I’m with Holbrooke
The Washington Post published a column written by Richard Holbrooke. It’s a great read. As all of you have witnessed, my opinion about Iraq has evolved. It seems to me that Holbrooke’s view on Iraq makes a lot of sense and I agree with it full-heartedly.
Your real choice comes down to escalation or disengagement. If victory — however defined — is truly your goal, you should have sent more troops long ago. You and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld say that the commanders in Iraq keep telling you they don’t need more troops, but, frankly, even if technically accurate, this is baffling. Plain and simple, there are not, and never have been, enough troops in Iraq to accomplish the mission.
[...]
I urge you to lay out realistic goals, redeploy our troops and focus on the search for a political solution. We owe that to the Iraqis who welcomed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and put their trust in us, only to find their lives in danger as a result. By a political solution, I mean something far more ambitious than current U.S. efforts aimed at improving the position of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki by changing ministers or setting timelines for progress. Sen. Joe Biden and Les Gelb have advocated what they call, in a reference to the negotiations that ended the war in Bosnia in 1995, a “Dayton-like” solution to the political situation — by which they mean a looser federal structure with plenty of autonomy for each of the three main groups, and an agreement on sharing oil revenue. Your administration has dismissed these proposals out of hand, and the time lost since Gelb first presented them more than two years ago has made them far more difficult to achieve.Yet only two weeks ago, the Iraqi parliament took a big step toward creating more powerful regions, with an interesting proviso to delay implementation for 18 months. You could use this legislation as leverage to negotiate a peaceful arrangement for sharing power and oil revenue, while redeploying and reducing our forces in Iraq. If such an effort fails, nothing has been lost by trying.
Those who say this is a proposal to partition Iraq into three countries (which it is not) and would trigger all-out civil war are misrepresenting the idea, while offering nothing in its place. Whatever else you do, Mr. President, you should send American troops to northern Iraq (Kurdistan), which is still safe but increasingly tense, to reduce the very real risk of a Turkish-Kurdish war. Both the Turks and the Kurds would welcome this U.S. presence, but it would have to be accompanied by a cessation of Kurdish terrorist raids into Turkey. This would allow Special Forces troops to move rapidly into other parts of Iraq if a terrorist target appeared, and it would show the world that you were not withdrawing from America’s commitment to Iraq.
21 Responses to “I’m with Holbrooke”
I agree, it makes a lot of sense.
I can’t help but add that Holbrooke would be a contender, at least, for Secretary of State if the Democrats win the White House in 2008.
Well, he would perhaps be a good choice although I personally believe that Powell was a good one as well, normally, in a better / different administration at least.
would it not be a smart move for the Democrats IF they win in 08, to put a well-known, good Republican in a high position as well? To reach out to the other side?
I can’t imagine why you think that’s a good idea, or why the Democrats would think that’s a good idea.
What has the GOP done to merit being included in a Democratic Administration?
As far as I’m concerned, the record of the past 5 years earns the GOP no less than 20 years in the wilderness.
But I guess the idea cherished by “conservatives” – even outside the US, apparently – that the GOP is still somehow the “grownup” party when it comes to foreign policy is the zombie that will not die, no matter how much death and destruction it’s caused, eh?
The Republicans dont “deserve” it for sure. But it works politically as long as they can play up the idea of being bi-partisan and it also gives them a scapegoat.
I almost agree, but I say go ahead and divide it all up. Partition the entire country.
Good idea nominate Lieberman.
“would it not be a smart move for the Democrats IF they win in 08, to put a well-known, good Republican in a high position as well? To reach out to the other side? ”
Ok, if the fed. gov. has a cabinet position for floor sweeping, and empyting waste baskets I guess there is a position for a republican in a democratic presidency.
No Lieberman will be tainted after he replaces Rummy for two years and Iraq still spirals downward.
Good commentary but the intended recipient is known for ignoring any advice outside Rove and Cheney. You might as well be talking to a wall.
Maybe I’m starting to come around to the federal state solution. I still have yet to be convinced that plan wouldn’t result in 3 seperate states within 5 years, but maybe that’s not a bad thing… His point of extra troops in Kurdistan to prevent a self-protective Turkish invation I think tackles most of my major problems with the partition idea, as I believe that they are in the best position to provide the tipping point to destroying Iraq.
I agree Holbrooke makes a lot of good common sense-something we have not seen from this administration. I love the fact that he both assigns blame for the current fiasco exactly where it is so richly deserved, and instead of just whining, offers a concrete, pragmatic option. It shows brains, guts —-wait but he’s a Democrat—aren’t they all weak on national defense?LOL
BTW, MvdG- I congratulate you on your decision to no longer “stay the course” on Iraq-at least you are flexible enough to change your mind with the worsening situation. I might consider you for the list in 2007.
