Rachel,

I have no expertise in such things, but it seems to me the sort of population transfer you are contemplating would be a massive and complex logistical undertaking, requiring intensive security and humanitarian coordination. Any surge in military deployments designed to support it could not be either short or sudden. It would have to be extended and extremely well-planned.

We would have to recognize in advance that just as some people might now desire to leave certain areas now where opposing militias are threatening them, if they do decide to leave they might then face attacks from their own sectaries who regard them as turncoats or deserters, and want them to stay where they are to continue to exert pressure on their enemies, and to maintain a demographic foundation for territorial ambitions.

We should also expect in some cases severe resistance from the communities the transferees wish to move to, who may not like the idea of absorbing vast new populations of newcomers. But if the idea is that people would not just up and move spontaneously to spots of their own choosing, but would have to be directed and relocated to particular spots, then I think you can glimpse the massive bureaucratic preparations that would be required for this.

We also have to recognize that the US is itself a provocative presence in Iraq. A contingent of troops that is tasked to protect a large convoy of refugees may in fact end up, despite their intentions, by drawing fire on those refugees rather than protecting them.

And finaally, we must avoid at all cost the establishment of large refugee camps in Iraq, unless we want to set the stage for a half century of conflict of the sort we have had in Palestine since 1948.

I do think Iraq is in a civil struggle over unity vs. fragmentatation, and I do agree that we have an obligation to work to prevent ethnic cleansing, terrorism, homeless refugees and the other calamities associated with this kind of conflict. My first instict is that for such a project we would have to get much assistance from surrounding states, and those states own relief organizations. These people speak the language, know the customs, understand religious and tribal sensitivities, have trusted representatives on the ground and have greater overall credibility among the various Iraqi populations. It might be the case that the US can assist in security. But the most important assistance would probably come in the form of money.

There are 30 million people in Iraq. We're not talking here about some sort of quick game of terrotorial musical chairs, which can be accomplished in a couple of days or weeks. Do you think we can just set aside a few nights for some spur-of-the-moment population transfering, and then tell Iraqis interested in moving to call the Green Zone when they're ready to go, to request their own personal soldier-escort?

One of the safer and more defensible areas in which Iraqis could resettle is America. Do you have any ideas about what sorts of policies we should establish for Iraqi emmigration to America. I assume we are at least going to have to allow our closest allies in Iraq, the ones who will be most vulnerable to reprisals in the future, with some safe passage out.

I appreciate the courage of anyone willing to address this very real dilemna against a backdrop of ideological posturing and fear mongering. I agree that those advocating withdrawal must acknowledge the de facto acceeding of power to the Shiia and Kurdish factions which hold a strong majority, both in terms of demographics and weapons.

I am no military expert, far from it, and so only speculate that a refugee exodus can be facilitated with the existing troop strength in Iraq. Consider how many people have re-located in the last six months with no facilitacion.These are of course the people of means, primarily,but I believe once the terms of a "settlement"ie Shiia victory, have been established, an orderly evacuation can be accomplished through airlifts,carriers etc. The key is Saudi cooperation, which ought to be the one thing the Bush Group could accomplish.

As to "security vacuum", what exists there currently is far worse than a vacuum, it is more like a black hole.The ability of our "good friends" the Turks and Israelis to resist provoking Iran will be crucial in stabilizing the situation.

I am frustrated by how little conversation I hear on any side of the political spectrum about whether we have a responsibility to the citizens of Iraq.

I think we've heard a lot of about this from the liberal side of the spectrum, like, before the war even started. Or when reports came in that Iraqi deaths hit 100K. When you drop bombs on people, they tend to die in large numbers.

The Iraqi people want us out -- leaving would be a good way of showing some responsibility to them.

There is already a security vacuum, and we've long past the point where we can actually do something about it. And we actually don't really know what, exactly, would happen if we left. Any talk of the violence worsening, etc, are just theories.

In fact, just knowing Bush and Cheney say that us leaving would make things worse makes me believe us leaving can only make things better. Simple? Yes. But the track record is there.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Aside from the impracticality of this idea, what I find most distressing is the lack of empathy for the Iraqis. Let me put it this way - if another nation was to invade and occupy this country, partition and apportion it according to religious/ethnic groupings, would you resent it? Would you want to sell everything, leave everything you've worked for in your life, trek across the country and live in a refugee camp with no hope of making a living, having a career, proper medical care, decent, habitable schools for your children, your family crammed into a tent for years to come? And all of this because someone you don't know, that you didn't invite into your life, that knows nothing about you or your family thinks it is a solution to the havoc and destruction they've caused?

