The "Surge" Won't Work -- A Wilsonian Solution for Iraq

It's an interesting idea. But I think the artificial boundaries have been up long enough to be considered real, even in the minds of the natives.

I'd put my money on the UN led division that honored the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis. The problem is that Bush lacks the cojones as well as the moral authority to go there. I don't see the downside. Oil revenues can be divided and shared. Don't see the downside here.

When faced with the option of dividing Iraq, I'm inclined to give a nod to Israel and Palestine.

Top notch article, Killfile! It is definitely one of your best.

I had a long comment about the benefits and difficulties of each option and the conflict in my mind between them, but I have come to the conclusion that going to the UN and having a referendum within the country on the basis of re-partition to decide where to go.

If they reject it, I move for a phased withdrawal within two years.

While I think dividing Iraq up would be best for the people of Iraq themselves, I'm not sure its neighbors would be pleased. Turkey, in particular, would be opposed to an independent Kurdistan on its borders. And I can't imagine Saudi Arabia would be happy with another independent Shi'ite state, particularly one with such close ties to Iran.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that it would take the kind of "Wilsonian" diplomacy that the current administration seems to lack.

Great read, btw.

This plan trades one large problem – an Iraqi Civil War – for a series of smaller ones.

The division of Iraq would only work if it is done this way: The north (Kurds) to Turkey; the south (Shia) to Iran; the west (Sunni) to Saudi. I don't believe the US would support this type of division. Dividing Iraq within itself will just trade one large problem for three large problems and the possibility of a regional war. This solution would present one of our enemies and two of our allies with internal problems which they may be able to handle on their own.

Adding ingredients to a pot that is already boiling over makes no sense whatsoever. The US could go in, conquer all of Iraq, occupy and subdue all discontent and then make Iraq subject to our dominion. This has a potential for causing a greater regional conflict and even retaliation by some of our supposed allies. It would definitely sap the US financial strength and internal political will as US casualties and expenses would be significant.

Folding the flag and bringing our military home is probably the only good exit we can make. I fear the day when we watch the last helicopters picking up our last people from the top of the embassy. We can either depart safely and cautiously or be forced out. I would make this point, it might be best if we required those so called Iraqis who we placed in government positions to stay behind and repair the damage. They had a solution, now let them show us.

Great article as always kill...

One big issue that you missed here is Turkey's response to an independent Kurdish state on their southern border. There is a very large Kurdish population in Turkey that has agitated for independence in the past. With a newly independent Kurdish state to their south the Turkish Kurds would likely restart their own independence movement - something that Turkey has not allowed in the past. Turkey will likely apply whatever pressure it can to prevent a Kurdish nation on its border.

Another issue:

Bush must return to the United Nations, admit his mistakes, and ask for the cooperation of the world to secure Iraq against a future genocide.

I do not see Bush as being able to do this. He has not even admitted his mistake for invading Iraq in the first place, I can hardly see him apologizing to the world for it - especially with how many other nations have condemned his actions in Iraq previously.

Though I voted for the "division of Iraq" option in the poll, I foresee the same problems that you mentioned in your article. The Kurds in the north have basically established a "state within a state" and are content to sit out the civil war. They have sufficient oil fields in the north to keep them happy, and have no desire to pursue additional gains in the south.

The Shiite's control the vast majority of central and eastern Iraq, an area which includes the majority of Iraqi oil fields. Other than Baghdad, which has large Sunni neighborhoods, the remaining land is primarily Shi'ite. The Sunnis in the south and west are the real problem behind a division. They control virtually none of the oil, and they will never cede Baghdad to the Shiite's. The real key to this proposal is getting the Sunni to agree to the division without further escalation. Saudi support would help in this case, but I am still unsure whether the Sunni minority will go along with the division of Iraq.

Killfile,

I think your suggestion is a terrible option, for a host of reasons. The only worse options are all the others.

I see the top three problems with your proposal being the unequal distribution of oil resources in Iraq - the oil wealth does not match the Sunni/Shia population distribution, that Turkey is opposed to an independent Kurdish state, and the Kurds are opposed to being part of Turkey, and the stake of Al Queda & Iran in perpetuating instability in Iraq.

The alternatives at this point appear to be worse though.

The surge option is opposed by our military leaders, and no one has articulated a case for how throwing only another 50,000 troops in is going to change the fundamental direction that Iraq is headed. The only people I have seen supporting this idea are the politicians Bush and McCain, and a few political flacks trying to support the Party line.

