary Leader was:

-find neutral ground
-send out diplo's to all the players, major and minor (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Badr, Sadr, Sistani, all of 'em), with an invite to that neutral turf, for a 3-day "solve Iraq" summit. Guaranteed safety.
-Talk. No media (until finished).
-US chairs the talks. Start with: "Either we all find accomodation here, or US must apply all its national resources to force accomodation. Please do not fail."
-Day 1: recriminations, accusations, verbal gut-spillage.
-Day 2: find common ground.
-Day 3: work out power-sharing details & implementation.

The whole idea being to try and skip the intervening years of toil, death and hardship, and get to that time (15-20 years hence, at the current rate of progress) where we're talking and trading with each other. It's gonna happen. It always does. Let's have it today, instead of 2026.

---

I would concur with this approach except:

The US has to swallow the bitter pill that her influence in the region is near gone and her presence merely inflames the situation. Therefore, I propose that the conference gives Iran, Syria and Turkey the joint chair. The US is a delegate with an interest like the other parties, not the arbitrator of a solution. If she takes on that role, the accusation will always be that she imposed the solution.

First order of business, to get everyone at least working on something they can agree on in principle, is the date of US withdrawal. Unless the conference decides otherwise, this is a total withdrawal of all forces leaving not so much as a lapel badge.

I agree that the price of failure should be presented in stark terms to the chair and conference - US unilateral solutions would be the only options left.

I suspect it might take a teensy bit longer than three days, but Heads of Agreement and a communique should be possible.

How does that strike his Excellency the Ambassador Plenipoteniary for the great State of California to the United Orgahs? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Well given that real-life has no rewind button indeed, and the decisions made so far can't be undone, and that the current situation can't possibly go on like this, the options are fairly limited: advance ahead or pull out.

I would like to say that they should pull out, but I fear that will only aggravate the situation in Iraq and the Middle East. Which leaves the single option of pressing ahead. Which, I think, unfortunately won't improve the situation either.

What a tragedy the situation in Iraq is. :no:

---

Back in 2003, just as we went in, someone predicted it would be like grabbing a tiger by the tail. Letting go results in a mauling, while holding on will only annoy it further and make the eventual climax that much more brutal. To this day, that remains the best description of the Iraq dilemma I've seen.

Quote:

---

How does that strike his Excellency the Ambassador Plenipoteniary for the great State of California to the United Orgahs?

---

Erm... you forgot the Grand Poobah bit; goes between 'Plenipoteniary' and 'for'. All the same, your fleshing out is just the kind of diplomatic 'surge' that should precede any actual military movement of further troops into Iraq, in this poopy-doopy doobah's opinion, and I'm on-board with the US not chairing.

I'll call George and tell him what we've decided - though I think he has my number on "block" on his caller ID machine.

Kukri, I think your idea is a very sensible option. And it may come to (some form or other of) that, eventually. Of course, there can be adjustments, like Banquo's Ghost suggested, but the main idea remains, roughly, the same.

I like your idea (again, details can be agreed upon at a later Orgah summit ~D).
Now I'll throw my 2 bugged cents in.

I see a number of difficulties that may prevent it from reaching its goal, even if it is put into practice:
- in some way, it could be perceived as a sign of weakness on behalf of the US. Both within, and outside the US. In my opinion, this itself may be a reason powerful enough to make the administration think twice about implementing this.

- it demands a LOT of parties; while it's true that "the more, the merrier", in this particular case, I think it will be extremely difficult to even convince all the parties you mentioned to come to such a meeting.

- finally, the achievement of the meeting's goal depends to a large extent on the goodwill, and good faith, of the involved parties. I am referring here mainly to Iran and Syria (possibly Turkey, too).
What's to stop them from agreeing to whatever solution is proposed, and then defaulting on the deal, once the US is gone ?
Let me point out a couple of things: first, we all agree that every country pursues its own interests before anything else. Now, allow me to be Iran or Syria, and to develop the following train of thought:
- the US is gonna leave here (sooner or later)
- once they leave, it's VERY unlikely that they will return, no matter what I do (the world's, and, more importantly, the US population's, reactions, would be extremely strong - against it, naturally) (please, pretty please, try not to counter this with "we'll turn them into glass". It wouldn't fly in a million years).
- so what's stopping me from playing ball now, and then pursuing my own interests as soon as the US are gone, especially if I can rally my other buddies in the region, and allow them a piece of the cake ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

What's to stop them from agreeing to whatever solution is proposed, and then defaulting on the deal, once the US is gone ?