How do you propose to feed and lodge and care for these people? Provide water and power and housing and education, without troops, even with minimal troops, how would we administer these human beings?

There is something so arrogant, so unrealistic, so cavalier about the lives of the Iraqi people, so lacking in empathy and sympathy for others, so devastatingly selfish with these "policy makers" that it is truly frightening.

We have not learned anything.

... I believe the inevitable refugee flows after a pull out will draw quite a bit of fire, and the question is whether the increment of fire our troops themselves would draw is not far, far offset by the element of protection they could offer.

That is a good way of putting the question. But I think we should explore the posibility that the US, as one of the combattants in this war, is not the best positioned to execute what is in effect a transition - at least partial - to a new stage and a postwar stabilization and pacification operation. It is very hard for an army to shift from combattant to peacekeeper after it has fought for years building up a very long list of enemies in country. The sort of operation you're describing is the sort of thing the UN is supposed to be good at, and in which it has a lot of experience. Maybe we need some blue helmets for this?

Rather than addressing this question with the typical US "What can and should we do?" self-absorption, we should address with others the question: "What can and should the world do about Iraq?" before proceeding to the subsidiary question "What is the most constructive US role in the best overall global approach?"

I would simply rather we start facing the fact of these refugee movements head on, rather then playing catch up after the killings begin in earnest and the CNN effect forces to "do something" while we are in the midst of a troop redeployment.

Agreed ... 100%. And it would be good for our country to start having more public discussions like this, as it might shake the last Bushian total victory holdouts out of their ostrich holes.

But I don't think it is a good idea to discuss this important question in the context of Bush's surge proposal, as if it is just an alternative mission for the Bush's surging troops. It is not realistic or responsible to try something like this on the fly, as a half-baked political bailout for a poorly thought out deployment.

Supporting an escalation under any circumstances with these people in charge is foolhardy. They don't have any intention of withdrawing so we don't have to worry about refugees now anyway. Don't start offering to find ponies where none exists. Don't buy into any responsibility for this disaster until responsibility is yours. That's not going to happen with BushCo in power.

Here-here BevD! You are absolutely correct! We are an invading marauding attack force. We have no "responsibility" here, only guilt.

We should plan on an international force to plan the logistics needed to effectively begin to establish a stable government, make reparations to all infrastructure and help displaced people to re-settle, where they want. American should foot the entire bill, make a formal apology to the Iraqi people and arrest Bush, Cheney and party for war crimes.

Yours is the only practical solution to this cruelty we've deliberately inflicted upon these people.

Ms. Kleinfeld's "solution" is a cold piece of business, isn't it? It is not only coldly calculating, it still denies even the basic humanity of these people - that they're shooting us not because of any resentment at our invasion and occupation of their country, but because it's a way to make a few dinars, as though Iraqis are incapable of love for their country or anger and frustration at what we've made of their society.

It is this lack of understanding, of empathy that has led to this disaster - an inability to put themselves in the place of others and ask what they would do if the situation was reversed and they were here. Would they be burning with resentment, with frustration at the unfairness of it, would they be angry at the death and destruction and suffering caused by arrogance and disdain for them as human beings?

And all of this for what? So that we can beat up on people we don't even know and satisfy our greed and lust for revenge.

"Madness, madness..."

This would be an excellent strategy if our Commander in Chief wasn't a PR-obsessed fanatic. There are numerous points in this war where a given strategy MIGHT have worked if it had been properly planned and executed with the well-being of the Iraqis in mind. But the President has nearly always chosen to ditch that approach for short-term domestic political points.

Why should 2006 be any different from 2003 in that respect? Why do you think a troop surge intended to safeguard Iraqi civilians would be any more wisely used than the troops intended to protect Iraqi infrastructure, monitor Iraqi elections, or establish Iraqi security forces?

As a conservative who enjoys reading America Abroad, I agree that there should be serious consideration on both sides of the aisle about what we can do to dampen the plight of the Iraqis- apart from talk about "victory," which has ceased to be possible in any meaningful sense of the word. Jacob Weisberg's most recent article in Slate asks whether a stable post-invasion Iraq was ever possible. I agree with his conclusion that, regardless of the war's legitimacy and overall strategic value, it was possible to leave Iraq in a reasonable state (as opposed to the chaos we see now). Weisberg also noted that:

"Much left-wing criticism of the war sees American intervention as a kind of original sin."