Just pulling out, as suggested by oldFogey, above, is most likely to hurt our national security. What is going to happen if we just walk-away from the mess we created? It will likely devolve into full civil war, turn into more of a breeding ground for extremists and terrorists. And Iraq, or what is left of it, will ultimately be run by another strong-man like Saddam or religious extremists like the Taliban. And the group everybody in the country will all agree on hating will be the United States, with solid justification. The end result will be more threats to the United States.

Killfile has the best solution I have seen - push the Iraqis and the international community to help us in implementing a stable, three state solution. These seems to offer a reasonable hope that people could unite behind and work together to implement.

Well, the Ethiopians have demonstrated that a 'surge' can have benefits.

That being said, I am interested in the representative state solution to Iraq. I've considered that before. Any more thoughts on it?

Excellent article. It's nice to see that somebody is actually presenting some alternative strategies and solutions to the Iraq occupation. I think it could work, but many more details would have to be ironed out. It is certainly something the administration should be considering. I hope they can throw their pride aside and look at some alternative solutions. It's never been clear to me what the administration's objective is in Iraq. This would at least provide them with a clear objective. Then we would have a tangible goal to strive for.

i recently seeded this article (link to goes to seeded article, not my article).

it talks about the myth of sectarian conflict, the reality of new alliances being created in iraq that arent explained by western media, and the US administration's stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality.

it ends:

The newly formed coalitions prove sectarianism is not at the root of the conflict in Iraq. Sectarian and religious differences are not splitting the country. Thus, it's clear that the "80% solution" will have no impact and will not work, nor will any other sectarian-based response.

The main issue that is splitting Iraqis is the presence of the occupation, and that's why more than 87% of the Iraqi people, and a majority of the country's politicians, believe that the first step in dealing with the Iraqi-Iraqi conflict is pulling out the U.S. and coalition troops and ending the occupation.

personally, i feel a "surge" is a politically correct (literally) way of saying, "escalation". once in, it will be very hard to get those extra troops out. and i doubt that any plan initiated by the US administration will be flexible enough to be able to handle even short-term unforeseens, further entrenching the "surge".

i believe strongly that the solution must involve the international community and the iraqis. even the research and decision-making process must include groups beside the US. a table made up of half iraqis, 1/4 international/UN and 1/4 US sounds like a good place to start.

Iraq as a US garrison state will not work, regardless of the number of troops committed. In the north of Ireland, a few hundred IRA volunteers fought tens of thousands of Britain's finest troops and intelligence operations to a bloody standstill over thirty years' time. This despite the fact that nearly half the population in the North were in favor of the British occupation. Popular support of US occupation in Iraq is almost nil. As long as a hundred Iraqis remain alive in Iraq, ninety-eight will resist US occupation.

The UN will not be seen by Iraqis as an impartial peacekeeper. The twelve years of -- genocidal? -- sanctions preceding Bush's war of aggression was 'brokered' by the UN under US control.

If, however, the people of the US were to show the people of Iraq good faith by effecting a speedy removal of our troops and corporations from their land, and bringing the war criminals in our midst to trial, I think the people in the 'cradle of civilization' -- who first codified laws, invented writing, etc., -- might welcome an international presence as they sort out their affairs

But, of course They Got Oil, so we can't allow anything like democracy to rear its head over there, right?
The problem is not so much the deliberately-fomented sectarian violence in Iraq. The problem in essence is how do we control our own insatiable greedheads and their lackeys in government.

I say we revoke Halliburton's corporate charter, liquidate its assets, and start a real reparations fund for the people of Iraq.

It was Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship that maintained the fragile peace between the various sects and ethnic factions in Iraq.

I have a problem with that notion. Is peace really just the absence of violent conflict, or is it the presence of justice? And yes I did just paraphrase a line from Air Force One.

Unable and unwilling to accept the compromise of representative government, one faction must ultimately conquer and subordinate the others in what will likely prove to be a bloody, brutal, and lengthy civil war.

I also disagree with this. Take a look at America, the left and the right certainly don't like each other very much and yet we still coexist. Stating that violence is the only solution for Iraqis is a bit Western-centric.

