How to fix IRAQ!!

[JohnnyFlame]

Frankly I've listened to the US president and his opponents and think they are both full of dung. Stay the course or stay the course lite as it is now called vrs stay the course real light and scaled withdrawal.

Rubbish.

Here is what I would do.

1. Immediate partition.

2. Move all US troops into Kurdistan or whatever they are going to call it.

ONLY reason for not going with partition I've heard is how can the US maintain security in three zones when they can't in one. My answer is why bother. Help the Kurds as they are the ones who need help and their location is strategic vis a vis Afghanistan.

Sunni's with Syrian backing will rapidly gain control of their area. Ditto the Mehdi army etc. with Iran's backing.

Pro's

Immediate success for the USA as they can paint it as allowing each group to choose their own form of government -- not quite the win of democracry for all but better than mired in a ongoing battle.

Kurds protected and a valuable buffer zone established.

Cons

The minorities in each area would have to run and be dang fast about it before their quasi-Muslim brothers slaughered them.

Iran would have the opportunity to suck up more land and oil and become yet a bigger problem.


I think they can offset that first CON by giving a date and suggesting that anyone who wants out get out by that date and offer whatever help they can.

The second one is yes it could be a stronger IRAN but it will be a whole lot weaker and non-existent IRAQ.

Plus they can move a whole lot of troops into Afghanistan and go full speed forward on what still looks like could be a success.


That would be MY plan. I really don't see why it wouldn't work.

[Jayems]

nm. i totally misread that

[ah123]

Which partition gets the oilfields? The US doesn't want the oil to fall in the "wrong" hands, otherwise I think this partition would have happened a long time ago...

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by ah123

Which partition gets the oilfields? The US doesn't want the oil to fall in the "wrong" hands, otherwise I think this partition would have happened a long time ago...

Actually that works as well for the plan. Sunni's hate the partition idea because they are the only group that ends up with no oil.

Kurds would have some and yes Iran could get the oil fields around Basra etc. but hey they need to sell that oil to finance their nukes!!!!

[mykalberta]

That plan only ends badly for the Republican party as the "stay the course" can now be officially called BS.

So long as the Iraq army remains inept, the situation can only be termed - bad.

Apart from never being in the country to begin with and an all out withdrawl - here is what I would do:

Take the south, from about Hillah (inlude Kut and Najaf in a kind of imaginary line). That leaves you striking distance to Baghdad and a US Miliary presence in Iraq - you can then leave Saud and hope that the people overthrow Saud and then go back in. Iran will take control over the North but with any luck their hatred toward the US wont be greater than their tribal hate towards each other - Iran wont stand idely by while a vulnerable neighbour fights among itself. Looking at the pipeline situation in Iraq it would take at least a decade to build a pipeline from Iraq to either Turkey, Iran, or Syria - you could make it more difficult by destroying key pumping stations and sections of pipe etc.

Keeping the south allows control of the sea (and an escape point if required), you can charge Kuwait a kind of protection fee, maybe even ask if Kuwait would like to merge or something. The south also has the fewer Muslim religious sites (most are around or in Baghdad). Afghanistan will be a non issue whoever is the next president - with the multinational force there they are doing a hella better job there than in Iraq.

If you take the North, you are trapped with no allies on either side. Also taking the south allows for the game changer - a leftist country: France, Germany, etc gets attacked over a seemingly insignificant issue - headwear or something else. That would force the UN back in and possibly then decide to clean up Iraq - the best would be if China was attacked but it seems unlikely they would allow a muslim(s) to harm China.

If they cant get the oil up and running they will have to leave for financial reasons alone, they are bleeding money there and eventually they will have to balance the books or at least try.

No end game scenario is a good one except one that will likely never happen - you cant change hatred with money, you can only mask it.

MYK

[Lanny_MacDonald]

It was said earlier, partitioning creates an imbalance and will lead to more war. IMO, the solution is to use the regional powers to insure the peace. The United States just has to get out of dodge, and the only way to save face is through a concerted effort in allowing the muslims a chance to find the peace themslves. The peace must be found and enforced through the regional powers who are going to be left to deal with the power vacuum. Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia (and possibly Kuwait) should be the ones to find the solution. They are the countries that boarder Iraq and are the ones that are best situated to deal with the security issues that could arise. If civil war continues there will be a massive refugee problem, and these are the countries that will be forced to deal with it. They have a vested interest, so they should be the ones to make the peace hold. A solution for muslims by muslims. If the United States can broker this arrangement, they may get out of Iraq intact and save a little face.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

It was said earlier, partitioning creates an imbalance and will lead to more war. IMO, the solution is to use the regional powers to insure the peace. The United States just has to get out of dodge, and the only way to save face is through a concerted effort in allowing the muslims a chance to find the peace themslves. The peace must be found and enforced through the regional powers who are going to be left to deal with the power vacuum. Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia (and possibly Kuwait) should be the ones to find the solution. They are the countries that boarder Iraq and are the ones that are best situated to deal with the security issues that could arise. If civil war continues there will be a massive refugee problem, and these are the countries that will be forced to deal with it. They have a vested interest, so they should be the ones to make the peace hold. A solution for muslims by muslims. If the United States can broker this arrangement, they may get out of Iraq intact and save a little face.

