Cut and run

[Sauron]

The Baker Commission has been convened to take a "fresh look" at US options in Iraq, in the weight of the impending collapse of that country. The commission appears to be preparing to advise a withdrawal from Iraq. And, a recommendation to split the country three ways, a course that I advised a year ago. Only, the Baker commission has promised not to deliver their report until after the midterm elections - "to keep it from being politicized."

The Karl Rove / Dick Cheney talking points for the midterm election are all about plastering Democrats with the phony charge of being in favor of "cut and run". But the Baker Commission appears to be ready to recommend doing just that - withdrawing and letting the Iraqis sort it out.

Of course, the commission won't deliver its report until after the election -- to make sure that the GOP can derive the maximum benefit from plastering Democrats with the bullshit allegation.

It's funny, you know? There must be something in the conservative mindset that makes it easier to suspend critical thinking, compared to the liberal/progressive mindset. Like a genetic predisposition to self-inflicted denial, or something.

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by Sauron

There must be something in the conservative mindset that makes it easier to suspend critical thinking, compared to the liberal/progressive mindset. Like a genetic predisposition to self-inflicted denial, or something.

How else can you explain the popularity of right-wing talk radio?


...and Democrats need to counter "cut and run" with "stay and die" not "stay the course."

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by JackDog

How else can you explain the popularity of right-wing talk radio?


...and Democrats need to counter "cut and run" with "stay and die" not "stay the course."

"He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day."

[Dingfod]

Best way to avoid fight is to not be there.

[Watser?]

I still don't think breaking the country up in threes is a very good solution. The Sunnis will never go along with it for one, because they are the ones getting screwed in the deal. They are in an area of the country that has hardly any oil, except in Kirkuk. Which brings me to a second problem: Kirkuk is already hotly contested between Arabs, Turkmen and Kurds, it could become the Srebrenica of Iraq when one of the parties gets strong enough to get away with that militarily. A third problem is that the neighbors will not accept it, especially the Turks, but Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria will not be happy either. If the Kurdish area becomes any more independent than it is now, the Turks are likely to invade. At the very least there will be cross-border sheling and raids, the Turks and the Iranians have been shelling camps of Turkish and Iranian Kurdish militants in the past. And last but not least, some of the Shi'ite factions are not happy with partition either, the Mahdi Army in particular.

There is big internal Shi'ite trouble brewing and sometimes exploding already anyway. The fighting in Amara is classified as Mahdi Army against the police/government, but this is misleading. The problem is that the police is not above the parties but heavily infiltrated by the Badr Corps (SCIRI's militia). It is better described as a turf war between two powerful Shi'ite factions. This kind of conflict will not be solved by cutting up the country, neither will the fight for Kirkuk or the Sunni insurrection. If anything it is very likely to make all of it worse.
In fact The Mahdi Army local leader in Amara said the confederacy plan adopted last week is one of the causes for the fighting there:

Ahmad al-Sharifi, a Sadrist leader, told al-Zaman that the fighting in Amara is one of the consequences of the law on provincial confederacies passed last week by the Iraqi parliament, to which the Sadr Movement was opposed.

Juan Cole

At this point I don't have any answers, except a major diplomatic initiative involving the Arab league, all the neighboring countries and all the Iraqi parties/factions/militias.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Watser?

At this point I don't have any answers, except a major diplomatic initiative involving the Arab league, all the neighboring countries and all the Iraqi parties/factions/militias.

It's a jump ball, then.

Even in that company, somebody will have to pull the Turks off the Kurds and keep the Azeris from taking a chunk outta Iran.

Actually, as I perceive the current national borders to be European powers' artificial imposition. Who knows what the Armenians would want?

[RareBear]

"Cut and run" no.

"Wake up and walk" yes.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Only, the Baker commission has promised not to deliver their report until after the midterm elections - "to keep it from being politicized."

Partisanship aside, I just don't get this. When can I have that report on how well my elected leaders are performing their jobs? Oh, after I've made the decsion whether or not to reelect them? Great, thanks!

[Watser?]

It's a jump ball, then.

Even in that company, somebody will have to pull the Turks off the Kurds and keep the Azeris from taking a chunk outta Iran.

Actually, as I perceive the current national borders to be European powers' artificial imposition. Who knows what the Armenians would want?

Ok, but that's just the point, all the borders are artificial, just like they were in Yugoslavija. But trying to erase them and redivide along ethnic/sectarian lines is a recipe for (more) disaster. On the other hand, the can has been opened and trying to put the worms back is probably impossible at this point.

[godfry n. glad]

Partition.

[Watser?]

Well it is a scary option, because as you already pointed out there are others who might get ideas. Especially Syria and Iran which have one major ethnic/sectarian group and several smaller groups which form local majorities but national minorities are very vulnerable. Messing with that could ignite serious trouble along the lines of what happened in Congo.
And a division of Iraq is not inevitable anyway: at one point it looked as if Lebanon would fall apart along sectarian lines. The neighbors were not happy with that one either and it never came about. Now it is not even a serious option anymore.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Adam

Partisanship aside, I just don't get this. When can I have that report on how well my elected leaders are performing their jobs? Oh, after I've made the decsion whether or not to reelect them? Great, thanks!

That's what happened with the Congressional Report on 9/11 - they agreed to release half of it before the 2004 election, and promised to release the rest after the election.

Remember when Harry Reid shut down the Senate several months back? That was in protest over the failure of the Senator from Kansas' footdragging on releasing the 2nd half.

It still hasn't been released, by the way. If the Dems get the Senate, you better believe that it'll get released within a week of the new Congress being sworn in.

Also, if the Dems get Congress, look for the Coward from Crawford to issue pre-emptive pardons to any and all of his cabinet.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Ok, but that's just the point, all the borders are artificial, just like they were in Yugoslavija. But trying to erase them and redivide along ethnic/sectarian lines is a recipe for (more) disaster. On the other hand, the can has been opened and trying to put the worms back is probably impossible at this point.

The reality is that the Kurds are not going back to a federal state with Arabs. Given that fact, there is only one remaining question:

Q1. Can the Shia & Sunni live together in a federated state?
A1: Clearly not.

Therefore, partition is inevitable. You can quibble about the details or the final form it will take, but the outcome is not in question.

[Watser?]

The question is good, I just don't think the answer is. I can see how the Kurds can secede, but even there the problem of Kirkuk is a major one. Neither side can live with signing it away in any agreement. And even if Arabs and Kurds agree on it, there is still the problem of the Turkmen. They are like the Sudeten Germans of Iraq: the Turks will intervene 'to protect their brothers'.

As for the Shi'ites and Sunnis not being able to live together: the Lebanese have a pretty bloody history too, the Tutsis and Hutus are still living together in Burundi and Rwanda. The outcome is still far from clear.

The thing is the Sunnis will never go along with partition because they are not being offered a viable state, so the proposed solution of partition is not a solution but a new problem. Plus the Mahdi Army is very much opposed to it as well and they have already been having violent clashes over it with SCIRI (Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq). The Mahdi Army is very much Iraqi nationalist and see SCIRI as Iranian agents (and they have a point). They are not gonna go along with partition. I would not even be surprised to see a new coalition between the Sunni and Shi'ite nationalists opposing partition.

Another problem of course is the US will be seen as the evil outside power breaking up Iraq to divide and rule.
Either way, I think the US presence is causing more violence than it is preventing. There is no point in staying, unless the US wants to be an empire.