Self governance was actually starting fairly well considering everything until al-Qaeda, yes that al-Qaeda, bombed the Al-Askari Mosque on February 22. If you look at all the statistics for acts of violence, deaths and whatnot, you will see that everything really got out of hand after that bombing. Iraq is not in "civil war" because the group driving most of the violence, al-Qaeda, is a foreign entity. If you stop al-Qaeda in Iraq, then you at least give a chance to peace. Any "solution" that does not take into account the role of al-Qaeda in Iraq is naive at best. Split Iraq and al-Qaeda will still encourage war between the mini-nations.

It is also my understanding that most Iraqis don't want their nation split. It would be quite unilateral of us to force the splitting of Iraq when the people of Iraq are very much against it.

That isn't even considering how the surrounding nations would feel towards such a plan. Turkey, one of our closer allies in the region, is very much against any kind of plan splitting Iraq because they feel that if the Kurds in Iraq were given their own state it could very likely drive the Kurds in Turkey to rebel and attempt to join with the new Kurd state.

There is also the question of Iran and whether they would take advantage of divided Iraq by "annexing" part of it into their own country for "security reasons".

The only real long-term solution is to drive al-Qaeda from Iraq and then let the people decide. Remember, most of the people in Iraq are very much peaceful and just want to live their lives. It is only a small percentage who are actively engaged in violence and a great deal of them are only driven to it by the encouragement and actions of al-Qaeda.

The only real long-term solution is to drive al-Qaeda from Iraq and then let the people decide

What makes you think the civil war will stop if Al-Qaeda is driven out? Or even that we could drive them completely out?

The violence has escalated to the point where two religious sects are killing each other with Americans standing between them. I don't know that there is anything that we can do to stop that now.

great deal of them are only driven to it by the encouragement and actions of al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda only drives the Sunni insurgency (and that only partially). The Shiite militias and kill squads have nothing to do with the Sunnis in Al-Qaeda. Keep in mind that the Shiites were brutalized for years by the Sunni Baathists under Saddam, so they have reasons all their own for committing violence.

Killfile, great article. This idea is actually similar to one I proposed (to anyone who would listen -- in other words, no one), even back before the original invasion.

People have quite correctly pointed out some of the huge challenges that would be faced, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

One problem would be the terrible reputation and lack of credibility the UN seems to have in the US. The Bush administration and the commercial media have done a huge demolition job on it. Despite this, I still think it's the only organisation for the task.

Bush displaying the required wisdom and humility is also unlikley. Maybe he needs an epiphany.

According to a lengthy speech by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del) in New Hampshire that I picked up on CSPAN, this is more or less what is in the Iraqi constitution, albeit as a weak Federal system in which the central governement provides pretty much only for foreign affairs, national defense, and distribution of oil revenue.

According to Sen.Joe Biden (D-Del.) in a lengthy speech picked up by CSPAN last week, this is more or less what the current Iraqi constitution says. It defines the government as a weak Federation of three states, with the central government only handling foreign policy, national defense (e.g., against foreign invasion) and distribution of oil revenue. The real sticking point among the elected reps (as opposed to the militia, the police, the insurgents, etc.) appears to be the oil revenue (surprise!).

Additional point of order. I'm a newbie here, and may be overlooking something obvious. This appears to be an opinion piece from somewhere. What is the source?

bomb them out of existence, i mean why not we just executed their previous head of state, why not just blow the whole country off the map?

The main problem with changing the political boundaries, as I see it is, is that the wealth isn't neatly geographically divided. If you try to draw the lines in a way that allocates the Oil in a "fair" way, then you have a rather awkward split.

I'm not particularly saying that it's impossible, who knows, maybe it would work out. Unfortunately it's such a complicated proposition, requiring so much political negotiation that initiating such a plan at this time would take years. You'd have to negotiate with the Sunni's, Kurd's, and Shiite's, (each of which factions may not have full control over it's members), and negotiate with the UN.

If we'd started working on that plan a long time ago we probably would have been better off.

Dear Killfile, great article but while I agree the map of Iraq must be redrawn I would not put much faith in the UN. The UN does not have a great track record on stopping genocide. The record of the UN is much like the League of Nations when it comes to genocide or other forms of high severity antisocial behavior by states. To play devil's advocate, the surge could work if (really big if)they can crush the leadership of the insurgency. This will probably not happen if only because Bush isn't that lucky. Napoleon wanted marshals who were lucky Americans should want a president who is lucky.