Consequently, initiatives for reconstruction and stabilization, which the Iraqis badly needed, were tainted in the eyes of many opponents of the war. Which makes me worry that many liberals will be too angry at the fact of the war to explore whatever ameliorative options are available.
Sadly, those options are very few. I don't believe a surge will help- after continually dismissing the idea of a serious, fully manned occupation, the President's suggested addition of 20,000 troops won't restore order. But it WILL further strain the military. Also, I doubt we'd be able to coordinate something as complicated as large-scale relocation. As for UN peacekeepers, they'd be at far greater risk than when Sergio de Mello and his coworkers were killed in a terrorist bombing- an attack devastating enough to send the organization out of Iraq.
At this point, I think our choices are limited to damage control: trying to stop the civil war from spilling into Kurdistan and neighboring countries, and evacuating Iraqis who risked their lives working with Americans. Unfortunately, these kinds of measures are acknowledgements of failure, and therefore unlikely to be enacted by this administration. I wish we could stop this- but according to what little I've read concerning civil wars, outside powers are generally unable to end them. If it's too late for Iraq, maybe we can learn from our mistakes in dealing with the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

Yes, we do have to worry about refugees now - unless we do not care about them - since the number of refugees are continuously increasing.
Now.

The occupating army and its government most certainly have duties and responsibilities.

Among the most important are that of the security of the civilians.
- Also as refugees.

With exception of the surge-related reasoning, including the idea that transfer should be unprepared and unannounced, this piece by Rachel Kleinfeld is crucially important. (I can't get into my head how the matter of 20 or 30 thousand more troops can get this much attention. By now, one must wonder if even ten times as many would help.)

Kleinfeld here raises the debate above its sorrow state. For reasons hard to understand, the debate domestically in the U.S., aswell as internationally, seems to have become much more polarized in the last decade(s). In this polarization, most recently between them of the faith-based community and them who just want to abandon the Iraqi civilians, moral reasoning has been lacking.

The invasion has taken place, the occupation is a fact. The debate now can not be for or against what has already occured. It must be about how to handle the current situation, and how this will affect the future.

In this respect, it is much more productive to discuss long term goals and the troops' current tactics. Would it maybe, for instance, not be high time to stop bombing from the air, and to do our best to establish good relations with all warring factions on the ground?

To me, unless we wish to put another ruthless tyrant on the throne, recognizing the existing forces in Iraq must be a first precondition to any exit strategy and to any strategy to get an end to war sufferings.

Would involving troops from neighboring countries contribute to stabilization, or would it maybe just set the stage for a partition war over Iraq?

And it's high time for the discussion on how to relate to the ongoing partition of Iraq.

Given the Bush administration's track record, it seems rather unlikely that cooperation with its political opponents in the Congress would be its primary choice. But a responsible debate is needed despite that. After all, the people may actually elect a Democrat as the next president.

- - -

Beside the moral dimension, there is the issue of the destabilizing effects of an American withdrawal on the entire region and, not unlikely, on the world economy.
- But of course one could say it is immoral, too, to close one's eyes for that danger.

you may see an edit link beneath your post

I appreciate Rachel Kleinfeld's frequent posts about moral responsibility to Iraqis and helping Iraqis rather than just discussing how to get out of Iraq in a way that is best for the US.

I am skeptic whether the proposed resettlement is possible. It would take many years and be very expensive (in blood and money), thus I doubt whether Americans and Iraqis really want to try it.

IMHO many commentators here exaggerate the willingness and capabilities of the international community to help Iraqis.

A few examples:

DanK said
"The sort of operation you're describing is the sort of thing the UN is supposed to be good at, and in which it has a lot of experience."

No, the UN is not supposed to be good at this.
Besides, what experience are you talking about?

Do you remember the failure to protect safe havens in Srebrenica?

codegen86 said:
"As long as the US is in Iraq, the UN can't get in. No sane country will enter Iraq under US command and the US shows no signs of leaving."

US command is not the main reason, why my country (Germany) or why other countries don't want to get involved.

philNYC said:
"We should plan on an international force to plan the logistics needed to effectively begin to establish a stable government, make reparations to all infrastructure and help displaced people to re-settle, where they want."

What makes you think that this international force could turn things around now?

An international force might not have made the mistakes the US led coalition has made in the last few years, but this does not mean that an international force could lead Iraq to a success now.

Look at Afghanistan. NATO is failing in Afghanistan, as I wrote in the Atlantic Review with many excerpts of various editorials and reports.

Should Rachel Kleinfeld's proposed surge in troops for Iraq rather go to Afghanistan so that the US is not losing two wars?

Does anybody think that we can still win in Afghanistan?

