Partition is the only remaining hope for a U.S. withdrawal with any honor and the best chance for achieving peace and prosperity in Iraq.
President Bush has so badly lied himself into a corner that he now needs the bipartisan “Iraq Study Group” — headed by the Bush family’s fix-it man, former Secretary of State James Baker — to tell the American public that things are rapidly going south in Iraq. According to the New York Times, one commission member anonymously acknowledged, “There’s a real sense that the clock is ticking, that Bush is desperate for a change, but no one in the White House can bring themselves to say so with this election coming.” But media reports of the situation on the ground in Iraq should tell the American people that the Bush administration is lying to them about the prospects for success there. Yet, unlike the Hungarians, who have repeatedly put tens of thousands of protesters in the streets to try to oust their prime minister for lying about the Hungarian economy, Americans seem apathetically resigned to their politicians’ conviction that lying is just good, clean fun.
It is unclear whether even this commission is capable of telling the truth about Iraq. White House officials and fellow commission members told the Times that Baker is unlikely to generate findings that do not have the prior, tacit approval of President Bush. The Times quotes one of Baker’s colleagues as admitting, “He’s a very loyal Republican, and you won’t see him go against Bush.” Since Baker is a respected elder statesman with no job on the line, one would think it would be easier for him to put loyalty to America before loyalty to George W. Bush or the Bush family. Apparently not.
Unfortunately this misplaced loyalty has caused Baker to rule out the only viable solution remaining for Iraq: the decentralization of Iraqi governance. Baker would have to admit the situation is dire there to adopt this drastic solution that I proposed more than a year and a half ago and that Joseph Biden, the Ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has more recently endorsed. Baker has already dismissed the idea of dividing Iraq into three autonomous regions and distributing the oil wealth among the Kurds, Shi’a, and Sunni Arabs. He has argued publicly that the populations in the major cities are too intermingled to create autonomous regions, which he claims would cause a civil war if implemented.
On their recent trip to Iraq, if Baker and almost all of the other commissioners had set foot outside the Green Zone fortress, they would have found that the country is already in the throes of a civil war. In fact, the civil war and the resulting ethnic cleansing have reinforced what is a natural partition. The Kurds and their militias have their own quasi-country in which the Iraqi government does not govern and the Iraqi flag does not fly. Many of the Shi’ite areas are governed by militias, which have also infiltrated the Iraqi police and army. In Sunni areas, guerrillas effectively control many towns. U.S. forces have been unable to disarm any of these armies.
The civil war will intensify if these regions are not allowed to govern themselves. Given Iraq’s recent history, these groups are fighting each other because they fear that the new central government will be used to oppress whatever group or groups are not in power. The only way to ease their fears is to make the central government weak or nonexistent. As for multiple ethnic/religious groups living in the cities, it is a fallacy that each of the autonomous regions in Iraq would have to be composed of contiguous territories. There could also be more than three regions created. In addition, if, for example, the regional lines had to be drawn so that some members of the Sunni group were a minority in the territory of the Shi’ite group, the Shi’a might be deterred from violence against them because they had a minority in the Sunni areas, and vice versa.
Many opponents of decentralization or partition use the example of the civil war during the break up of Yugoslavia. Yet that is not the only model. Czechoslovakia and most of the Soviet Union broke up peacefully. Even in the case of Yugoslavia, when Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia separated from Yugoslavia, if the Serbs in those states had been allowed to affiliate with Serbia, a civil war might have been avoided.
The president and those giving him advice should admit the truth to themselves and to the American people: A unified, democratic Iraq is unattainable. Only then can they adopt and sell the radical solution of recognizing the existing de facto partition in Iraq and drastically shrinking or even eliminating the potentially oppressive central government. This solution is the only remaining hope for a U.S. withdrawal with any honor and the best chance for achieving peace and prosperity in Iraq.
ieland@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
Read more articles by Ivan Eland
There's certainly no agenda in this objective analysis —
1. "President Bush has so badly lied himself into a corner …" Hmmm. I remember a slightly different version of events back in the 1990s. "[We] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
2. "On their recent trip to Iraq, if Baker and almost all of the other commissioners had set foot outside the Green Zone fortress, they would have found that the country is already in the throes of a civil war." And you know this because of your numerous trips to Iraq? Or from journalists who remain in Baghdad and do all their reporting from there?