A surge of the magnitudes thus far suggested by anyone -- the maximum I've seen being 50,000 -- will serve no useful purpose in resolving the conflict at all. It's about equivalent to airport passenger screening to prevent a terrorist strike or HOV lanes to address traffic congestion; it's purpose is to provide a visible sign that "we're doing something" but it won't appreciable address the problem.

At this late date, the only two real stragtegies available are:

1. A massive, coordinated effort involving the US, countries in the region, and the world community as a whole, or

2. Get out completely with as much grace and as little collateral damage as possble.

50,000? Phooey. Addressing the security aspects in Iraq would require more like 500,000 troops (Colin Powell's original estimate of the force required). We don't have them, so they have to come from others. And how they're deployed and used is critical. First and foremost, US troops have to get out of the policing business -- we're adding to the problem. Forces from the surrounding countries in the region should be deployed to protect sympathetic populations, e.g., Sunni countries like Syria and Saudia Arabia protecting Sunnis, Shiite countries like Iran protecting Shiites, etc. Is this possible? Probably not, but nothing else is going to work until the Iraqi forces have been adequately developed (one of the major purposes US troops should be used for) which is at best two years away. Why would they want to help us? They don't, but they don't want the blowback from a widespread civil war in Iraq, either -- each has their own fears about it, but none of them, most especially Iran, will gain anything and many could find the instability sweeps away their own regimes.

More importantly, we have to succeed on the social -- as opposed to political -- front. For Iraq to have a national identity, there has to be some benefit to the individual Iraqi family on a day to day basis. The government has to be seen to provide something useful -- protection from violence and reliable power, gasoline and water would be a good start -- or there is little for anyone to have allegiance to. This will take massive amounts of investment, at least $100 billion. And it will require extensive security measures to implement the infrastructure, another place where US troops should be deployed for perimeter control.
Beyond the basics, Iraqis crave consumer goods and services. In a few areas where we have been successful (outside Baghdad) in getting the infrastructure in order, the first thing that happens is an immediate demand for consumer goods.

The US government can't do this part alone, either. We need to get international partners like China, Japan and the EU to pony up if they want the oil that otherwise may not flow for years if the instability continues or worsens. China in particular would likely be susceptable to this reasoning, given the kind of investments they're making in other parts of the world. In addition, we need to leverage the corporate muscle of our economy. If Exxon and others want to avoid a windfall profits tax, they need to invest a substantial amount of their profits in reconstructing Iraq's oil industry, for example. If Wal-Mart wants to avoid anti-trust and other nasty measures the Dems are pre-disposed to consider in the new Congress, they need to go build a few dozen stores in Iraq. Two principles need to be followed in these efforts:

1. The Iraqi central and regional governments must be the channel for the investments, both in terms of directing it and in determining priorities. Exxon needs to negotiate it's deal with the Iraqi government, not the US. Wal-Mart has to work with the regional governments in determining where and what to build and stock, at least at the beginning.

2. Iraqis need to be the bulk of the labor force used in construction and operation of all of this. Yes, we have to provide western technology and expertise, but our primary purpose should be to employ and train Iraqis. Jobs are the most important way of keeping people off the street and out of trouble.

Can all of this be accomplished? In the abstract, maybe. In reality it seems highly unlikely. And with the current posture of this administration, it's impossible and neither the posture nor the administration is likely to change for two years, by which time the solution will be mooted by events, I'd guess. Soooooooo....

Option 2 seems the most achievable, whatever the downside. A surge might be helpful in accomplishing an efficient withdrawal, but it won't do a thing to improve matters or lead to any long-term "victory."

Wouldn't it be pretty damn funny that after years of war and death the americans would go back home and as a replacement the Iraqis get Wal-Mart - The great symbol of american consumption habits.

lol

Moon, I've been saying this in many comments. Build on and secure the peaceful areas, provide working capital, and watch the party roll. Economists identify multipliers and accelerators, once the economy commences. Infrastructure, middle class, a bourgeois society, if you will, but not the war-torn Bush hell. Success breeds success and will expand, providing a potent material incentive to get stuff together. Bush militarism evokes downward spiral of hatred.

Interpret Iraq from perspective of Iraq people, not political imperatives of failed Bush administration: peace (aka security), open society, prosperity. Basic Bush flaw: It's about me/us rather than the Iraq people.