Best Solution For Iraq

[Dustin Kesselberg]

• Bush is planning to send over 21,000 additional troops to iraq...

• It seems each congressman/woman has a separate idea of what the best strategy for Iraq is.
• Total number of Iraqi deaths range anywhere from 300,000 to 600,000, Over 3,000 Americans dead and many more foreign contractors.
• Religious violence in Iraq is escalating everyday.

This brings into question what the best strategy for Iraq is and if there is even a 'best strategy'. I'm going to tell you all what I think should be done in Iraq and explain the flaws in some of the other plans put forth by various congressmen/women and politicians.


Firstly a lot of my information comes from the comprehensive bipartisan Iraq study group report published back in December and the full report has more details than I will list in this post but anyone who is interested can read the full report here...
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf

Definition of success

An independent Iraq with a democratically elected government without corruption which follows a set constitution. A peaceful Iraq which can prevent religious violence and common crime while at the same time defend itself from outside aggressors. An Iraq that works closely and peacefully with the United nations and other countries.

Overview of the problems

Iraq consists mainly of 3 Ethnic/Religious groups. The Shia muslims, The Sunni muslims and the Kurds. These three religious groups are responsible for the vast majority of the violence in Iraq. Shia death squads often who are members of the iraqi police forces roam the streets and execute sunni and kurdish civilians and attack American troops. Sunni insurgents roam the streets attacking Shia civilians as well as American troops. Al Quaeda(who is sunni) are also part of the mix but only account for a small amount of the religious violence in the country. There seems to be a power play between the Sunni and Shia populations of the country. Currently the Shia seem to hold most of the power with the Nouri al-Maliki the currnet prime minister being a Shia. Other groups participating in the violence include the Badr Brigade, Mahdi Army lead by Al-Sadr, as well as common criminals taking advantage of the lack of law&order. Not to mention the vast amounts of economic waste and political corruption in the current Iraqi govt. The UN estimates that nearly 2.5 million Iraqi's have fled the country since 2003.


Flaws in some proposed strategies

• Withdrawal

Success in Iraq is very important to the domestic security, economic security as well as our standing in international circles. If we were to suddenly leave Iraq before it is able to sustain itself would no doubt cause a catastrophe for the United States due to the fact that an Iraq left alone before it can sustain itself would no doubt descend into even more violence, chaos and anarchy. The United States (right or wrong) has initiated events that have led to the current situation and it would be at best immoral and at worst criminal to withdrawal troops and support at this time. The result of the U.S. leaving iraq would result in a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda as well as other terrorist groups would depict our withdraw as a historic victory and use it for extensive propaganda purposes to gather more recruits. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

• Staying the Course

Our current plan simply isn't working, as the level of violence in Iraq and the incompetency of the Iraqi government can attest. Over 100 Americans die each month in Iraq on average and we're spending over $2 Billion a week. Our ability to respond to other international crises is also constrained. Most Americans oppose the war and this level of expense is NOT sustainable over an extended period of time, especially when no progress is being made. The longer the U.S. stays in Iraq without progress, the more resentment Iraqi's will have towards what they perceive as an oppressive occupation.

• More Troops for Iraq (Bush's current plan)

If we were to increase the number of troops in Iraq it would not solve the fundamental cause of violence. Adding more U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in some areas but we simply don't have enough troops to hold each and every neighborhood in Iraq and the moment we move, violence will continue. If the Iraqi govt doesn't make significant progress then no number of troops could help solve this problem. Moreover our military is stretched thin already. We simply don't have the troops or equipment to make substantial sustained increases in the troop presence. Increasing the number of troops in Iraq would do nothing more than hamper our efforts in Afghanistan's and make it so we aren't able to respond to crises around the world.