Partioning creates what imbalance? Other than oilfieds then what? Power vacuum would be filled instantly. Syria and Iran would instantly be taking over their own sections. Kurds with American support handle the north.

Nope still don't see a valid argument against partition. None actually from those in power or those with the power of opinion.

It's a clean way out and by far the easiest. What you propose Lanny would never work. Two Muslim groups who HATE each other and have fought each other before agreeing to sort out the peace because they are worried about refugees? Are you kidding?

Which country would be speaking on behalf of the Kurds? I know Turkey and Iran would be working against them. No I don't think you have a solution other than cut and run. Actually yours sounds like the one I heard last night from Z.B on the PBS channel which is Blame and run. Dump it on somebody else and run and then start the blame game.

Partition works even if there was a another battle between rival Muslims. USA can then just shake it's head and blame them -- Kurds are safeguarded. Can't think of a single reason why they don't just split them up!!

[JohnnyFlame]

There is also the known fact that de facto partioning is already well on it's way and has been for a long time. Kurds have been moving north etc. Not to mention that ethnic cleansing is encouraging these migrations.

Heck could they partition them and be out of there by early next year!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Partioning creates what imbalance? Other than oilfieds then what? Power vacuum would be filled instantly. Syria and Iran would instantly be taking over their own sections. Kurds with American support handle the north.

Their own sections? What would those own sections be? Do you have any idea of the ethnic make up of the regions being discussed and how those ethnic groups transend the borders? Obviously not.

Nope still don't see a valid argument against partition. None actually from those in power or those with the power of opinion.

Of course you don't. You some how think America can maintain a military presence in the region and come out of this whole. That isn't going to happen without further violence.

It's a clean way out and by far the easiest. What you propose Lanny would never work. Two Muslim groups who HATE each other and have fought each other before agreeing to sort out the peace because they are worried about refugees? Are you kidding?

I guess you haven't been paying attention over the past 15 years. Did you miss where hundreds of thousand of people have tried to escape Iraq during the different military actions, only to be held up at the borders of neighboring countries? How the hell do you think the Kurd issue got so out of hand? Turkey prevented the Kurds from going into their country. Same with Syrians and the Iranians. The key is to develop an environment that keeps people in their homes and prevents a stream of refugees. That is done through regional stabalization which is done through the cooperation of the various tribal leaders, who happen to transend international borders. That is why all the region must be involved to foster the regional stability.

Which country would be speaking on behalf of the Kurds? I know Turkey and Iran would be working against them.

If you turn this into a region matter, and appeal to the tribal roots of the peoples involved, Turkey, Iran and Syria all will have a stake. Historical and geographic Kurdistan occupy portions of these three countries. It would be in their best interest to insure political and ethnic stability to prevent internal strife from this tribe.

No I don't think you have a solution other than cut and run. Actually yours sounds like the one I heard last night from Z.B on the PBS channel which is Blame and run. Dump it on somebody else and run and then start the blame game.

Nice talking point. Too bad its full of ****. At no time did I say just leave. I stated that the United States could possibly save face by getting the regional powers to assist in finding the peace. That means they get to transition out as the regional powers transition in.

And please save your mindkless bluster about the blame game. There is NO ONE ELSE to blame but the United States. They were the ones who invaded. They were the ones who turned a stable, albeit unfriendly, soverign nation, upside down and into the cesspool it is. NO ONE ELSE. This has been said for years, so the game is already complete. Everyone on the planet knows who is to blame, so the idea of using that as a defense is nothing but mindless bull**** from people who still believe going into Iraq was the right thing to do (and there are very few of those left).

Frankly, there does come a point where you do have to make the tough decision and withdraw for the good of all parties involved. The time has come for that in Iraq. Staying longer will resolve nothing. We've heard all the same tired talking points from your buddies for the past three years that the corner is about to be turned and things are about to get better. No, things are getting worse, by the day. American involvement is only making things worse. When 70% of the people surveyed in Iraq want the U.S. out, and believe that their departure will lead to peace, its time to leave.

Partition works even if there was a another battle between rival Muslims. USA can then just shake it's head and blame them -- Kurds are safeguarded. Can't think of a single reason why they don't just split them up!!

What makes you think the Kurds are going to accept American help? Americans don't have a very good reputation in Iraq, especially with the Kurds. These are the same people that the Americans promised to protect after the Gulf War, and immediately left to their own devices, allowing Hussein to hammer the crap out of them. Why would they accept anything from America? Spend some time trying to understand the history of the region Johnny, it may surprise you to find there are ways to make this work that function outside the western norms that the Americans are trying to force on the people of the region.