Well, there's an old saying that if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. Since it is obvious that neither party has a clue beyond the slogan du jour and I can't tell one candidate's benchmarks from another's timetables, I say cut and run. NOW.

If Iraq resembles Afghanistan after the Soviet regime collapsed is that tolerble?

No.

Would the various sides reach an accomodation with each other?

Possible.

Would various sides pull they co-religionists into the war and cause regional chaos?

Possible.

Might that be a good thing?

Is Genocide a good thing.

Never mind.

Your answer is no.

You mean the way they planned out the occupation?

Famous sayings of BradtheDad: Will someone put that woman out of her misery?

A big problem is that the powers-that-be in Iraq do not want peace. When analyzing the situation in Iraq, Americans tend to do what Americans do best; namely, put the U.S. at the centerpiece of the struggle as if we shape what happens. "America is losing the war" or "The Americans are falling right into the strategic trap set by the Sunni's."

While perhaps partly true, the reality is that the 'Americans' have been almost completely marginalized in Iraq. Whether by design or by accident, U.S. forces no longer play a determining factor in Iraq.

The real power-wielders are the Sunni's and the Shia. They are mercilessly fighting one another, not particularly interested in what role the Americans play.

Why? Because the U.S., as it always seems to do in cases like this, is attempting to appease both sides. In one section of Baghdad the Sunni's will be aided, and in others, the Shiites. The U.S. has, as mentioned, been marginalized.

It is possible that this draw-down in U.S. operations is intentional as opposed to being strictly a consequence of tactical defeat. But that is for the military experts to decide.

I tend to disagree with that position. The US is the principal force fueling hostilities. The following comments are mine, excerpted from another argument.

Without American policy to provide the energy for centrifugal forces it really is an open question as to whether the trend would continue and how far it would go.

For instance, the American occupation had the effect of suppressing secular nationalists. Baathists, Communists, Labour Unions, Intelligentsia, Bureaucrats and Military types who were committed to a national Iraq.

In the suppression of these groups and the dismantling of the apparatus of national state, the US guaranteed that the only people who could provide services or attract a following would be regionalists. Removing the United States would potentially remove an impediment to secularists and nationalists, reformed Baathists, the former military, the bureaucracy, to come together. It would at least allow people another option than the regionalist forces your country has been feeding.

Remember, your existence deforms the map. The United States licenses the Shiites, oppresses the Sunnis and gives the Kurds a free hand.

What this means is that the Kurds are free to pursue their ambitions without any restriction at all. And they've pursued ambitions in Iran and Turkey unfortunately. They've also pursued ambitions by ethnic cleansing in Kirkuk and borderline areas. The Kurds know that no matter what they do, America's got their back, so they do anything they want. That's just human nature.

The Sunnis on the other hand are screwed. American dissolution of the Army, rupture of the civil service, deBaathification, and institutional corruption have consistently confined to disenfranchise and oppress them. Previously they represented a highly skilled, educated population quite active in business, government and the army. They were shut out of all of that, and American policies were most actively hostile to them, both in military and civilian senses. That's why the Sunni's have lead the resistance.

Despite this, however, in the second election, the Sunnis turned out massively, and were clearly prepared to participate in the political process. Despite this, they were consistently denied a seat at the table, in parliament, in drafting a constitution, in any sort of politics. The puppet government is a sham, but the Sunnis found it the most hollow of all. The war continues.

Clearly the Sunnis are prepared to participate in government. Clearly they are not willing to tolerate being excluded. And clearly they were excluded.

This exclusion was partly or principally by the United States. But at the same time, the Kurds had no motive whatsoever to participate or relate to the Sunnis. Indeed, it was against the interests of the Kurds to work with the Sunnis... that would have interfered with or obstructed ethnic cleansing of Kirkuk. The Shiites also had no motive to have the Sunnis sit at the table with them. The United States provided cover for the Shiites to consolidate power. American suppression of Sunnis created a vaccuum that Shiites moved into throughout Iraqi society.

Meanwhile the Shiites found themselves in a relatively favoured though frustrated position. Second fiddle to the Kurds, their best strategy was to demand whatever the Kurds were having and grab everything they could while they could.

The result is that America created and imposed a dysfunctional political balance. The American presence maintained and reinforced that dysfunction.

American departure means that the Kurds lose a lot of weight, the Shiites lose some advantage, and the Sunnis gain advantage.

However, clearly, the Sunnis gain is not sufficient for them to regain control of the country. Hence, it is in their interests to negotiate. The Shiites, still dominant but weakened, also have an interest to negotiate. In neither case is it in their interests to liquidate the population, indeed, such actions would be counterproductive.

The Kurds whose position has weakened most dramatically cannot hope to defeat either the Shiites alone, or the Sunni and Shiites together. The Kurds best option would be to ally with the Sunnis in negotiations to balance with the Shiites. In which case, the Kurds would have to leave off ethnic cleansing, because they need the Sunnis.