• Devolution to Three Regions (Strategy endorsed by numerous congressmen)

This is probably one of the stupidest strategies for Iraq there are. The populations of Iraq are not neatly separated and thus boundaries can't easily be drawn. All 18 of the Iraqi provinces have mixed populations as does Baghdad and most other major cities. Populations split into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish groups varying in % by region and city. If we were to draw some line and split the three groups up then we would be faced with numerous problems including collapse of the Iraqi security forces, strengthening of militias, ethnic cleansing, destabilization of neighboring states, or attempts by neighboring states to dominate Iraqi regions. Arabs would perceive such an act as confirmation of fears that the U.S. is purposely trying to weaken a strong Arab state. Not only this but there is no economically viable way to split the oil revenues because most of Iraq’s energy resources are in the Kurdish and Shia regions meaning there would be no viable "Sunni region" with it's own oil.


Proposed solution for many problems Iraq is facing

• New diplomatic offensives which would target all of Iraqi's neighbors as well as intra iraqi groups to help work towards a peaceful Iraq. If Iraq were to devolve into further chaos and violence then it would be a problem for all of Iraqi's neighbors as well as other Arab countries. Diplomacy means talking to people we don't like and that includes Iran and Syria. It would not be in either countries best interest for Iraq to devolve into further chaos. Specific goals of the diplomatic offensive are detailed in the Iraq study group report.

• The United States should go through an "economic cleansing" concerning it's spending in Iraq and cut down on worthless projects that usually lead nowhere.

• The United States should focus closely on curbing political corruption within Iraq which not only increases religious violence but also costs us Billions per month.

• Iraq should get help from other countries willing to help train Iraqi security forces including Egypt.

• The U.S. should provide incentives for Iraq to progress. A clear message should be made to Nouri al-Maliki that if progress is not made soon then U.S. will be less willing to assist in training and aiding Iraq's growth. If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government.

• George Bush should state clearly over and over again to the Iraqi people and the Arab world as a whole that does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq (Iraq can request temporary bases) and does not seek to have control of Iraqi's oil revenues.

• Completion of numerous milestones which can be found on page 43 of the Iraq study group report.

• Constitutional review with assistance from the United Nations.

• De-Baathification..Unless the baathist party(Saddams party) is totally removed from political and national life in Iraq, Progress will be hampered. The U.S. should encourage the return of qualified Iraqi professionals—Sunni or Shia, nationalist or ex-Baathist, Kurd or Turkmen or Christian or Arab—into the government.

• Oil revenue sharing..Oil revenues should accrue to the central
  government and be shared on the basis of population. No formula that gives control over revenues from future fields to the regions or gives control of oil fields to the regions is compatible with national reconciliation.

• Intra political diplomacy, The united states should aid in the diplomacy between the parties of Iraq with the exception of Al-Quaeda. Unless the parties get together and talk to each other then progress can't be made.

These are just a few of the many things that should be done in Iraq. The Iraq study group made 79 recommendations when it published it's report in December and Bush has ignored nearly all of them as well as committed more troops to Iraq going against the direct warnings of the Iraq study group. Neither Bush nor most Congressmen have actually even read the report. The report has made timetables for actions that should be taken in Iraq and some of them have already passed by without anything being done.

Most likely what will happen with Iraq is the U.S. will withdrawal from Iraq within the next year or two and little or no progress will have been made. Iraqi violence will increase and hundreds of thousands more civilians will die. A humanitarian crisis in Iraq will spark other violence in the middle east and the United States security as well as international standings will be in even worse conditions than they currently are.

 

[steverino]

Neither Bush nor most Congressmen have actually even read the report.

Evidence?


Whenever I hear that "our government should negotiate with Iran" I have to ask, how do we mere mortal citizens of America know that behind-the-scenes discussions between the U.S. and some faction in Iran are not currently taking place?

Not to knitpick. Your heart seems to be in the right place.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Evidence?

Just based on what they've actually said about the report. And I don't believe Bush is a "big reader" and I doubt many would disagree.

