Iraq: Bosnia II?
It’s difficult to find anyone these days that doesn’t think a civil war exists in Iraq. Sure, there’s some Al-Qaeda elements in the Sunni community, but from the accounts I’ve read, it accounts for less than 10% (and probably closer to 5%) of the current violence.
From Army General David H. Petraeus, U.S. Commander in Iraq (March 9, 2007):
Ultimately, he said, the solution in Iraq would have to be a political one.
“Any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq,” he said. “Military action is necessary to help improve security … but it is not sufficient.”
A “surge†doesn’t provide a political solution. Immediate troop withdrawal doesn’t provide a political solution.
But this idea does. From today’s Washington Post:
The central unresolved questions in Iraq are: Who rules, and how? The heart of the problem is the Shiite-Sunni competition for power: Shiite parties see no reason to give up the gains they made after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, and they believe it is their turn to govern; the Sunnis cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that they no longer dominate the Iraqi state. Trust between the two is at a low ebb, and each side feels an existential threat that makes compromise difficult.
The United States must focus above all on an Iraqi compact. In 1995, after a war that left hundreds of thousands dead, a frustrated international community finally decided that the parties to the conflict in Bosnia had to be brought to the negotiating table. The Serbs, Croats and Bosnians were pressed to convene in Dayton and pressured by other nations to stay at it. The Dayton Accords were ratified by the key parties and overseen by the international community, and they have kept the peace in Bosnia.
A Dayton-like process for Iraq would be a multi-tiered international engagement. At its heart would be an Iraqi national compact forged by Iraqis with international and regional endorsement. The process would require certain indispensable elements.
First, there must be a strong and credible driving force behind the process; the United States is best placed to be that driving force but need not be alone in this task. Second, the process must have a credible sponsor, such as the United Nations, and high-profile, skilled facilitators. Third, the single objective must be producing a Sunni-Shiite agreement as the cornerstone of the national compact. Fourth, Iraqi groups must be represented at the highest decision-making level. Fifth, the discussions and negotiations should be sustained until the necessary compromises have been made and agreements reached. Sixth, mechanisms for implementing the agreement have to be spelled out — with a timetable.
Finally, concerned countries, including Iraq’s neighbors, must ratify this accord and agree to respect it. Once a national compact has been reached, it should be linked to other regional and international mechanisms and accords, such as the International Compact for Iraq, with its system of benchmarks, achievements, and Iraqi and international obligations.
Now this makes sense!
More News and Commentary for Moderates
â€â€™Moderate’ is not a 4-letter word.â€
opinions powered by SendLove.to
14 Responses to “Iraq: Bosnia II?”
This is so terribly sad in that it makes such sense. But it’s 2007 and not 2004, and the chance of there being any kind of compact is zero.
The big news of the last week is not the kerfuffle over the Iraqi Parliament’s summer recess, increased mortar attacks in the Green Zone, Cheney’s visit to Baghdad or the House preparing to vote on another funding bill that the president will veto.
It is the slowly dawning awareness in the mainstream media that most Iraqis want the U.S. out now. What will happen to Iraq is simply and incontrovertably out of the control of anyone.
There are some aspects that are similar but I’m not sold. Yugoslavia was broken up and Bosnia was part civil-war (both within the new country and the greater Yugoslav civil war) and invasion (since technically Serbia and Croatia were already new countries). In any case, it was driven by discrete sides that already had their own countries, something that’s not present in Iraq. No side in Iraq wants to partition right now. Plus, Bosnia was driven by actual armies and command structure whereas Iraq is driven by militias and terrorists. What no one wants to admit is that part of the reason why the political situation hasn’t improved is that there is no figurehead representing each group and that all the various groups have some overlapping interests but overall are still rivals. (After all Sadr’s politicians still work with Sunni ones to try to get us out even though his men were doing most of the Sunni killing).
I’d say “Iraq: Kosovo II?” is an equally valid question. In Kosovo the minority Serbs were targeted by the Albanians, Milosevic came in and consolidated power and then started a genocide, and now that the UN is governing we’re the only thing that is keeping the Albanians from responding in kind and the situation is stagnant.
I dare say that we are not a credible force in Iraq. Most Iraqis know that we have not been a stabilizing, competent source of good for them since 1991.
Chris,
Wow! I was just about to jump on that phrase too! Can’t be too many times when a Trotskyite and a Reaganite align on something! LOL!
I’m noticing too that with all the PhD’s in Cynicism and Criticism in residence here, there is, so far, a factual dearth of proposed action.
Clearly, Bush and Cheney have no credibility, indeed they are documented liers. And you just skewered Rice already this morning, so it ain’t the State Dept.
So, now that something actually could be contributed……instead of what you don’t want……war……nobody has any ideas.