3. “[M]ost of the Soviet Union broke up peacefully.” Has this guy read a history book in the last 50 years? This “peaceful” breakup followed the smashing of the Hungarian uprising by the Soviet Union, the attempted smashing of the Solidarity movement in Poland, and 70 years of heavy-handed political imprisonments inside Russia that IN THE VERY LAST STAGES of decline finally gave way to a “peaceful” transition of power … as long as you don’t count the ongoing civil war in Russia (i.e. Chechnya).
4. “Even in the case of Yugoslavia, when Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia separated from Yugoslavia, if the Serbs in those states had been allowed to affiliate with Serbia, a civil war might have been avoided.” Yeah, as long as they could “ethnically cleanse” their new countries! But the mean old USA and its allies stopped them from doing that, thus provoking a civil war.
5. “This solution [decentralization or partition] is the only remaining hope for a U.S. withdrawal with any honor and the best chance for achieving peace and prosperity in Iraq.” Sure. Those ethnic groups who will no longer have access to or benefit from Iraq’s oil revenue will just walk away peacefully and content themselves with living in tents and burning camel dung for fuel. The Islamo fascists will respect their sovereignty and not interfere in these new countries. These same Islamo fascists will be happy with continued US support for Israel and no longer fly planes into our buildings or kill our citizens abroad, just like they respected our people prior to the US entering Iraq.
How many more articles are we going to have to endure where the central theme is ‘The world will be a wonderful place because we want it to be’?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 10, 2006
Mr. Eland is clearly part of the problem and not part of the solution. The solution the Administration has chosen, and the solution the brave Americans are fighting for daily, is a strong central government empowered to lead Iraq out of the abyss of a civil war. So instead of recommending that we allow a fledgling country to partition and become susceptible to every radical terrorist organization and rogue country in the world, perhaps we, the people, should exercise our brains and freedom of speech to help our leaders solve the problem. If that is too hard, we can always go back to our sitcoms and local news and conveniently forget that we are a nation at war. Unless of course you, like I, are one of those Americans that is bleeding on the streets of Baghdad trying to support the Iraqi government, the Iraqi security forces (police and Army), and the good people of Iraq.
Comment by mfraizer | October 10, 2006
I think the realization that is finally surfacing among people that Iraq and Afghanistan are a mess and won't be anything but, says it all. Not that Saddam didn't need to be removed, not that we don't need to confront terrorism and Al Queda but that limited war as the US fights it simply DOES NOT WORK! We are still dealing with N. Korea, Vietnam was a national travesty, Desert Storm, well here we are now. War as limited by pseudo Generals aka. politicians serves no purpose other than the attempt by pols. to have it both ways. They can conduct bloodshed on the enemy and ours and still say they are humane in the process, Yeah! Either way nothing much gets accomplished that a few guided munitions from far away could have accomplished on any rainy day or night.
Its pretty obvious that invasion and limited occupation of a people who have not been beaten down by sheer violence is foolish. Yet, our leaders repeated the same mistake of N. Korea and Vietnam. Yes, we dismantled their military ran out the Taliban for a few years but a strategy that left the average Iraqi free to roam under the guise of being humane while vainly chasing one man in the mountains was not only ignorant of the middle eastern muslim and their propensity towards violence and most things civilized but insanely freaking stupid. One only has to look at our history to see how strong the urge for self determination is, even if our founders had a different idea and guiding principal to lead them. Same for Afghanistan. Now we have shed the blood of thousands of our finest, and its not just them but their families that will suffer due to the oh so excellent ability of our medics to keep horribly wounded alive. Great if you don't mind living without arms, legs or eyesight or with permanent paralysis but now families will have to suffer for years with highly disabled vets that admittedly would of died back in Vietnnam. Will our nation's leaders and corporate rich help take care of these vet's children? Will they help with their education maybe? How about the average media pundit who has supported this war come the hell of 18,000 vets. and 40,000 plus family members who will now have to deal with for the rest of their husbands, wives and sons lives? Maybe Cheney will take from his grandchildren's college fund and dole it out to the 15,000 children with fathers that no longer have the ability to work at high paying jobs due to blown off arms and legs from an enemy we called defeated?