Whenever I hear that "our government should negotiate with Iran" I have to ask, how do we mere mortal citizens of America know that behind-the-scenes discussions between the U.S. and some faction in Iran are not currently taking place?

If it is..Good. (Though I see no reason to hide it)

If it isn't...It should be.

 

[steverino]

Cool Avitar Dustin! Very topical.

 

[egslim]

Proposed solution for many problems Iraq is facing

• New diplomatic offensives which would target all of Iraqi's neighbors as well as intra iraqi groups to help work towards a peaceful Iraq. If Iraq were to devolve into further chaos and violence then it would be a problem for all of Iraqi's neighbors as well as other Arab countries. Diplomacy means talking to people we don't like and that includes Iran and Syria. It would not be in either countries best interest for Iraq to devolve into further chaos. Specific goals of the diplomatic offensive are detailed in the Iraq study group report.

Agreed. But getting Iran and Syria to cooperate through diplomacy also means taking their interests into account. For example, both nations may perceive a benefit from the current situation in Iraq because it ties the US millitary down which prevents a US attack on them. Similarly, they won't like the prospect of US bases in Iraq. So the US will need to give some significant concessions in order to gain cooperation - and that won't be popular among politicians. However, unless the current situation improves, the longer this diplomatic avenue is postsponed the more the US will eventually have to give in.

• The United States should go through an "economic cleansing" concerning it's spending in Iraq and cut down on worthless projects that usually lead nowhere.

• 
  I suggest replacing US contractors with Iraqi ones. Even if they mess up, then it's Iraqis fault, not the US.
  
  

  [*]The United States should focus closely on curbing political corruption within Iraq which not only increases religious violence but also costs us Billions per month.

Catch 22. How can the US do this if Iraq supposedly has an independent government?

• Iraq should get help from other countries willing to help train Iraqi security forces including Egypt.

What's in it for them? Right now Iraq is a mess, with little improvement in view. Before other countries will be willing to join the US in its hole they will first want to see at least some improvement.

• The U.S. should provide incentives for Iraq to progress. A clear message should be made to Nouri al-Maliki that if progress is not made soon then U.S. will be less willing to assist in training and aiding Iraq's growth. If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government.

Alternatively, the US could set up some clear, attainable goals and tell the Iraqi government they will leave if those aren't met. The Iraqi government is in it for survival, and they have a lot more to lose than the US.

• George Bush should state clearly over and over again to the Iraqi people and the Arab world as a whole that does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq (Iraq can request temporary bases) and does not seek to have control of Iraqi's oil revenues.

They won't believe him. The fact is that the US has military bases all over the world, and has never shown much willingness to give them up. "Temporary" is too vague a term, and a request from a government that can be perceived a puppet one won't count for much. Something stronger than a clear statement is needed.
As for the oil, from the top of my head one of Bremers decisions was to liberalise the Iraqi oil market, and remove any barriers to foreign investment. In other words, with those regulations the Iraqi oil is or will be controlled by large multinationals instead of the Iraqis themselves. To prove it's "not about the oil" it should be left to the Iraqis themselves to repeal those decision if they wish.

• Constitutional review with assistance from the United Nations.

Some clause recognising Islam, but guaranteeing freedom to choose between Sunni and Shi'a would make sense. Right now I'd be less concerned about religious freedom in the constitution than about stabilising the current chaos which may very well overthrow that constitution in the first place. Note that many European countries have a state religion or church, while they are actually less religious than the US.

• De-Baathification..Unless the baathist party(Saddams party) is totally removed from political and national life in Iraq, Progress will be hampered. The U.S. should encourage the return of qualified Iraqi professionals—Sunni or Shia, nationalist or ex-Baathist, Kurd or Turkmen or Christian or Arab—into the government.

Disagree. De-Baathification means throwing out allmost everyone skilled and experienced from the Iraqi bureaucracy. That's a recipe for governmental disaster.

 

[Schneibster]

Good avatar, Dustin.

