Cross-posted from my blog.
The astute Juan Cole, who does more to make sense of the waking nightmare in Iraq than most of the media outlets combined, outlines a plan for US withdrawal. The United Nations, he submits, could be induced to replace the former as it leaves with the tail firmly tucked between its legs. And here is how:
As for getting anyone over at the UN to take on Iraq, I fear I think there are few third world armies that couldn’t be enticed by a couple of billion dollars– the kind of money they would probably be rewarded with if they really could help Iraq. Progressives are usually people of principle, and they often can’t imagine the cupidity of the world, or how to play on it.
Indeed, progressives are usually people of principle, which is why they may want to think twice about this idea. What Cole basically proposes is that poor countries be bribed off to do the dying now that the hyperpower which insisted on; led; and botched this sorry war of choice has had enough. His reference to ‘cupidity’ makes it clear, furthermore, that he knows they would get a raw deal. And unless he has in mind specifically India and the handful of other fairly democratic third world states, the odds are that the citizens – let alone troops – of said countries would have precious little say in the matter. Nor would they necessarily be the main beneficients of the multi-billion dollar bribe.
Cole explains his motivation thus:
My main point was to try to find a progressive/centrist approach to Iraq that avoided the two extremes of a) agreeing with the Bushies that we should stay ‘until the mission is accomplished’ or b) simple-mindedly chanting ‘bring the troops home’ with no thought for the world-class disaster that might befall us from the resulting power vacuum.
I appreciate the effort to carve out such a middle ground, so it is with some regret that I must ask for a better suggestion.
And what’s with the ‘us’ there, Professor Cole?
Ask the Iraqis what they want.
Well, that’s a promising start. If the replies are to be implemented though, it seems the order of the day will be immediate withdrawal.
Cole again, quoting Boston Globe:
If these figures are for Iraqis as a whole, they are breathtaking. They suggest that virtually all Sunni Arabs and a good third of Shiites support the guerrilla attacks on US targets! (These militant Shiites are probably disproportionately Sadrists, though they may include some more nationalist Dawa and Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq members). We know from other polling that the Americans are wildly popular with the Kurds, and they probably account for most or all of the 15 percent. [Thanks to Patrick Cummins for the cite and observations.]
The problem is that I incline to agree with Cole that a swift withdrawal will likely prove disastrous – for the Iraqis, that is. The Sunni/Baathist insurgency is going to rage on against the Shia government, which is not widely perceived as legitimate outside Shia circles, and the rebels will have freer play. In the worst-case scenario the civil war may escalate manyfold. What I ask myself is whether (non-Kurdish) Iraqis are generally aware of this and prepared to take the risk with open eyes. If so, well, then maybe there is a case for withdrawal.
Disastrous or no, they have a right to decide.
Not all Iraqis believe there will be civil war. The union leaders I heard speak on Sunday night don’t believe it will happen.
We are obligated to support them with funds for rebuilding, equipment, spare parts, machinery, medicine, supplies (for hospitals and schools), and expertise when they request it. It should be treated as a humanitarian crisis. But our troops are not wanted there, so they should leave. If there is civil war, the decision about sending troops reverts to the United Nations, where it belongs.
Not sure if you would agree that there already is a civil war going on in Iraq, since Iraqis are killing each other on a war-like scale. The scenario Cole and many other exports, including a guy I know, find likely is that this situation will worsen if the US pulls out; because while that removes some motivation for the insurgency, the hard core of ex-army Baathist and anti-Shia Sunnies will continue on with much, much freer play. Read Cole’s entire post, where he picks apart Condi Rice, for a good account of this argument.
Re: self-determination, I agree that polling is relevant, but not that it’s necessarily decisive – especially when Iraq has an (albeit imperfectly) elected government which requests continued US presence, at least for now.
To repeat though: Popular opinion is a relevant factor, and it increasingly points to the withdrawal option. No disagreement there.
Experts. Though I guess he has become an export article too…
regarding what Cole is suggesting, I am not sure replacing current occupation forces, who have a sort of vested interest in things, with basically conscripted third world occupation forces would make that much of a difference.
Well, it wouldn’t be Americans dying for the most part, but I mean in the overall situation in Iraq.
from Cole:
Who is us? Is he talking about the Iraqi people, or is he feeling sorry for America, who caused this?
Last time I checked the people who are facing the disaster are the Iraqi people who are facing a disaster that at every step of the way, from the beginnings of Saddamism to the illegal invasion, has been made dramatically WORSE by the United States of America. It’s time we stopped feeling sorry for ourselves and whatever we might have to face as a result of the f-cked up foreign policies we have pursued. That would be step #2.
I’m afraid I beat you to that – cf. the last sentence in the entry… 😉 So I agree.
