So What’s the Endgame in Iraq?
So what’s the endgame in Iraq? Skillful foreign policy decision makers will think through the various scenarios and be ready for them. George Friedman, in a Stratfor Intelligence Report article on RealClearWorld looks at some of them.
And his key conclusion: whatever happens, Iran must be factored into it. Here’s just a small part of the piece, the ending:
The American strategy in this matter has been primarily tactical. Wanting to leave, it has promised everyone everything. That is not a bad strategy in the short run, but at a certain point, everyone adds up the promises and realizes that they can’t all be kept, either because they are contradictory or because there is no force to guarantee them. Boiled down, this leaves the United States with two strategic options.
First, the United States can leave a residual force of about 20,000 troops in Iraq to guarantee Sunni and Kurdish interests, to protect Turkish interests, etc. The price of pursuing this option is that it leaves Iran facing a nightmare scenario: e.g., the potential re-emergence of a powerful Iraq and the recurrence down the road of the age-old conflict between Persia and Mesopotamia – with the added possibility of a division of American troops supporting their foes. This would pose an existential threat to Iran, forcing Tehran to use covert means to destabilize Iraq that would take advantage of a minimal, widely dispersed U.S. force vulnerable to local violence.
Second, the United States could withdraw and allow Iraq to become a cockpit for competition among neighboring countries: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria – and ultimately major regional powers like Russia. While chaos in Iraq is not inherently inconsistent with U.S. interests, it is highly unpredictable, meaning the United States could be pulled back into Iraq at the least opportune time and place.
The first option is attractive, but its major weakness is the uncertainty created by Iran. With Iran in the picture, a residual force is as much a hostage as a guarantor of Sunni and Kurdish interests. With Iran out of the picture, the residual U.S. force could be smaller and would be more secure. Eliminate the Iran problem completely, and the picture for all players becomes safer and more secure. But eliminating Iran from the equation is not an option – Iran most assuredly gets a vote in this endgame.
In other words: the endgame won’t be easy, won’t be the swift and total pullout that some on the left have demanded — and it won’t be pretty.
Read it in full.
5 Responses to “So What’s the Endgame in Iraq?”
Well we are leaving Joe. Iran or no Iran.
[meaning the United States could be pulled back into Iraq at the least opportune time and place]–
Don't think so. I think we are done with Iraq. To whomever fills the void, good luck sucker.
Apparently, what we need is what we had: an anti-Iran, anti-terrorist, secular strongman who obviously controlled the situation SO much better than we have.
In a perfect world we would leave, say “I'm very sorry”, and pin BigOil/Cheney to the wall in court and have their sentence be to make financial reparations to the cities and artifacts and families destroyed out of their profits over the next, oh, say 20 years. Like child support. OK, make it 18 years for the baby they created.
This would be poetic justice at its finest. Keep a minimum of troops there as a police force of sorts.
End game…once they can protect their borders, we pull out completely.
The Iraqi government is now responsible of what goes on in Iraq. We turned over control.
I don't think anyone believes that they can properly protect their borders, so we hang out in desert bases until they finally can.
After that…we should go.
shannonlee–
Who wants to steal their borders? They are fighting an insugency, not a conventional war. Personally I don't care what they can defend or not defend, we need to leave and the sooner the better.