I'm going to layer my comments on slim's, since we agree on several points, disagree on almost nothing, and I mostly just want to comment. Overall, I can't see just a whole lot of choices. It's painful, but true. There ain't no magic bullet. I sure wish they'd listened when everyone asked what their exit strategery was. I didn't expect them to, but in a perfect world...

getting Iran and Syria to cooperate through diplomacy also means taking their interests into account. For example, both nations may perceive a benefit from the current situation in Iraq because it ties the US millitary down which prevents a US attack on them. Similarly, they won't like the prospect of US bases in Iraq. So the US will need to give some significant concessions in order to gain cooperation - and that won't be popular among politicians. However, unless the current situation improves, the longer this diplomatic avenue is postsponed the more the US will eventually have to give in.

The worst of it is, we had a much friendlier regime in Iran right after 9/11, and even after we'd gone into Iraq; but we hosed the President and he got voted out because he lost face. Now we got this guy wants to make nukes. Smooth. Whadda they do for an encore, gargle peanut butter?

That said, diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. And then, maybe some diplomacy. And when you think you're all done, then just a little more diplomacy.

Did I mention diplomacy?

I suggest replacing US contractors with Iraqi ones. Even if they mess up, then it's Iraqis fault, not the US.

Good idea, but perhaps with a little salt- i.e., get the best of the US contractors, and some engineering talent, involved as advisers. Like we're doing with their military. Be prepared to protect them- we're talking about the cream of OUR talent here.

Catch 22. How can the US do this if Iraq supposedly has an independent government?

By fussing at them until they start doing something about it; start withholding funds, threatening to withdraw, and so forth. How else?

Otherwise, we could start rounding up politicians and shooting them. Hmmm, perhaps not entirely a bad idea in any case... whadda ya call 10,000 politicians at the bottom of the sea? JK.

What's in it for them? Right now Iraq is a mess, with little improvement in view. Before other countries will be willing to join the US in its hole they will first want to see at least some improvement.

Security. If Iraq goes down, they got a problem doesn't go away for a couple decades. I guarantee you neither the House of Saud nor Hosni Mubarak wants that- they both got internal troubles that get lots worse after the bad guys stop paying attention to us. Of course, negotiating with them is going to be a major hassle. I did mention diplomacy, right?

Alternatively, the US could set up some clear, attainable goals and tell the Iraqi government they will leave if those aren't met. The Iraqi government is in it for survival, and they have a lot more to lose than the US.

This is basically my answer for the corruption problem too. Only thing is, you gotta not have a corrupt government over on this side too, because otherwise somebody's gonna stick their fingers in the pie again and then the whole thing starts over. So go Waxman.

They won't believe him.

Great minds think alike. My first thought when I saw this. On EITHER the oil or the bases.

I don't have a comment on the religious stuff. I don't know enough about it all to have what I would consider an informed opinion.

Disagree. De-Baathification means throwing out allmost everyone skilled and experienced from the Iraqi bureaucracy. That's a recipe for governmental disaster.

No kidding. The only problem is, leaving them in is a recipe for a revolution or for more reprisals, or worst of all for continuing corruption, which is a revolution of another kind. There has to be some middle ground. Maybe we encourage the Iraqis to do some investigating and hang a few more of the worst ones before we start letting them back in.

 

[egslim]

The only problem is, leaving them in is a recipe for a revolution or for more reprisals, or worst of all for continuing corruption, which is a revolution of another kind. There has to be some middle ground. Maybe we encourage the Iraqis to do some investigating and hang a few more of the worst ones before we start letting them back in.

The issue is with fighting corruption and other criminal activities. I'm all for measures against those. But I don't see how prosecuting Baathists only for being or because they used to be Baathists helps the current situation.

I'd prefer to give everyone but the worst perpetrators of human rights under Saddam a clean slate, at least for anything commited prior to 2003. Then address corruption that hurts the situation now, instead of crimes under a previous regime.