Maybe we could ask Powell, Schwarzkopf or Tommy Franks on how to get it done or what winning strategies we can now employ. Oh, I forgot, they are in hiding right now. Afraid to tarnish their otherwise spotless credentials with the crap of this current debacle.
Personally I could care less about the Iraqis, they had their chance at democracy, they proven themselves backasswards barbarians but the fact that we have set up a future of terrible uncertainty in the region bodes an unpleasant future for all of us especially those in the military. Why? Because now the Republicans have proven as well as the democrats that they to are willing to throw away the lives of our nation's finest young men in the pursuit of pure political glory. When I signed up I signed up to support and defend the constitution not provide one particular party with some fodder for the coming election. The Republicans have proven now for once and for all that they to care about ruling not leading.
I for one am not in the mood for parades once our troops come home if ever. Just look at Korea…
Comment by Dean | October 10, 2006
Dean —
Are you arguing for more troops and all out war to insure victory, or saying that we never should have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place. I'm not clear on this point. Thanks, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 10, 2006
"It is unclear whether even this commission is capable of telling the truth about Iraq…/with no job on the line, one would think it would be easier for him to put loyalty to America before loyalty to George W. Bush or the Bush family. Apparently not"
Whoa whoa whoa, slow down slugger. How is it apparent that this commission is going to lie and cover up secrets when they haven't even released findings yet? Did you get that from your only source for this entire article, a few paragraphs of that classic, honest, unbiased, tried and true New York Times "reporting"? Are can you just predict the future?
"Will our nation’s leaders and corporate rich help take care of these vet’s children? Will they help with their education maybe? How about the average media pundit who has supported this war come the hell of 18,000 vets. and 40,000 plus family members who will now have to deal with for the rest of their husbands, wives and sons lives? Maybe Cheney will take from his grandchildren’s college fund and dole it out to the 15,000 children with fathers that no longer have the ability to work at high paying jobs due to blown off arms and legs from an enemy we called defeated?"
Sorry Dean, but isn't the prospect of dying or being disfigured pretty well assumed when you join the military? Last I checked, there still isn't any draft, so all of these men volunteered for this job knowing full well what the risks could be. And I hate to break it to you, but it's the "rich" people in this country who are shouldering 80% of the tax burden, and yes, as a matter of fact, they do pay to take care of our military men and women, and their children. I'm not saying these aren't horrible stories, or that we shouldn't take care of our service men and women, I'm saying we already are, "rich" people included. My biological father, who is a drunk and a drug addict who has abandoned several children by several different women, is a 100% "disabled" vet, despite having no lasting injuries caused by his service in Vietnam (got all his fingers, toes, and all the parts they attach to. He's "disabled" by his mental condition, which actually improved after his time in the service). He receives a pretty healthy government check every month (to the tune of about $5,000), and all of his biological children are entitled to VA benefits (as a matter of fact, I'm receiving education benefits right now because of it) courtesy of the "rich" taxpayers in this country. If not for his monthly VA check, he'd be doing labor jobs just long enough to get a fix, making quite a bit less actually than he is now. Now I know that's a fairly rare exception, but his irresponsibility is being subsidized by the "rich" fat cat taxpayers who are supposed to be haning out military vets out to dry, by your estimation.
" Maybe we could ask Powell, Schwarzkopf or Tommy Franks on how to get it done or what winning strategies we can now employ. "
I can understand Powell and Franks, but wasn't it Schwarzkopf who wanted to invade Baghdad and topple Sadaam Hussein during the first gulf war? You have to admit, that would have saved us a bit of the trouble we're having today, no? It was President Bush Sr. and Colin Powell who wanted to get out of there as quickly as possible with no regard for the "loose ends" they'd leave behind so they could have a happy political ending to it all.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 10, 2006
I guess Pat Mulligan doesn't understand the difference between having your life thrown away and worthy sacrifice for the oath. If you mean that most military members know they will risk their lives and limbs when they sign on the dotted line and accept that risk, then they do. But no member wants their lives thrown away due to lack of strategic forsight, poor tactics or political expediency (conducting aid work), its not what any of us signed up for. The first two causes are the unavoidable result of human leadership and is forgivable. The last due to ego and selfishness, not forgivable to most of us. To say that Iraq and probably Afghanistan will never achieve the goals or outcomes our current administration have set would most likely be an understatement. To say that they had no excuses predicting the average middle eastern muslim's reaction to our invasion and thus should have planned on a better course of action is true. WMDs or not, Saddam or not whatever the reason. In the rank and file we sign up to sacrifice for the defense of our country and its citizens, not to have our lives thrown away on a useless cause so that a certain party can retain power. This nation has already been through that once at least. It should have been enough of an education to those in power but obviously not.
