A One Year Iraq Solution

Anyone can know that the American presence in Muslim territory is provocative and encourages hate fueled acts of violence. I've got a three step, one year plan to solve the crisis. It's been on the net for a year now. Here is the short version:

1. American troops will during the next 6 months be replaced by UN forces.

2. The next 6 months the UN forces will gradually be exclusively be peace keepers from Muslim nations.

3. During this process the domestic Iraqi troops, infrastucture and government will be built up til it is ready to govern and take care of the nation on it's own.

The process is based on the foundation that the country will be a nation that follows the UN charters.

Any questions or comments?

Would that truly lessen the violence? Would they be willing to do it? We occassionally use our troops to grab terror cells or take out nasty targets. I assume the UN forces would take a much more defensive stance?


We have tried to get more Arab nations involved. They haven't been too willing. Also many of them have agendas of their own, such as Turkey. Would Syria and Iran be invited to this party?


This is something we have constantly pursued. There have been many set-backs due to terrorists as well as domestic power struggles. I did see a positive report recently on the economy in Iraq. The economy has been growing at a very fast rate and new businesses are booming.

If the plan would be publicly announced and known the violence against the troops would be backed by less and less Iraqis. Yes, the UN troops would take a more peaceful approach... in my view the only right one in someone else's land. The insurgeants/terrorists could just as well be called Iraqi patriots/freedom fighters. The W administration has been wrong, even lied about everything. Is it any wonder the Iraqi people hate their presence. I have "a gut feeling" Americans wouldn't be so submissive if their land would be occupied by muslim aggressive forces because the American democratic process has been obviously a huge failiure in the two last elections. Iraq has the oldest history of civilization and USA is one of the youngest. American politicans don't seem to get the Iraqi pride and the hatred caused from the insult of the American presence. I should also point out the same people who are "liberating Iraq" armed both sides in the Iran Iraq war that cost lives in the millions, as well as pushed the sanctions that killed an estimated 1,5 million Iraqis. Mostly children. Saddams regime killed some 20.000 Iraqis per year. The second Iraq war has killed 600.000 Iraqi civilians already... That's 120 Saddam years. It's never Saddam or Bush... That's an old sales method - two bad choices... The American presence is in so numerous ways tainted and clearly provocing what we're seeing. "We" being the once who respect the Iraqis right to their country, pride and culture. I said it was the short version... the longer version contains within it a massive media campaign to encourage debate and reconsiliation to merge a hopeful vision between the different factions inhabiting the country of Iraq.

If the plan would be publicly announced and known the violence against the troops would be backed by less and less Iraqis. Yes, the UN troops would take a more peaceful approach... in my view the only right one in someone else's land. The insurgeants/terrorists could just as well be called Iraqi patriots/freedom fighters. The W administration has been wrong, even lied about everything. Is it any wonder the Iraqi people hate their presence. I have "a gut feeling" Americans wouldn't be so submissive if their land would be occupied by muslim aggressive forces because the American democratic process has been obviously a huge failiure in the two last elections. Iraq has the oldest history of civilization and USA is one of the youngest. American politicans don't seem to get the Iraqi pride and the hatred caused from the insult of the American presence. I should also point out the same people who are "liberating Iraq" armed both sides in the Iran Iraq war that cost lives in the millions, as well as pushed the sanctions that killed an estimated 1,5 million Iraqis. Mostly children. Saddams regime killed some 20.000 Iraqis per year. The second Iraq war has killed 600.000 Iraqi civilians already... That's 120 Saddam years. It's never Saddam or Bush... That's an old sales method - two bad choices... The American presence is in so numerous ways tainted and clearly provocing what we're seeing. "We" being the once who respect the Iraqis right to their country, pride and culture. I said it was the short version... the longer version contains within it a massive media campaign to encourage debate and reconsiliation to merge a hopeful vision between the different factions inhabiting the country of Iraq.

Six months is July. It is impossible to expect some UN force to come in and take over in that short of time. In fact, most member nations in the UN do not support the US even being in Iraq...they are not going to send troops. The Coalition nations have been taking them out...ie, Japan, Span, etc.

This is pretty naive to believe that Muslim troops, without an agenda, could come in and help build up the Iraqi nation. I don't see the rationale for this. Muslims can disagree as much as Christians...religion is not a basis for truce, especially one the the US/UN arranges.

I just don't see it happening. Iraq needs to take responsibility for its own country. They can find capable people to fill government positions, if the the people really wanted peace. Unfortunately, most Iraqi's seem to side with the position of their cultural groups (Shia, Sunni, Kurd). Everybody wants a bigger piece of the pie and seems willing to fight for it. A central government will never be formed if most Iraqi's do not want it to be formed. And if you force the issue, then the central government must become a tyrant to control the people, just like Saddam.

I firmly believe every day an outside army occupies Iraq, the more rope we give to extremists and fundamentalists to strengthen their positions. Only when Iraq is forced to rule itself, without outside help, will calmer heads appear and argue persuasively for a rational solution. Whatever happens in Iraq now is a problem for the Iraqi people. Every other nation on earth has its rouge elements, I don't see where Iraq is someplace special. It is time they solve their own problems, and I think that's what they want.

__________________
Hobo
Charter member of 'Republicans Who Hate Bush" Club

Yeah, I agree - The time table I suggested is a bit too optimistic. Taking into account how clumsy and ineffective international politics is.

What you don't seem to recognize though is that nations haven't been willing to join the Bush/US led coalition. That doesn't mean countries aren't willing to send troops under the UN banner to solve the mess the neo-cons have made. UN peace keepers are in numerous places around the world and Iraq is certainly the place where they needed the most. It's very unlikely though as it would require Bush to humbly admit his failure and give over the job to the organization he BS'ed.

The situation now is that anything goes. Chaos is victory for the enemies of the American occupation... and it does take the form of "tribal" rivalry as well as violence against the American troops etc.

MoneShine says First of all there UN does not actually have any "forces" so it relies upon member nations to contribute forces. Have you noticed that most of the "coalition" of nations has become us - the U.S. and our good buddies the Brits. Who would we get the commando battalion from the world power known as Belize.

__________________
"Oh bury me, then rise ye up,And break your heavy chains, water with the tyrants' blood, The freedom you have gained." Тарáс Григóрович ШевчéнкоT.Shevchenko- Poet of Ukraine

The US coalition "of the willing" is a failure and huge humility and acknowldgement is needed from the Bush administration for this step to be taken. A UN led coalition would bring in much more nations and would be much less provocing. The war on terror ought not to be a program to provoce more and more people into using terrorist tactics. Don't you agree? The CIA even estemates that the Iraq occupation is going to increase terrorist tendensies within the muslim world. Good for short sighted military business but bad for humanity. I'd go with humanity. People are great, but every person has a limit for how much they can take and remain friendly.

Absolutely right. It would be nice if the "Bush Approach" to Iraq really worked...few American casualties, teach the Iraqis the best way to run a government, give some big contracts to your business buddies, and voila in 5 years we have the perfect democratic, Muslim country that is 110% loyal to the US right in the middle of the Middle East.

But obviously that approach doesn't work because people want to run their own country. Just because the US comes in and takes out a dictator does not mean that every Iraqi...or even a minority of Iraqi's will allow the US to tell them how to run a country. Its just that simple

__________________
Hobo
Charter member of 'Republicans Who Hate Bush" Club

The UN would not touch Iraq with a 10 foot pole. So we are not going to be able to get the UN to take over, even if Bush would ask.