 

[steverino]

get the best of the US contractors, and some engineering talent, involved as advisers.

I am sure Senator Feinstein with the family business, Halibur, oh, I mean, Perini, will have something to say about this.

"...Feinstein and her husband, Richard Blum, are making millions of dollars from Iraq and Afghanistan contracts through his company, Perini. [7] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perini

 

[Darth Rotor]

Thread: Best Solution For Iraq

A seven percent solution, which I always suspected Bremmer was using on a daily basis.

DR

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Catch 22. How can the US do this if Iraq supposedly has an independent government?

The Iraqi govt can ask for the help of the U.N. and U.S. to aid them in doing it.

What's in it for them? Right now Iraq is a mess, with little improvement in view. Before other countries will be willing to join the US in its hole they will first want to see at least some improvement.

Egypt has already offered as have a few other middle eastern countries I believe.

They won't believe him.

Trying won't hurt.

Disagree. De-Baathification means throwing out allmost everyone skilled and experienced from the Iraqi bureaucracy. That's a recipe for governmental disaster.

De-Baathification doesn't necessarily removing former Baathists. All it means is making sure that their loyalties lie with the current Iraqi government and not the former baathist party.

 

[geni]

• 
  Definition of success
  
  [/B]An independent Iraq with a democratically elected government without corruption which follows a set constitution. A peaceful Iraq which can prevent religious violence and common crime while at the same time defend itself from outside aggressors. An Iraq that works closely and peacefully with the United nations and other countries.

• 
  
  Given the militry power of three of the countries on it's boarders and Israel that would basicaly require giving them nukes. That is however the most realistic part of the objectives.
  
  

  The United States (right or wrong) has initiated events that have led to the current situation and it would be at best immoral and at worst criminal to withdrawal troops and support at this time.

  
  Neither of those terms have any place in forigen imperial policy.
  
  

  The result of the U.S. leaving iraq would result in a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization,

  
  Umm a rather more serious problem is that regional destabilization wouldn't happen.
  
  
  • Devolution to Three Regions (Strategy endorsed by numerous congressmen)
  This is probably one of the stupidest strategies for Iraq there are. The populations of Iraq are not neatly separated and thus boundaries can't easily be drawn. All 18 of the Iraqi provinces have mixed populations as does Baghdad and most other major cities.[/quote]
  
  Wrong tense. Had mixed populations. Give it another 6 months and outside Baghdad mixing with be pretty much non existiant.
  
  

  New diplomatic offensives which would target all of Iraqi's neighbors as well as intra iraqi groups to help work towards a peaceful Iraq. If Iraq were to devolve into further chaos and violence then it would be a problem for all of Iraqi's neighbors as well as other Arab countries.

  
  Not nearly as much as the strong Iraq you proposed at the start.
  
  
  

  Diplomacy means talking to people we don't like and that includes Iran and Syria. It would not be in either countries best interest for Iraq to devolve into further chaos.

  
  What were you planning on offering them?
  
  

  The U.S. should provide incentives for Iraq to progress. A clear message should be made to Nouri al-Maliki that if progress is not made soon then U.S. will be less willing to assist in training and aiding Iraq's growth. If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government.

  
  So you do support a pull out?
  
  

  George Bush should state clearly over and over again to the Iraqi people and the Arab world as a whole that does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq (Iraq can request temporary bases) and does not seek to have control of Iraqi's oil revenues.

  
  I doubt they trust him.
  
  
  

  De-Baathification..Unless the baathist party(Saddams party) is totally removed from political and national life in Iraq, Progress will be hampered.

  
  The Baath party being the one group with a proven tract record of keeping the place intact.
  
  

  Intra political diplomacy, The united states should aid in the diplomacy between the parties of Iraq with the exception of Al-Quaeda. Unless the parties get together and talk to each other then progress can't be made.