As usual those who signed up will have their lives lost, wasted or ruined while our borders go unprotected, rabid islam and terrorism spread and our children grow up in a security situation really no better than before 911. Those men in power are paid way too much of yours and mine tax dollars to be wrong. You probably do not understand that difference judging from this and past posts Patrick.
As far as you receiving an education on 5k a month I want to know what school you and all of your siblings attend because that comes out to less than 60k a year after taxes. Is that high school by chance?
As far as the rich supporting these children, I write knowing full well our rich on both sides of the poltical spectrum enjoy their lifestyles in large part due to the sacrifices of our troops in uniform past and present. Believe me Patrick those in uniform would no more expect any sort of real sacrifice from those people other than knowing they can continue to enjoy their 'patriotic' lifestyle. That is readily apparent in the wealthiest of our countrymens' conduct before 911 and after.
Lastly, you don't really sound like you've done your homework. Bush Sr. promised to abide by the UN resolution 678 which did not allow occupation of Iraq but only removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Then like now it was limited war in strategic aims which did not save lives but costs more US blood and treasure in the long run. But at least our politicians got to keep their hands clean of brutality charges, huh? But Colin was the one who recommended not utterly destroying the Republican guard on more than one occasion, the infamous 'highway of death' being one of them. Too bad. Too bad we didn't level every Iraqi city including their inhabitants and too bad we didn't just leave when we finally finished the job and send in some of our finest diplomats and JAG lawyers to deal with the results. Same goes for Afghanistan.
Comment by Dean | October 10, 2006
"If you mean that most military members know they will risk their lives and limbs when they sign on the dotted line and accept that risk, then they do. But no member wants their lives thrown away due to lack of strategic forsight, poor tactics or political expediency (conducting aid work), its not what any of us signed up for."
I can certainly understand that. The jist of your previous comment seemed to me to be that our military personnel had been duped by the proverbial "man" into fighting for a country that gives nothing back to them. I was simply pointing out that the inherent risk is known to our service men and women when they sign up, and we do pay taxes to take care of them and their families when they make the kind of sacrifices that they do.
"In the rank and file we sign up to sacrifice for the defense of our country and its citizens, not to have our lives thrown away on a useless cause so that a certain party can retain power. "
Again, I understand that it is frustrating for our service personnel when they are ordered by politicians to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. It's a travesty, and I've had several tirades against it (as you mention, it's hardly a new phenomena and actually happened about a half dozen times during the last administration as well, a fact often forgotten by liberal democrats who protest war). If you mean to say that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were fought to keep Republicans in power, I think you're a little off. War isn't popular (hasn't been since the peace love and harmony movement during Vietnam), and it's one of the issues that has cost Bush approval rating points, not to mention possibly costing Republicans elections. It's been much more of a boon for the Democrats than the Republicans - they finally have an issue to rail against, though they run into a political problem in that they have no solution either. It's too late to make a long story short, but I don't think we're currently fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan for the sake of the advancement of a politcal party or for corporate interests. But that's a topic for another discussion and not at all related to what we started out talking about.
"As usual those who signed up will have their lives lost, wasted or ruined while our borders go unprotected, rabid islam and terrorism spread and our children grow up in a security situation really no better than before 911. Those men in power are paid way too much of yours and mine tax dollars to be wrong. You probably do not understand that difference judging from this and past posts Patrick."