My blog: The Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni
http://atlanticreview.org

The edit-link then disappears if someone has commented.

Rachel, I am not sure you are in favor of leaving or not. You Claim that things are bad now, but then you describe the complete and total nightmare that will follow and it is almost as if you are saying, "Our departure will cause hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of more deaths and suffering than the slow simmer we are in and probably engulf the entire Middle east and we might have to come back later, but Sorry it is the best thing to do,...and oh by the way, we feel really, really, guilty about it, which shows we care, Oh well, Good luck Refugees!".

It begs the question then, Why is it the best thing to do?

I agree with many of these nightmare scenarios. It will be an atomic detonation of blood cascading across the region.

Yet I hear people here, proposing Bosnian type partitions, Kosovo type Western authorized ethnic cleansing, Balkan type choosing winners, and all the time knowing that the Cambodian Killing fields will follow, but Hey, We gotta Redeploy, its a done deal!

Why don't we just sell Allied Van Lines to Ahmedinijad, so he can just start moving Shiites right over to Basra and Eastern Iraq. Maybe he can get his nukes a little closer to Israel.

Yes, You guys are right, Turkey will say all bets are off. They are taking Kirkuk, Mosul and the Northern Oil fields (Which by the way has recently been pumping a million barrels a day to a tender in Turkey). No EU carrot can compete with that gem. And speaking of the Balkans, If the Europeans couldn't figure out how to handle a hot war on their own continent, how will Turkey take a military threat serious from them. Done! Turkey gets the oil in the north, arguing they needed to prevent a Kurdish refugee crisis and a buffer zone.

And what about oil? What kind of partition are the Sunnis going to agree with when they get shoved out into the West with no oil? I wonder if this kind of frustration is how all those seemingly arbitrary lines were drawn up that carved the middle east up in 1917. What about the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala and the Mosque of Ali?

Yes, the Saudis will see that the Sunnis will wage war for eternity rather than let the Shiites have all the oil. The Saudis, will have to come in on their side arguing that they need to stop Ahmedinijad from Racing across to the west with paramilitary groups, proxies and eventually armies. Again, Who will stop him if the US is assured of not returning. The Persian gulf oil terminal will be mined to deny the Shiites access to the southern oil. Baghdad will make Beirut of the 70s look like Mayberry.

International tankers will be targeted. Kuwait will be cut off. Iran's "Mini me", Assad and his Baath party will push in from the northwest claiming to rescue its baathist brethren. Jordan will become swamped with refugees and will collapse. Zarkawi's Jordanian Jihadis will have their wish of an Islamist government (bordering Israel for anyone that might be interested, can you say Nuc-yalur).

In the midst of the chaos who can stop Lebanon from succumbing to Syria's renewed vigor. Who is going to stop them? Not us, we left. And how can we expect Afghani's to trust us when they see how we slit the throats of their neighbors? Welcome back Taliban. And who will be the new Caliph of Afghanistan? Osama himself!

In Libya, Qadafii will say, I had a WMD program once, I can do it again.

Those in this thread that claim that other Western nations (Europe) would go in if the US were not there are on blotter acid. The Russian Army will be a majority muslim Army within the decade at current rates of growth. France? Their current casualty rates of their police that are fighting their Intifada at home is higher than Americans in Baghdad. You think they could muster the political will to jump into that mess?

I still don't get this argument that we "redeploy" now cause there is chaos in Iraq, but as you say Rachel, if it gets REALLY chaotic then we come back. The whole drumbeat to leave is because you think it is chaotic now. How does more chaos sound the trumpet for the Center left or anybody for that matter to say, let's get in there and do it again.

We tried that. We left in 1991 and said we would come back unless everybody behaved. We came back. This is like taking the village by day and surrendering it by night. One shot. You threaten to come back and finish the job ONLY once.

We are fighting enemies that think in terms of decades of war. Our News channels were running the word Quagmire on a headline crawl at the bottom of the screen every hour before we even reached Baghdad Airport.

I have to admit, I admire you for speaking up and acknowledging the fuse we are lighting by "Redeploying". No one is going back in there if we leave.

The slow simmer doesn't look so bad compared to the new caliphate nightmare scenario.

If only our channel surfing, immediate gratification society had patience, maybe we can find a way to avoid those millions of deaths.

If we leave now, we make true the phrase we once laughed openly at. Saddam stabs at us from the grave. "1991" would be "the Mother of all Battles".

The Troop surge part of your argument is sounding real good about now.

The "living expenses" part is supposed to be sarcastic, right?