  
  I think it is fairly clear this has been tried.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Given the militry power of three of the countries on it's boarders and Israel that would basicaly require giving them nukes. That is however the most realistic part of the objectives.

Unless we worked to prevent Iraq and Syria from developing nuclear weapons and curbing it's aggression towards Iraq. Also if Iraq is a peaceful country then I doubt Israel would nuke them. You think they would?

Neither of those terms have any place in forigen imperial policy.

Well I've put them there.

Umm a rather more serious problem is that regional destabilization wouldn't happen.

I don't understand what you mean.

Wrong tense. Had mixed populations. Give it another 6 months and outside Baghdad mixing with be pretty much non existiant.

I don't understand what you mean here either.

Not nearly as much as the strong Iraq you proposed at the start.

Obviously

What were you planning on offering them?

They get the reality that Iraq isn't chaotic and millions of people aren't trying to get into their countries after fleeing Iraq as well as their national security. Chaotic Iraq threatens the national security of all of it's neighbors.

So you do support a pull out?

No.

I doubt they trust him.

It's worthy trying.

The Baath party being the one group with a proven tract record of keeping the place intact.

And killing innocent people...We can't have that in a peaceful democracy.

I think it is fairly clear this has been tried.

How much have we tried talking to Sadr?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

The definition of success should clearly be that Bush can walk through Baghdad on his own without any bother.

Sorry- I 've just realised he couldn't even do that at his own inauguration in Washington.

 

[geni]

Unless we worked to prevent Iraq and Syria from developing nuclear weapons and curbing it's aggression towards Iraq. Also if Iraq is a peaceful country then I doubt Israel would nuke them. You think they would?

Given the conventional militry power of Saudi Arabia, Turkery, and Iran I don't think that would matter very much. I assume Israel has contingency plans to attack pretty much every country in the area.

I don't understand what you mean.

If Iraq falls into a civil war and iran does not destablise then we have a problem.

I don't understand what you mean here either.

One of the effects of all the violence is that people have moved away from mixed areas.

They get the reality that Iraq isn't chaotic and millions of people aren't trying to get into their countries after fleeing Iraq as well as their national security. Chaotic Iraq threatens the national security of all of it's neighbors.

No nearly as much as a US able to carry out militry operations

No.

"If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government."

In short you support a pullout since it amounts to the same thing

And killing innocent people...We can't have that in a peaceful democracy.

It is just about posible you could have one or the other in Iraq.

How much have we tried talking to Sadr?

A bit. Waste of time though. See suppose we do bribe him into really accepting some kind of deal. One of two things happen:
a) he is dead within a week
b) breakaway group turns up which leaves us with one of two options:

back Sadr giving him money and weapons
Let him lose and rely on the next person not being as competant as he is.

The classic historical case would be what the british did with Michael Collins although it is a fairly standard imperalist tactic if you have the nerves.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Given the conventional militry power of Saudi Arabia, Turkery, and Iran I don't think that would matter very much. I assume Israel has contingency plans to attack pretty much every country in the area.

I don't believe that.

If Iraq falls into a civil war and iran does not destablise then we have a problem.

Iraq is already in a civil war and Iran won't destabilize even if it became even more chaotic. But it will be bad for Iran's national security.

One of the effects of all the violence is that people have moved away from mixed areas.

This isn't a good thing.

No nearly as much as a US able to carry out militry operations

If Iran is on friendly terms with U.S. then they wouldn't have to worry about U.S. carrying out military operations.

"If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government."

In short you support a pullout since it amounts to the same thing

No, Those are just threats, For motivational purposes.

It is just about posible you could have one or the other in Iraq.

I don't believe this either.

A bit. Waste of time though. See suppose we do bribe him into really accepting some kind of deal. One of two things happen:
a) he is dead within a week
b) breakaway group turns up which leaves us with one of two options:

back Sadr giving him money and weapons
Let him lose and rely on the next person not being as competant as he is.