I understand our security problems very well, and I do find it unbelievably frustrating and ridiculous that we refuse to secure our own borders and refuse to fight a war the way we need to in order to win. I'm not sure which of my past posts gave you the impression that I was ignorant of that (in fact, I'd love a reference to these past posts you speak of). The point I was making wasn't that lives haven't been lost needlessly, or that we're fighting a perfect war, or that our military personnel have no right to be frustrated with our war policy, I was simply refuting your inference that our military men were led into the job under false assumptions for the sake of rich corporate fat cats and then hung out to dry by the proverbial "rich people".
"As far as the rich supporting these children, I write knowing full well our rich on both sides of the poltical spectrum enjoy their lifestyles in large part due to the sacrifices of our troops in uniform past and present. Believe me Patrick those in uniform would no more expect any sort of real sacrifice from those people other than knowing they can continue to enjoy their ‘patriotic’ lifestyle. "
What does that have to do with what I was saying? You were the one who accused American "rich people" and political figures of abandoning our military men and women after they send them off to war for their own corporate greed. I was simply saying that the "rich" are the ones who pay the heaviest percentage of our taxes, and our taxes do get spent on taking care of veterans and their families.
"As far as you receiving an education on 5k a month I want to know what school you and all of your siblings attend because that comes out to less than 60k a year after taxes. Is that high school by chance?"
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. VA education benefits don't come out of my biological father's check, they are a separate entitlement for biological children of disabled veterans. He makes 5k a month free and clear because he is officially "disabled" because of "mental trauma" he experienced during Vietnam (not because he has physical injuries or disabilities incurred in battle that make him unable to work). Strangely enough, he was already abusing alcohol, drugs and women well before he got into the miltary, before any of the "trauma" he experienced, and still does to this very day. I've never met the man, my mom was smart enough to leave him when I was about a year old, and I don't know any of my half-siblings either, since they were all conceived with different women, so I can't speak for them. But as for me, if you must know, my VA educational benefits total significantly less than 5k a month (quite a bit under $1,000 a month actually, and only during enrolled terms), and are actually being spent at an online university where I'm currently pursuing a B.S. in business management, and hopefully following it up with an MBA. Now that we've gotten all caught up on my educational pursuits and wandered to a completley moot discourse, let's re-examine the actual point that I was making, which was that taxpayer dollars ARE spent to take care of the children and families of our disabled military personnel (even some not-so-deserving vets who abuse the system).
"you don’t really sound like you’ve done your homework. Bush Sr. promised to abide by the UN resolution 678 which did not allow occupation of Iraq but only removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Then like now it was limited war in strategic aims which did not save lives but costs more US blood and treasure in the long run."
Is that not what I said? Without citing the UN resolution number? Bush Sr. got a nice politcal rise out of Operation Desert Storm and didn't want to do the "dirty work" that might have made the war less favorable in the public opinion. Contrary to popular belief, you don't need UN permission to engage in war as long as you're still putting on the pretense of being a sovereign nation. It's not even relevent anyway, I was just asking you why you chose to include Shwarzkopf on your list of wussified generals. I welcome you to correct me if I am wrong (and I may be), but I was under the impression that general Schwarzkopf was in favor of dismantling the Iraqi military and ousting Saddam Hussein during the first gulf war - that he wanted to fight the kind of all-out war that you are speaking of. You keep sidetracking from the actual points I was making.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 11, 2006
I'm with you, except for the following:
"In addition, if, for example, the regional lines had to be drawn so that some members of the Sunni group were a minority in the territory of the Shi’ite group, the Shi’a might be deterred from violence against them because they had a minority in the Sunni areas, and vice versa."
There would have to be a population swap, so that a given area would be exclusively Sunni or Shia or Kurd. While it may be in the enlightened self-interest of a majority group not to harm the minority living in its midst, in order that its own members living in the other group's midst not be harmed, this is the Middle East we're talking about. Arab Moslems have no concept of enlightened self-interest, or enlightened anything else.
In addition, I believe there would have to be a non-Iraqi-administered oil authority, to ensure that the oil profits are fairly distributed among the three groups. Since if the UN administered said authority, no Iraqis would ever see a dime of oil money, the only group to be trusted with the job would be US.
Comment by Nicholas Stix | October 14, 2006