---

That's a very real concern, and in my opinion, a very likely outcome. Additionally, let's consider what Iran or Syria would demand in exchange to stop destabilizing Iraq. Syria would likely ask for something like the Shebaa Farms in return- which isn't America's to give. Iran would most likely want the US to back off of their nuclear program. Of course, a nuclear Iran is arguably worse than the current situation in Iraq and is not a good solution. Particularly when you consider they'd likely go back to doing whatever they wanted after such an agreement.

Quote:

---

Additionally, let's consider what Iran or Syria would demand in exchange to stop destabilizing Iraq. Syria would likely ask for something like the Shebaa Farms in return- which isn't America's to give.

---

Additionally let us consider ........all of that is dealt with in the report Bush got but didn't like . Though that particular piece of land you mention would be in the proposed tri-party agreements under the UN recommendatations for defining the Isreal-Syria , Israel-Lebanon , Syria-Lebanon borders .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

I see a number of difficulties that may prevent it from reaching its goal, even if it is put into practice:
- in some way, it could be perceived as a sign of weakness on behalf of the US. Both within, and outside the US. In my opinion, this itself may be a reason powerful enough to make the administration think twice about implementing this.

---

The bald truth is that the US is not only percieved as weak after the debacle in Iraq, but has proven herself unable to project her power effectively without becoming a monster. Bite the bullet - the US is no longer the lynchpin for the future of Iraq - the question is how do you get out with at least some sort of positive result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

- it demands a LOT of parties; while it's true that "the more, the merrier", in this particular case, I think it will be extremely difficult to even convince all the parties you mentioned to come to such a meeting.

---

Yes indeed, the whole area has been fractured terribly. But one has to at least try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

- finally, the achievement of the meeting's goal depends to a large extent on the goodwill, and good faith, of the involved parties. I am referring here mainly to Iran and Syria (possibly Turkey, too).
What's to stop them from agreeing to whatever solution is proposed, and then defaulting on the deal, once the US is gone ?

Let me point out a couple of things: first, we all agree that every country pursues its own interests before anything else. Now, allow me to be Iran or Syria, and to develop the following train of thought:
- the US is gonna leave here (sooner or later)
- once they leave, it's VERY unlikely that they will return, no matter what I do (the world's, and, more importantly, the US population's, reactions, would be extremely strong - against it, naturally) (please, pretty please, try not to counter this with "we'll turn them into glass". It wouldn't fly in a million years).
- so what's stopping me from playing ball now, and then pursuing my own interests as soon as the US are gone, especially if I can rally my other buddies in the region, and allow them a piece of the cake ?

---

Nothing at all. Except maybe self-interest. Remember, this is not about what the US can impose, but how she can leave with fewer dead servicemen. If the surrounding powers wait, the US will leave with many more dead and they will do what they like with the remnants. To talk now might convince them that the problem is going to be in their lap sooner or later, and to agree a way forward might make their future workable.

But they can wait. As you note, the US is going to leave one day.

Quote:

---

But they can wait. As you note, the US is going to leave one day

---

Sort of. Undeniably, the ones in uniform toting M16's will leave (alive, it's hoped). If it's done right, they'll be replaced by non-uniformed guys bringing Microsoft campuses, Ford Motor Assembly plants, Coca-Cola bottling factories and start-up Baghdad Film Studios.

The question is: when will that transition occur, and how is the intervening time best managed by all parties? If such a summit of stake-holders could see their way through to "skip" the violent part, and get to the (inevitable) peaceful prosperity part, the whole world wins. And they set the template for future conflict resolutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Remember, this is not about what the US can impose, but how she can leave with fewer dead servicemen. If the surrounding powers wait, the US will leave with many more dead and they will do what they like with the remnants.

---

Wellll... is that really the case ? I dunno.
I honestly dunno. Let's ignore for now the reasons why the US went there to begin with, because they are not necessarily the same reasons with what the US wants to accomplish now.

So my question is, really, what ARE the US's goals right now ?

To leave with as few casualties (forgetting about the oil, the freedom and democracy for the Iraqis, etc), as you suggest ?

To "bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq" ? What exactly would the measure of that be ?

To get out of there with the main goal of saving face (potentially at the cost of additional human (american) lives lost) ?

To do whatever it takes to secure the oil, including making sure that when the US leaves, Iran/Syria/whoever won't grab the wells and stop the flow towards the US ?

What do you folks think ?

I know I can't shake the feeling that "we'll, uh... send more soldiers!:sweatdrop: " is a pretty belated "better than nothing" response.
:shrug:
But what the heck, I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt they have some idea behind it this time. I'm just not counting on it.