In each case there would be a strong incentive on the part of each major faction to find a tolerable basis for compromise.

There is currently, no basis for the communities to compromise and work together, and every incentive for them to compete and undercut each other.

I'm going to explain this very carefully to you.

Large areas of Iraq are ethnically mixed. In the north there is a large mixed area containing the cities of Kirkuk and Mosul, which also contains the oil fields. The mixture is Sunni and Kurd. Large number of Turkmen and Assyrians live there as well.

In the center and southeast east, there is a large mixed area containing the city of Baghdad. The mixture is principally Sunni and Shiites, though Baghdad also contains large numbers of Kurds. Baghdad has no oil, but as the largest city and center of infrastructure it is the economic engine that drives much of the country.

In the event that devolution or partition becomes the way that the Iraqi's end up going. If it is the option that the United States chooses, then these ethnically mixed areas will have to be divided between competing groups.

In such an event, the question of whether a particular region will go Sunni or Kurd, or Sunni or Shiite will depend on the predominant ethnic make up of the region.

However, the territory is not neutral in character. Some of the most critical lands in Iraq are in these areas. Without the oil fields of Kirkuk, the Kurds do not have an economic foundation. At the same time, if the Kurds take Kirkuk, the Sunni have no oil reserves. Baghdad is the largest Shiite city, the largest Sunni city and the largest Kurdish city. It is of vital importance to both Sunni and Shiite. The stakes are immensely high.

Remember, Iraq has not had a census in decades, so the ratios of population are often guesses - estimates of the Turkmen population, for instance, range from 200,000 to 2,000,000. The Shiites and the Kurds may be 20% of the population each, or as low as 15%, or somewhere in between.

In addition to population uncertainty, there is historical uncertainty. Kirkuk has been claimed as historically a Sunni city, historically a Kurdish city, and historically a Turkmen city. What history, whose and whens, is applicable?

Not only is there a lot riding on control of the mixed areas, but there's a lot of uncertainty as to who has the best claim.

The best way to ensure control of the mixed area is to create 'facts on the ground'. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase.

'Facts on the ground' are created by ensuring that your population is dominant in an area... by flooding it with your own people, by displacing or forcing out the locals, or by killing them.

Flooding is good, but it still leaves the trouble of a recalcitrant local population which will resist violently.

Even if the local population is driven out (and there are currently 1.5 million Iraqi refugees) they still have their claims and might return, as the Kurds are claiming the right to return to Kirkuk.

So, the real and permanent solution is to kill them. Go into an area, kill all the Sunnis, and hey, its a Kurdish village. Go into an area, kill all the Shiites, and hey, its a Sunni village.

There's a wrinkle in that the Turkmen have nowhere to go. They're stuck. Their preference is for a national state which will give them rights. This sets them against the Kurds.

In the north, Kirkuk makes it a zero sum game. Whoever controls Kirkuk and its oil fields has a viable economy. Who doesn't... doesn't. In the south, the situation is only a little less desperate.

The inevitable result of partition is ethnic cleansing, mass migration and genocide for those people living in mixed areas, Turkmen, Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.

Is it clear, now?

That link doesn't work (even if you add the missing "h" to the beginning of it.

But don't leave us all in suspense! Who is this "most respected man in uniform today" that Sields speaks of? And what stupid thing did David Brooks say in response?

I think I remember Iraq holding an election, forming a government, and being told they were the sovereign government in Iraq.  So, why are we not doing as the Iraq government is requesting?  They want a date when we will be out of their country, out in total, no more Americans there, no more American troops there.  We can all display our expertise in all things Iraqi, and debate how it should be handled there, but the sovereign government of Iraq has told us what to do.  Let's do it.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Hoppy

It is my understanding that the leaders of the Iraqi government want the United States to stay for some time. You support that request?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Y'know Dude, looking over my post, I can acknowledge that I'm unnecessarily rude. Please accept my apologies for being sarcastic and condescending. I'm sorry I've hurt yuor feelings.

On the other hand, I'm also right. And I have laid out very clearly for you the factors which will result in ethnic cleansing and genocide under specific circumstances.

Yes, I am clever, and perhaps smug. But there's no ideology there, and quite a lot of thought.

Now, you may be so upset with my sarcasm that you are unable to see this. That's regretable. But at this point, I've done what I can.

Sorry about the lousy link, didn't work for me either. Try this one:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/sl_10-27.html

Shields refused to reveal the name and Rich Lowry was appalled at the notion of leaving Baghdad.

Concepts such as honor, guts and feelings seem remarkably absent from your analysis.

Quite right and deliberately so. By and large, the populations of the middle east have been remarkably pragmatic, if for no other reason than that they have thousands of years of experience dealing with the realities of more powerful neighbors.

