Iraq is being debated here and elsewhere in a political context because it was the Bush administrations decision to go there and it's an election year. This partisan bickering mostly misses the point of what will actually happen however, whether or not Bush is reelected.

Kerry's alternative plan has been to involved the UN more in the political process, and while this might have sounded good to some people a few months back, at this point it is hard to imagine the UN being willing to return given the security situation.

Historically, the British in the early 20th century and Saddam in the latter part of the same century relied on unspeakably brutality and suppression to maintain order, an option that realtime TV coverage makes all but impractical. The American public is very unlikely to support the wholesale slaughter of Iraqis by the US military indefinitely. While six hundred killed in a weekend may seem like a lot, leveling Falluja to set an example would mean more like 60,000 dead.

A culture of intimidation is unlikely to respond to any show of weakness, and yet shows of strength will only kill and maim non-combatants, and turn world opinion even more negative.

Any thoughtful comments on where we go from here, or what a realistic exit strategy would look like? I realize that nobody has crystal ball, but the events of the last year don't take a fortune teller to read.

If you are out to post partisan indictments, or immature off topic drivel, please avail yourself of the many other threads on this subject.

oc

the generals in Iraq should get their demands met, if they need more troops then so be it. Handover deadlines should be suspended

It mightn't sound popular, but decisions should go through & come from the Iraqi Civilian Authority or whatever their governemt is. However Iraqis will not fight iraqis , as was seen last week.

__________________
I have something to hide.

First the direct path needs to be laid out more clearly. The problem is that a hand picked "governing council" is not what the Iraqi's want. Nor will they trust it. They need to have elections. Until they have elected officials, there will be no peace. And no belief that they can change the elected officials. I know the chance that Bush will not be President in a year is keeping me from uprising.

So the plan needs to be to work as hard as possible to ELECT a Parliment or governing council. Then give the power to an elected body.

When it is like 80 days away from handing over power and the response from the US Government to whom it is going to be handed is "good question"... that is not going to LEAD Iraq anywhere but to rebellion and infighting.

... that if we attempt to internationalize the war, the Iraqi people may see the "light at the end of the tunnel" so to speak.

Look at it this way, if they see the U.N. coming in, especially if Germany and France get on board, and a greater percent of the soldiers are not American, it would add validity to the process.

On the other hand, in case no one's noticed, the whacky a-rabs don't always use logic when deciding how to react to anything...

But what I am proposing will NEVER happen under Bush, because that takes him out of control of the future oil reserves. To do that would cost him money.

__________________
"What does a former president's son know about the Iraq war anyway?"
-- GW Bush when asked about Ron Reagan's negative comments, 6/25/2004.
www.BushZombie.com

The one common thread with all of the responses seems to be that aspects of the US approach need to fundamentally change, however we were informed last evening that the administration plans to continue as before, with the only significant change being either retaining or sending in more troops.

Not for the moment while they have the US to fight it appears, however in the absence of the US I imagine they would be at each other tooth and nail. Perhaps I'm wrong?

Agreed, unless the Iraqi's feel like they are really in charge, as opposed to a puppet government, they will be unhappy. However, the UN envoy's opinion was that elections would not be possible until the end of 2004 at the earliest as I recall, and the US has indicated sometime in 2005. That's a long time from now given what is going on. A very long time.

My guess is that this ship has sailed, or will have very soon. I can't even imagine what it would take to get NATO in there as this point. It's no longer a matter of concessions regarding political control with this level of violence and the kidnappings going on. NATO government deploying forces there now would face getting voted out of power at the voters next opportunity. This is a very unpopular war in all of those countries, not just Germany and France. Maybe I'm missing something, but the events of the last month would seem to have ended any chances of further outside support.

Interesting idea. I'm not sure if the UN/AL forces could maintain security, but perhaps that could be worked out with the local militias in advance, and the US forces would be available as the hammer to be used if necessary, something nobody would want to see used.

The idea of federalizing Iraq into several states is interesting as well. While there are ethnic and tribal minorities in each area, this is a plan that might work. We have to remember, Iraq is simply arbitrary lines in the sand drawn after the British left. The various groups had never lived or worked together before that. That said, they do have 85yrs of experience with it, and if they were able to keep a good amount of local autonomy, and if perhaps Baghdad was made a neutral federal zone, like Washington DC, then there could be agreement. The oil is in the Shiite areas in the south and in the Kurdish area in the North. The Sunnis are the professional people and business people of the region, and they have that to bring to the party.

Agreed, events have overtaken his stated policy. I think it is appropriate that he keep quiet, for the time being anyway. We have a lot of troops in harms way, and this isn't the time for a political debate. That can happen later.

There has been some reporting of various countries calling for their workers to leave, but the average American doesn't get this, let alone understand what it means, I agree. We owed it to the Iraqis to provide security, and we didn't do it. We owed the international community of civilian workers security, and to didn't do that either. This was a direct result of planning at the Pentagon.

