[Vision2020] Borah Symposium:Three Disastrous Years in Iraq

[Joan Opyr]

Dear Visionaries:

In short, I'm with Ted.  His analysis is spot-on.  We need only remind 
ourselves of the disintegration of Yugoslavia (minus that crucial 30% 
of the world's proven oil reserves) to get some idea of how a 
multi-state, ethnically-divided Iraq might function.  Or, rather, make 
that dysfunction.  Unfortunately, poor planning (no planning?) on the 
part of our political leaders has already led to the creation of 
autonomous mini-states in several regions of the country.  When Donald 
Rumsfeld talks of our training and arming Iraqi security forces, in 
many cases what he's talking about is handing over guns and ammo to 
local warlords.  Afghanistan all over again?  Why did we think we'd 
succeed where the British had failed?  Iraq is a colonialist creation; 
it has only ever been held together by an oppressive, centralized, 
totalitarian dictatorship.  We've dismantled the secular Baath Party, 
and now we're surprised that old ethnic and religious tensions are 
surfacing and tearing apart the Project for a New American Century's 
pipe dream of a multi-ethnic democracy?  Good grief.  Where are the old 
foreign policy pragmatists?  When was Brent Scowcroft replaced by the 
Tooth Fairy?  I wonder who's going to break the news to George Bush 
that there is no Santa Claus?

Colin Powell told George Bush, "You break Iraq; you buy it."  And here 
we are -- the proud owners of a shattered Mesopotamia.  The problem 
with a U. S. pullout is that we cannot afford to have Iraq's oil under 
the control of a radical Islamic regime, an Iranian government by 
proxy, but we also can't allow the country to fall into complete chaos. 
  Yes, I know Iraq is chaotic now, and, yes, I believe that if the 
country isn't already embroiled in a civil war that's only because we 
keep changing our definitions.  The Sunnis and the Shiites are killing 
one another, tit-for-tat; 65 men here, 80 men there.  And the Kurds?  
They have always wanted their independence.  They're playing along with 
the United States for the time being, but that will not last.  This is 
their last, best chance to fulfill a century-old nationalist dream; why 
do we imagine they won't take it?

If you read the British newspapers, then you know that the British 
military no longer has control of the seaport of Basra in the south.  
Once Gordon Brown replaces Tony Blair (a matter of months, according to 
most UK news sources), we are likely to see a sure and steady 
withdrawal of British forces from Iraq.  That will leave us with an 
international coalition of whom?  The United States and ten advisors 
from Micronesia?  I see no good way to leave Iraq, but I also don't see 
how we can afford to stay.  After World War II, we occupied Japan -- an 
ethnically homogenous country which had unconditionally surrendered to 
us -- for ten years.  It took 300,000 troops in country for a full 
decade to maintain order, to rebuild the Japanese economy, and to 
establish a legitimate democratic government.  What are we willing to 
commit to Iraq?  What will the popular will (and purse) of this country 
bear?  We're working with a 9 trillion-dollar deficit now.  Nine.  
Trillion.  Dollars.

I don't know about Saddam Hussein, but I'm shocked and I'm awed.  How 
could we have dug such an amazing hole for ourselves in such a few 
short years?  And what politician has the strength, the will, or the 
vision to get out the really tall ladder?

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
www.joanopyr.com

On 21 Mar 2006, at 14:32, Ted Moffett wrote:

> All:
>  
> Dividing Iraq into Kurd, Sunni, and Shite "independent" states would 
> not solve the problems.  These separate entities would fight each 
> other over access to oil fields, and continue their tribal and 
> religious strife.  And US alley Turkey does not want an empowered 
> Kurdish state on their border, while the US does not want to push 
> southern Iraq to ally itself more with Iran, who already is 
> influencing southern Iraq.
>  
> Offering each group a semi-autonomous governing region within a united 
> Iraq is another option, but why would this work when the separate 
> state option would not? 
>  
> But we should back up and ask if the problems there are really ours to 
> solve for them.  What if some nation decided they needed to solve our 
> nation's problems during our civil war that killed half a million in 
> the US out of a much smaller population than now?  Would we have 
> wanted France or England to invade and force the north and the south 
> to stop fighting and form some sort of new peaceful government?  Even 
> if the US expressed what brutal monsters they were in the death and 
> suffering of the US Civil War, fought in part over the human rights 
> abuses of slavery, if another nation had invaded to solve our 
> problems, however well intentioned, I think they would have faced 
> an impossible situation.
>  
> Isn't it wise to sometimes let nations solve their own internal 
> problems rather than thinking military force can mandate that everyone 
> to play nice?  Wouldn't a policy that aimed at toppling Saddam from 
> within, using the resources and will of the Iraq people, have been 
> more wise?  It was obvious to many that the Iraq invasion to 
> democratize Iraq, even assuming the most noble aims, was a huge 
> gamble, given the tribal and religious strife endemic to that area.
>  
> It is often stated that just as the US maintained a military presence 
> in Germany and Japan post WWII for various reasons, we must militarily 
> stay in Iraq for similar reasons.  But of course Japan and Germany had 
> occupied huge areas of the world in an attempt at world domination.  
> Germany attacked, conquered and occupied US allies, and Japan attacked 
> Pearl Harbor and the US Navy.  Iraq was not threatening the US in an 
> alliance aimed at world domination.  And even Bush is now going public 
> stating that Saddam and Iraq were not tied to 9/11.  Also, the 
> invasion of Kuwait had been repelled and Iraq militarily was 
> devastated after that war.  And Saddam was not liked by Al Queda, who 
> viewed him as a sort of Islamic heretic.
>  
> It would be wonderful if the US could militarily police the world 
> removing dictators and improving human rights as a general policy, but 
> in some cases military meddling in other nation's internal strife can 
> result in a worse outcome, which appears to be happening in Iraq. 
>  
> This is a lose-lose-lose-lose scenario, whether we increase our forces 
> (yes, some insist this is what is needed to really stop the insurgency 
> and police Iraq), stay as now, withdraw slowly turning security over 
> to Iraq, waiting on the sidelines ready to re-invade if things get out 
> of control, or withdraw more permanently, there are lots of options, 
> but none that are a good solution.
>  
> But we won't totally withdraw... this option should not even be 
> realistically considered.  The US intends to keep permanent military 
> bases in Iraq.  The US will need them for the future oil wars. 
>  
> The Borah Symposium next week should be interesting, given it focuses 
> on resource and/or oil wars.
>  
> http://www.martin.uidaho.edu/borah/2006_symposium.html
>  
> http://www.martin.uidaho.edu/borah/
>  
>  
> Ted Moffett

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 7205 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060321/872edb53/attachment-0001.bin