The classic historical case would be what the british did with Michael Collins although it is a fairly standard imperalist tactic if you have the nerves.

Having the Mahdi army break up and splinter is obviously a good thing. Once this occurs and it would take several months to do so, we could have the Iraqi national guard and security forces beefed up to deal with them. They would be much weaker by then.

 

[egslim]

If Iran is on friendly terms with U.S. then they wouldn't have to worry about U.S. carrying out military operations.

But the question is who gets to define those terms. US goal is to increase its global hegemony, Iran's to strengthen its local sphere of inlfuence.

1 - If the US withdraws from Iraq and civil war erupts Iran has a chance to effectively satelite the Shi'a parts of Iraq, significantly increasing its influence in the region. That's a pretty big prize.

2 - On the other hand, if Iraq stabilises that means an increased US military presence on Iran's border, which would severely hamper Irans regional position.

From Irans point of view, why would they choose option 2 over 1?

 

[geni]

I don't believe that.

You think the Israeli militry is incompetant then?

Iraq is already in a civil war and Iran won't destabilize even if it became even more chaotic. But it will be bad for Iran's national security.

No more so than say haveing a large percentage of the US militry freed up.

This isn't a good thing.

It makes spliting up the country less problematic

If Iran is on friendly terms with U.S. then they wouldn't have to worry about U.S. carrying out military operations.

That isn't really very relivant.

No, Those are just threats, For motivational purposes.

Makeing a threat you won't follow up on is a bad move.

I don't believe this either.

Sadam showed it was posible to have one of them.

Having the Mahdi army break up and splinter is obviously a good thing. Once this occurs and it would take several months to do so, we could have the Iraqi national guard and security forces beefed up to deal with them. They would be much weaker by then.

Not remotely. See in order to bribe Al-Sadr you would have to make it at least appear that he is going to keep his current level of power. So that means giving him guns tanks artillerly etc. Iraqi national guard couldn't touch him.

 

[davefoc]

Interesting article in Slate on just how tough the situation is in Iraq and why, what seem like good ideas, probably won't work:
http://www.slate.com/id/2159460/fr/flyout

 

[WildCat]

But the question is who gets to define those terms. US goal is to increase its global hegemony, Iran's to strengthen its local sphere of inlfuence.

1 - If the US withdraws from Iraq and civil war erupts Iran has a chance to effectively satelite the Shi'a parts of Iraq, significantly increasing its influence in the region. That's a pretty big prize.

2 - On the other hand, if Iraq stabilises that means an increased US military presence on Iran's border, which would severely hamper Irans regional position.

From Irans point of view, why would they choose option 2 over 1?

I think Iran's ideal option is for the status quo to continue. A complete US pullout will result in a full-scale civil war, and Iran will be forced to try to do something about it and back the Shia. The Saudis, and perhaps Syria and Jordan would aid the Sunnis. Iran is not in any position economically to get deeply involved in Iraq, involvement would likely destabilize the Iranian theocracy. But while the US has the option of leaving the area, Iran does not.

My feeling is, give Iran what they want... it's far more than they can handle.

It is clear that the US and other western nations aren't willing to take the steps Saddam did to keep the place together. It's also clear that the Iraqis prefer an enormous bloodbath before they sort things out politically.

 

[egslim]

I think Iran's ideal option is for the status quo to continue. A complete US pullout will result in a full-scale civil war, and Iran will be forced to try to do something about it and back the Shia. The Saudis, and perhaps Syria and Jordan would aid the Sunnis. Iran is not in any position economically to get deeply involved in Iraq, involvement would likely destabilize the Iranian theocracy. But while the US has the option of leaving the area, Iran does not.

Leaving the area would mean for the US to give up its position of global hegemony, highly unlikely to happen voluntarily. Persian Gulf oil is simply too valuable for that.
I think Iran and Syria would be able to make a deal about dividing Iraq into spheres of influence, their interests there (a stable area outside US influence) coincide and they've cooperated before.