Honour may be a very good basis for personal dealings, Guts may be a recipe for suicidal valour, and feelings always very nice.

But they aren't the whole story. And in respect of how the Iraqi's negotiate their way through their impasses, its not terribly relevant.

Consider the Arab proverb, 'Enemy of my enemy is my friend.' This speaks to a highly situational view of morality and honour. Equally 'Revenge is a dish best served cold' speaks to power inequalities, deferred grievance and time.

The Iraqi's are well aware that changing circumstances change opportunities and handicaps. They are well aware that different circumstances call for different approaches. Their culture is famous for haggling in the Souk.

Doing the 'right' thing is usually a function of wealth. Doing the 'advantageous' thing is a function of necessity.

The Kurds chose to work with the US because the US gives them everything they want. The Shiites chose to work with the US because they believe that this will get them where they want. The Sunni opposed the United States because they got the back of the hand. Simple pragmatism.

But even there, other pragmatic strategies were employed. The Sunnis and Sunni political parties participated in the second election and political process in the hopes that they could become part of the national dialogue... they were excluded.

Sadr represented an indigenous Shiite constituency which found itself at odds with the Americans and battled them twice. yet Sadr volunteered to become part of the political process, like the Sunni. He's done better at finding a voice within the political process... yet the Americans would like to see him and his militia eliminated.

This is very important. Two major anti-American constituencies were willing to come to the table and join the political process, rather than demanding conquest or surrender. Where does honour, guts and feelings fit into this? It doesn't. It's pragmatism.

In my view, there likelihood is that the parties conduct will shift in response to the shifting balance of power between them. The Kurds are not suicidal, rather, they have a history of negotiating with the South, including with Saddam Hussein. The Sunni have demonstrated that they'll sit at the table if there's anything offered to them. Sadr will work within a framework.

They're not Klingons. They're people.

It's more than possible that the conflicts now fuel eachother hatred-wise to such a degree that the point of no return is passed. If so, we might not see the end of the war until the parties start feeling exhausted. As usual, the civilians will feel exhausted first.

You are correct. It is possible that the point of no return is past. Or at least that it is rapidly being approached.

My own view is that despite a steadily worsening situation, it is not there yet.

The Shiite 'death squads' that contaminate units of the army and police are 'death squads'. They don't have popular support, they are not well grounded. If they were, people like Sadr and Maliki wouldn't be denouncing them. They wouldn't have to go skulking around.

By the same token, the most vicious elements among the Sunnis are generally conceded to be a marginal element on a political spectrum whose other end includes mainstream politics.

Frankly, if we were past the point of no return, there wouldn't be a Sunni political spectrum, and Shiite death squads would not be criticized.

All too often we employ confused definitions when we talk about 'moderate Arabs'. All too often, the 'moderate arab' is the Arab who is willing to do what we want... recognize Israel, sell oil cheap, lower trade barriers, support the Iraq occupation, sit on their hands over Lebanon.

But I think that it is meaningless to characterize Arab politics in terms of how they relate to our priorities.

I think that the better approach would be to characterize Arab politics in terms of how they relate to each other.

By this yardstick, I think that the evidence shows that there is a large moderate Shiite and Sunni constituency which, in the right circumstances, can bring their radical elements under control.

The reason they do not bring these elements under control is the presence of the United States. A malignant foreign entity who is not connected and who can be expelled.

But without the US, a lot of the power and forces driving radicalism dissipate. So theoretically, it should be possible for the different sides to cooperate.

I'm usually a pessimist, but I think that if you remove an irritant, then at least the irritation goes away, and you can possibly solve other problems.

It may be possible for the neighbor armies to remain in their garrissons, but the likelyhood would increase tremendously if there was a diplomatic agreement giving their governments greater gains than they could hope for from a military involvement. That would be expensive, and hardly the path of choise for any American government.

What country would willingly occupy Iraq, or parts of it, if they could avoid it.

An Iranian occupation of Shiite territories would only antagonize the Shiites and any further would continue open warfare with Kurds and Sunnis.

Neither Saudi Arabia nor Syria is prepared to occupy Sunnistan. And the last thing the Turks want is more Kurds under their rule.

Now, when Iraq is bombed half-way back to the Stone Age, and most of their educated middle class families on their way to refuges abroad, why not let a neatly contained Civil Unrest complete the work we've commenced?

How much of that Civil Unrest is the United States directly responsible for, through the El Salvador option? How much of it is the United States directly responsible for through its dismantling of every institution of national governance and failure to install anything in its place? How much of it comes about because America continues to bomb the country back to the stone age?

Right now, the US Army has had Sadr City, three million people, under five days of Siege over one missing soldier. Think of the effects of this action on infrastructure, on employment, on the local economy, on the radicalisation of the population.