Sure is starting to smell that way. The more respected US journalists are being pretty tight lipped, but I've been following conflicts reported by the likes of John Burns for the last 30yrs, so I can read between the lines. I agree, the Iraqis are impatient and jumpy, and the US administration is either misreading the signals, or it has no ideas that would bring a better result. Since the current team is the same one in place since the beginning, there is no reason to expect novelty of ideas.

I am left wondering who Bush could bring onto his team that could make a difference at this point, and I can't think of a single person with the deal making abilities and the stature to push them in a more positive direction. I've hear Jim Baker suggested, but he's pretty much out of the same mold as the rest of them. Richard Holbrooke is someone that could help, but he's automatically excluded on political grounds, and he's ramrodding the private sector third world anti-AIDS efforts at the moment.

Yes, and while it has the potential to Balkenize the process due to the ethnic and religious minorities spread around all of the zones, it may be an easier to get a central authority that is acceptable to all if the various regions have some autonomy.

Yep, and outside of Kabul, we have a few thousand hapless folks stuck in remote firebases. I believe that Afghanistan will go down in history as one of the major missed opportunities of the early21st century. With a little more money and some more personnel, we could have effected real long term change in that place. Instead, we leave in place the Madrasa schools, the drug warlords, the Taliban and Al Qaeda out in the hills waiting, and a return to chaos and insecurity for the population. Just as with Iraq, no priority was given to providing basic security for the people, and since that is what the Taliban were selling that allowed them to come to power, this is glaring strategic error.

The fundamental flaw is see with current US policy is that by not making a priority of bringing security to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have doomed our efforts. This is the #1 complaint of Iraqis, and it is the single issue which has made them impatient, slowed rebuilding efforts and allowed them to feel that the US has no real interest in their well being. To think that any form of democracy can flourish in a place where there is no security for the average person is to believe in fantasy.

Once we made that one decision, the rest of our efforts were doomed in both countries. The cost in lives, and in trust, to bring security at this late hour will be enormous, but the only alternative is ever increasing anarchy and certain failure. The one remaining window of opportunity, as I see it, is the publicaly admit this failure, and appeal to NATO countries, Afghanis and Iraqis to cooperate in accomplishing this in order to avoid decades of civil war and chaos. In order to make this appeal, we will need to have a concrete plan to provide a roadmap for those we are asking to make a commitment.

oc

What kind of solution are we talking about?

A one that the US would approve of?
Or a practical solution?

The creation of a real democracy seems unlikely, to say it crudely, there is no space for democracy in the Middle East. The problem is that there is no effective government (only US administration), and that one is disliked throughout. The only way to create a democracy that I could see, would be to negotiate somesort of deal between the Shia, Sunni, and Kurd groups, that all of them could bare with.

Federalizing Iraq sounds interesting, but what would make these states want to stay together? Southern Iraq might want to join Iran, Sunni states perhaps Syria. Kurds, encourage the creation of a Kurdish state in Turkey. Interesting, but the simple lack of any administration anywhere makes this plan difficult too.

It's just one big mess. Another Serbia...

Briefly: Iraq needs an army. Now! A worthwhile use of my tax money would be to pay the salaries of the Iraqi soldiers. A good salary. A make-them-loyal-to-the-goverment salary.

More cops. See above.

Make certain that the someday-to-be-elected government cannot become religious, but stay secular. Not easy. Every few years Turkey starts to become a religious gov't then the army steps in to squash that.

The Iraqi's need to step up to the plate more. Just last week, their police wouldn't go into Fallujah and do their jobs. Some said, "Iraqi's don't fight Iraqi's." Well, excuse me, but American police fight bad Americans all the time. They are either going to do their jobs or they aren't. After we turn over sovreinity to them June 30, much of the success from then on will be in Iraqi hands. They either want a better life and better government....or they don't. I assume the majority does; so the majority is going to have to speak up more and become more involved. And yes, some may lose their lives in the process.

John Kerry couldn't do anymore about getting the UN or France and Germany involved than George Bush has. What makes him think he has a magic wand on that point? He doesn't. And besides, the UN is practically worthless: at the first sign of trouble when they were there, they pulled up and left. So, what good are they? Nobody can depend on them for any security; that's for sure. They say they will help with elections. We'll see.

So no...the UN, France and Germany will NOT be there. The hard part is always left up to the United States. Oh.....but they would like to come in later and get some of the contracts.

My thoughts? To go ahead with the June 30th turning over of sovreignity deadline. There's nothing magic about that date....but it will start the process of the Iraqi's feeling like they are the ones in control and that the U.S. is keeping their word about backing off.

Bottom line is this: we cannot do everything for them. It's their country. They are going to have to step up to the plate and help themselves at some point. And your complaint about the elections? The UN is the one who said they couldn't possibly be ready to hold elections before the end of the year at the earliest. That's going to be "their" baby. This is what the UN is supposed to be good at. So, we'll see. I hope they are good at something.

I think a lot fo those ideas or observations are right on the money. Not so sure about the United States of Iraq idea.