Surely, the UN exists just for such a circumstance? How about Jimmy Carter? How about Nancy Pelosi?
Come to think about it, if you believe the US should never have gone into Iraq, I guess we should have never let them hang Saddam…….now he WOULD have a solution.
CO,
Although I’m not sure if I like being called a Trotskyite, but at least you didn’t label me a Leninist.
It’s nice to see we agree on something
Anyways,
We need a true Arab state/international coalition, probably the UN, to take over in Iraq. But that means our dear leaders need to give up the pipe-dream of permanent U.S. superbases in Iraq and control over the oil spigot. Which is something the Republicans and the Democrats still agree is not an option.
Um I’ve seen the current idea proposed a lot and supported across the ideological spectrum on this site.
Cut forces by a ton with the remaining going to Kurdistan.
Do surgical strikes against “Al Qaeda” (I personally would limit this to international figures of which I’m not sure there are any in Iraq)
Deploy more forces in Afghanistan
Open negogiations with the Turks to try to solve the Kurdish problem.
Try to get the surrounding countries to make sure that the civil war doesn’t spill over the borders and use our influence to try and make sure that no country gets an upper hand in a way where it’d try to dominate the region and start a regional war.
Offer support to central Iraqi government when and if they form a government that contains all the key players and is making progress towards non-sectarianism.
Chris said:
> We need a true Arab
> state/international
> coalition, probably
> the UN, to take over
> in Iraq.
Arab League, first and foremost. They talk a good deal; what can they do?
A UN peacekeeping force is probably what many people have in mind, though the record of such forces is not very good.
I like Mikkel’s plan.
OK, fine, mikkel’s plan………who does the negotiations in the penultimate paragraphs?
If you are going to make me suffer the ignomy of going to Appomattox, I sure don’t want to hang around and broker the deals with the carpetbaggers.
More pragmatically, I haven’t been able to get these xxxxx-heads to do much of anything for the last 4 years. Time for someone else to hoist the yolk.
“OK, fine, mikkel’s plan………who does the negotiations in the penultimate paragraphs?”
Obviously people will disagree but in my opinion we take the point and if Europeans want to join then fine. With the Turks it would negotiation in the truest sense of the word. After all, they are dying to become a part of the EU and have a strong relationship with us and Israel. They are a well formed secular government that is scared of both Iran and Saudi Arabia. I have no idea why they treat the Kurds like they do. Both the Kurds and Turks could become modern and cosmopolitan countries (not to mention a lot safer) if they stopped the animosity, so it’s up to us to try to broker a new era.
With everyone else it’s less negotiation give and take and more pointing out that a war is in no one’s interest. I personally think we should defend Israel, northern Lebanon, the Kurds and Turkey if they ask (and possibly UAE and other small pro-US states, but I dunno because they are highly authoritarian and have lots of internal strife that is covered up) because they are trying to make something of themselves. If the other countries want to battle it out then fine, I don’t think we should stop them.
I am aware this is a heartless outlook but the problem is that there is so much ingrained hate and self destruction in the region that I don’t think there is any way to wish it away politically (and yes, I am aware that Kurds and Turks and Lebanese and Israelis have their fair share of this as well but IMO they are in a transition period and if they were just left alone it’d go away). Plus I think the threat is vastly overstated and all the countries are using us as a proxy. I don’t believe for a second that most Iranians are pro-West but I think they have become anti-insane after the pointless Iraq-Iran war (which would be played out again) and don’t want a full regional religious war.
Historically, transitional periods have been violent and chaotic, and the super powers that have tried to manage them get ground up in the process.
Thanks, mikkel.
Anyone for isolationism and just an arsenal of long-range cruise missiles for the next 20 years and just let all this stuff sort itself out?
DLS the realistic cynic believes any peace agreement in Iraq will not last as long as that in eastern Congo. What we may end up seeing is partition of Iraq with the UN guarding a set of security zones along the boundaries. (But not Iraq’s perimeter, any more than the Bush people have secured this. Iran and Syria can continue to play games and sooner or later the Saudis will join in the fun.)
Casual Observer says:
> Anyone for isolationism and
> just an arsenal of long-range
> cruise missiles for the next
> 20 years
Hypersonic to reduce flight time, range up to 13,000 miles ideally, pre-programmed and random course corrections to fool defenses…supplemented by ballistic missiles to fit any other need…accompanied by air and ballistic missile defenses of our own…sounds great in theory.
> and just let all this stuff
> sort itself out?
Unfortunately, we cannot. If we don’t stay active, China or some other party will take all the oil for themselves. The world does not and will not soon have alternatives to petroleum. There are other interests of the USA overseas, but the oil alone illustrates the problem with isolationism.
Mikkel — great postings.
It’s regrettable that Kurdistan wasn’t created in or after 1919.