It's quite possible that if you remove a toxic parasite, the patients natural processes will arrest the damage and allow healing.

Unless of course, the damage is too great. In which case, the patient dies whether you remove the toxic parasite or not. But the evidence is that is not a good reason to leave the toxic parasite in place, since it guarantees the outcome.

For us, it would at least seem less expensive, wouldn't it? The oil in the ground won't disappear.

Very true and machiavellian. But the odds are that in an American departure, you'll never ever see that oil. 'Feelings' may well come into it, in that, all else being equal, the Iraqi's will prefer to deal with other nations.

So, why not let the Iraqis fight eachother off?

Isn't that what the El Salvador option is really all about? Isn't that what the puppet Iraqi government and puppet Army is really about? Iraqi's killing other Iraqi's on our behalf?

After all, they are just ragheads. Who cares about Kurds or Arab civilians?

Who indeed?

We should leave whenever the Iraqi government wants us to go. However, it is my understanding that the Iraq government, if not the people, what the U.S. Miltary to stay in Iraqw a lot longer than most of the people here at TPMCafe.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

We might just have to if we want to keep the current regime in place...being kind, al-Maliki doesn't have wide popular support.  On this course and at this rate I am thinking in terms of decades not months or years...

Wha??? Well, I don't know who Transhuman is, or for that matter who Sammy Sosa or Harold Baines is. But from the context, I assume that the inference is negative.

I don't think that there's any relationship between Transhuman's presence or absence or mine. Certainly there's no 'trade' that I'm aware of. I'm on this merry go round not by any invitation, but in part because I haven't been kicked off. As I understand it, it is an open house and anyone can visit. In that sense, the metaphor, while negative, seems misguided.

I think that I'm being gratuitously insulted here.

Well that's harsh. True, I am occasionally arrogant, condescending and insulting. I argue my points with great conviction, seldom let go, and make no bones about my views.

I could definitely be more polite in dealings with people - I do make the effort, occasionally I recognize my lapse and apologize. I never take it personally, and I don't judge people by my disputes. I've gone brutally toe to toe with Gettysberg and Zionista, yet at other times we've had very agreeable discussions, and occasionally we're in tight agreement. How we set too on a particular issue doesn't generally affect my judgement of them overall.

On the other hand, I've noted that Daniel Greenbaum is prone to denouncing as 'anti-semites' people who disagree with him on Israel. BradtheDad feels free to call for the death of people who disagree with him. There are other examples.

So it seems that I'm not the sole author of bad behaviour, and I'd frankly dispute being the worst offender.

As to whether what I have to say is worth listening to, I'd note that when ratings were on, the largest proportion of my ratings scored at four, often large numbers of fours, for what its worth.

It seems that you've conceived a dislike for me, Ellen. Well... okay. I think its pointless, but what the heck. I might assume it has something to do with the tussle we've had over 'elites' and their entitlement and ability or lack thereof to deal with foreign policy. But frankly, I'm not much engaged. We'll likely never meet, and never have any relationship beyond a few exchanges in this forum on different subjects, so the question of like or dislike or why isn't all that critical or interesting to me. If you find my style unnecessarily abrasive, well, occasionally I'll find myself agreeing with that.

But frankly, this is a forum for discussion of issues, rather than picking out friends and enemies, deciding who the cool kids and the nerds are etc.

So let me put it to you, Ellen. I've laid out a set of ground rules or principles which suggest that under the right (wrong) conditions, we could well wind up with massive ethnic cleansing and local genocides in Iraq.

I'm either right or wrong about this. If I'm wrong, then explain the flaw in the argument.

I think that you are in a tricky area here. The Iraqi 'government' is largely a creature of the United States. The U.S. set out the rules for its formation, managed and manipulated the elections, interfered with the selection of the Prime Minister, and operates without the consent or knowledge of the Government.

Maliki was not advised of the raids into Sadr city, which suggests that he has no control or influence over the US military or the occupation. Indeed, Maliki has little to no control over the Iraqi Army, which is being operated and directed by American advisors. On the other hand, as we've seen, the United States seems to be at liberty to dictate various terms to him with regard to schedules and timetables.

The government is so insecure and so powerless, that it meets in and operates out of the Green Zone. So there's really a question as to whether the Iraqi government is a meaningful entity or a finger puppet.
No one cares what finger puppets say. So even if the Iraqi government asked the US to remain... would it matter? Or would it simply be American ventriloquism?

In terms of support for America, recent polls suggest that 61% of Iraqi's support attacks on Americans. We can probably exclude Kurds from this. But if we do, that leaves about 80 to 85% of the population as Shiites and Sunnis. Approximately 75% to 80% of those support attacks on Americans.

That's pretty much a suggestion that perhaps America should leave, no matter how good its ventriloquism.