Diplomacy for a dignified exit from Iraq
The search for a dignified exit from Iraq, while ensuring some amount of stability to prevent all-out civil war is a central question both for US foreign policy and countries in the region.
Nobody has the answers but calls for diplomacy are becoming more insistent within the US, while European and other countries are urging the White House to deal with the Iraq issue within a wider framework of peace for the region.
In time, various solutions will emerge but a successful start to the search requires more clarity about the nature of the problem. The most important misunderstanding is the description by many analysts and the media of Iraq as a country already entangled in a civil war among Sunnis and Shiites.
This may be the outlook down the road, but it not quite true right now. A large portion of the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians stems from violent clashes among factions within the Shiites and within the Sunnis. Those factions are fighting to win positions of strength to gain control of their entire community when the time comes.
There is also is a layer of pure crime, including kidnapping for ransom and feuds between small time warlords and extended families.
The soil for this chaos is rage among a hard core of religious persons, both Shiites and Sunni, against the infidel American presence in their country. Sunni fundamentalists are fed by al Qaeda’s rhetoric about crusaders out to destroy Islam. Shiite fundamentalists are fed by old time theology from Iran.
This volatile mix is inflamed by pure nationalists fighting a foreign invader. These are the insurgents killing Americans and Iraqis who work with the US.
Because of this layer upon layer of anger, crime, nationalism and religion, the situation is not simply a war or insurgency. It includes settling of scores and jockeying for power among groups who feel that rule over Iraq, or some of its regions, is up for grabs because the US will have to exit soon.
Another perhaps more positive reason is the expectation within Iraq of democracy or at least some devolution of power to the people. Turf won in factional fighting provides the clout required to intimidate people into voting for you, when institutions and political accountability are weak.
This situation could turn into a full Sunni versus Shiite civil war if, by the time the Americans leave, factions within each faith succeed in dominating others. In that situation, battle lines will be drawn for civil war, as happened for two decades in Lebanon among Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and Druze.
In Lebanon, alliances of factions within each group provided enough internal homogeneity to fuel a civil war along lines of religious affiliation. Fighters would fight from loyalty to their local warlord, regardless of the alliance he chose to enter, or for the pay to stave of unemployment. Pay is also a motivation in Iraq for both those joining the army and police and others who fight for warlords.
If wisdom were to descend upon Iraq, the current government might succeed in revising the Constitution to ensure fair power sharing and fair revenue sharing among the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis. Currently, Sunnis feel that the Constitution, the revenue sharing and other matters place them at a disadvantage.
Each group within Iraq’s parliament is an alliance of factions along lines of religious affiliation. Everyone had agreed the Constitution would be revised but that has not happened yet. In anticipation, each group is fighting for its place in terms of power, in terms of influence and in terms of resources.
Against this backdrop, Iraq’s neighbors must play a role as must the wider international community. But the Bush administration has not endeared itself to any of those other players.
None are eager to help him unravel the cage he has built around American troops in Iraq. He can neither keep his soldiers there for long nor can he bring them home precipitously. Therefore, we are seeing increasing calls in the US for diplomacy.
But for diplomacy to succeed, the White House will have to offer some large carrots to the main outsiders, including Syria and Iran, who have the power to influence the situation for worse or better. As yet, there is little talk of this within the US from the Republicans, Democrats or moderates.
Until some carrots emerge, other countries may remain on the sidelines. The fuel of diplomacy is not goodwill or friendship among countries, but gains in the national interest.
Bush and Americans would certainly gain from a dignified exit from Iraq. But how would that advance the national interests of the other key players in that region?
Would Iran and Syria prefer to keep the US enmeshed in Iraq for as long as possible to weaken its prestige in the world? Or do they have serious security concerns for which some carrots might be persuasive? Russia and China may also prefer to keep the US off balance in the oil-rich region. What are their agendas? It is worth debating these issues more openly in the US.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
3 Responses to “Diplomacy for a dignified exit from Iraq”
That’s the crux of the problem. Iraqis have some sorting out to do. Until the Iraqis get to do that sorting out, which will be extremely violent, diplomacy will mean nothing. Until the sorting out has been done, foreign troops can do little but try to suppress some of the violence and get killed, a few here, a few there, day after day.
Iran probably could be persuaded to step in, quell the violence and establish order. The price for getting Iran to do that is probably an under-the-table deal with President Bush to quit opposing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and end all sanctions against Iran.
Ironically, whether Bush enters into such a deal or not, Iran probably has the power and clout in the region and within Iraq to step in, quell the violence and establish order itself — playing the hero on the world stage and showing the U.S. up in a big way. In return, Iraq would undoubtedly become a client state of Iran. At the least, predominantly Shiite areas would become de facto Iranian provinces.
What I’m saying is, thanks to Bush’s blunder war and horrendously mismanaged occupation, Iran is in a position to say to the U.S., heads we win, tails you lose.
Our exit from Iraq will be shameful at best. There will be no dignity in it what so ever. For that reason we will be stuck there. We will be unable to admit defeat. Hopefully this will be useful the next time we think about invading another country. Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq, how long will it be before we do it again? Can we ever learn our lesson? Will this be our legacy? What makes us this way? Is it just the nature of the human race? We keep crowing about being some kind of different. Are we any worse or any better than anyone else? We sure do love ourselves. Our nationalism keeps leading us astray just as it did Germany.
Cat Travis- If we are so different –i.e. better than other countries, why are our actions so unpopular in the world? Why are we jeered at the UN, and why are there violent demonstrations against our government everywhere Bush or Condi travel? But if you raise the questions, you must be part of the “Blame America First” crowd. I agree about our nationalism leading us astray.
No one dared speak out against this war, until finally John Murtha found he could no longer keep silent. Even a decorated Marine vet like Murtha was systematically demonized and villified by the right. Those with a stake in this administration did their damndest to stifle dissent, and now it is too late to fix Bush’s blunder, which will change the politics of the entire region.