Partition the country into three parts now..No one but Milosovich would argue that Slovenia, Crotia, and Bosnia are worse off as independent countries. The only portions of the Former Yogoslovia that is worse off is Serbia, and their woes are all self inflicted.
The Kurds and the Shiites would do well as independent countries, and could be coaxed into a US shere of influence for the right price. As for the Sunnis in central Iraq- let them rot just like Serbia.
Kevin H. I think that it is the best solution as well. Kurdistan should be made the center of American / Western interests.
Wagner, I see what you are saying: but it has to be done by diplomacy, and more importantly, by the consensus of the majority of Iraqis (or their leaders). The West, specifically America, cannot just decide for them. Luckily, Iraqis themselves seem to be favoring the ‘federal state’ approach as well, but I don’t think that they are ready (yet) to form independent nations (perhaps except for the Kurds who would embrace that of course). Also, they need to figure out a way how to deal with the oil. If Sunnis cannot profit from the oil, we can forget about peace.
Kim: why thank you. I expect to be on it then.
Casey: it’s not about deserving, it’s about being smart.
Partition will not be easy, first you will have to move large numbers of people out of mixed areas, to at least cut down on the number of revenge killings. Next you need to set up borders to prevent raids between groups. There are not enough troops to police the regions internally so local leaders will have to take charge with some type of police/military authority. Some of these people are not very nice but if they can restore authority so be it, they would have to know that any activity outside their area would be the end of their rule. You can say that the oil money will be divided, but that will be dependant on getting the wells up and running and lets face it as soon as we leave greed will take over and the people in charge of the oil production will keep all of the money. Partition could have been done with better results earlier but now it is get people separated so we have a fig leaf to get ourselves out and then sit back and watch the whole country erupt in violence.
I’m thinking whatever we do will be disasterous for Iraq. We have waited too long to examine the failures in the policy, and did not have a clue of how difficult regime change would be in reality. For us to be greeted as liberators, Saddam would have had to have oppressed all of his people, instead of just the Kurds and Shiites, 41 would have had to supported the rebellion from those groups the first time we were in Iraq, we would have needed a plan for securing the peace—involving three times our initial invasion forces, and there would have had to be no reaction from the terrorists. Baker said it best on his return from the wartorn country- “Iraq is a total mess.” There is no way short of a longterm occupation with a much larger force that civil war will be avoided.
As Americans, we have to live with this.
There would have to be some sort of international oversight to make sure that a plan to share oil revenues was followed.
What most people miss though, is that it isn’t just a matter of divvying up the current oil production. The key to long term success and prosperity of Iraq will be for foriegn investors to see enough stability to put money into the technology that is needed; there is far more oil underneath Iraq then can currently be accessed because they need to modernize the drilling technology. It’s going to take a huge investment; the Iraqis need to see that it is in their best interest to put the guns down because they will then get a much bigger pie to divvy up. Then each of the factions can get their share of the proceeds, and their share will be bigger under that scenario than it would be if they continue to choose the route of violence because by fighting they ensure that they’ll continue with their outdated technology. The Shiites and Kurds can try to keep all of the current oil revenues by marginalizing the Sunnis, but then they forego the bigger oil revenues that they would be able to get if they would just agree to include the Sunnis and keep the peace.
CS, your scenario would be the rational, reasoned way to respond to the partition, unfortunately I don’t see that happening. The culture of Iraq under Saddam was to watch out for yourself and your family, grabbing as much of the pie using whatever means possible. That mindset will be hard to break. That also goes beyond the split between the groups, remember Sadr is also fighting with the Badr brigades over who defines the Shiite movement. My feeling is that the only way they are going to change will be to go thought the horrors of civil war and life under a bunch of mini Saddams before they “get it�.
Based on what exactly?
His cover up of the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam?
His role coordinating illegal missile sales as part of the Iran-Contra affair?
His role in the Time Warner/AOL merger while his son was a member of the FCC?
I’ve never understood peoples fascination with Powell.
grognard,
Unfortunately I think you’re probably right, especially since things have escalated so much. I think there was a critical time during which we might have been able to help the rational people get enough political clout to make the masses see the rationale for creating a stable environment for investment (and making the concessions necessary to do so) but I’m afraid it is probably too late and that as you point out, the historical tensions are going to rule the day.
CS, that is the grim reality. Yes we have waited too and a real dialogue over the war effort might have had the effect of a coherent strategy we could all support. It didn’t happen and that will the tragedy of Iraq.