There is a chance, though, that he is referring to the entire world society, as suggested by the comprehensive doomsday scenario he sometimes touts, described by Hoya99 below.
Hoya90. Judging by my ratio of typos, it’s high time for going to bed.
that I forgot you had already gotten to that.
I’m getting old in my old age. 🙂
The argument I hear most often (from those who favor leaving entirely) is that no matter when the occupying forces leave, what will come after will more likely be power struggles and civil war and so on…
Which may be why Rice is now calling this a ‘generational’ thing, a 30 years or so occupation to either completely subjugate or pacify the population, thus keeping the ‘peace’.
Mind you, am not sure where that’s worked yet?
This is all BS. That is not what Cole said at all.
I am sending this to him.
HE WRITES:
I fear I think there are few third world armies that couldn’t be enticed by a couple of billion dollars-
HE IS EXPRESSING WORRY that third world countries will be willing to send their troops to die in Iraq in exchange for money.
You are mistaken, SusanHu. This is the second time you are making this baseless claim. Here is the quote in extensive context:
As for getting anyone over at the UN to take on Iraq, I fear I think there are few third world armies that couldn’t be enticed by a couple of billion dollars– the kind of money they would probably be rewarded with if they really could help Iraq. Progressives are usually people of principle, and they often can’t imagine the cupidity of the world, or how to play on it. Dwight Eisenhower was a past master of that sort of thing; he got DeGaulle out of Algeria before the latter could go Communist by threatening to call in US loans to France. If the US and Iraq both wanted blue helmets on the Tigris, I think it could be made to happen. Whether it would be successful I don’t know. But the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq are demonstrably unsuccessful, so it is worth a try. If it succeeded, it would enormously bolster the prestige of the UN and help make the world a safer place.
My main point was to try to find a progressive/centrist approach to Iraq that avoided the two extremes of a) agreeing with the Bushies that we should stay ‘until the mission is accomplished’ or b) simple-mindedly chanting ‘bring the troops home’ with no thought for the world-class disaster that might befall us from the resulting power vacuum.
It seems to me you either haven’t bothered to read this through, or utterly failed to make sense of it.
Please do send it to Cole, though. There is a tiny chance he might respond to my concerns.
I’m not as pessimistic as he is about the risks of an Iraqi civil war.
The main reason being that I trust the nations in the region to behave far more responsibly than the U.S. (or even most European countries).
Iran, Syria, Turkey, Kuwait, and even Saudi Arabia all have a better sense of what they can risk. They’ll all fuel the conflict with guns and money, but none of them have shown a willingness to get dragged into a protracted war.
They have one important trait in common – they all want to stay in power.
But you don’t need those other states for an escalated civil war (I’d say there is a civil war raging already).
If they “all fuel the conflict with guns and money,” as you suggest, that will suffice plenty. Iraqis will take care of the rest.
Cole trotted out the usual boogeymen of a collapse of the Saudi regime and/or violence in its oil fields, civil war violence engulfing Iran’s oil field in Khuzestan province, and a general nightmare where the bulk of the world’s exportable oil supply is cut off. He’s speculating on a possible global nightmare resulting from an Iraqi civil war.
That’s the part that I don’t really buy into. An Iraqi civil war is already going on and all the neighbors have reasons to get involved to back their favorite faction. After a U.S. withdrawal it will be bloody. But I don’t believe that that conflict will automatically spill across borders.
Great, then we agree about that.
yesterday one place or another, as a snark, but I was snarking more in terms of the war industry hiring 3rd world mercenaries at 1/10 the pay they need to hire 1st worlders.
It’s just about impossible to parody the world any more.
Rock and a hard place. That’s where we are. That’s where the Iraqis are.
Tragic and sad all at once. Proposing that someone else do our dying for us is no solution.
What about this: If we withdraw our troops, the thousands of foreign fighters pouring over the Syrian border will have much less of a reason to be there.
Withdraw. We must stop our part in the killing. By withdrawing, we would also stop the looting of our treasury by Halliburton and others.
Then let the Iraqis decide what kind of help they want to ask for.
Besides disagreeing with Cole’s “could”/”if” analysis, I strongly disagree with his recommendations. Are we to believe turning thousands of third-world troops into functional mercenaries is even an option? Politically immoral, and tactically ludicrous.
==
=
=
=
=
==
The question came up on another diary about who to ask in Iraq about a “solution”. The government – period. Iraq has regained sovereignty. To the extent we continue to publically debase that government, to frame the debate only in U.S. terms, we simultaneously diminish their power, and impune their honor. In that part of the world especially a fatal error.
While the American media is self-obsessed with an internal political debate, 25 million people, and 200,000 troops are trying to get the lights turned on in Iraq. Focus there, on the ground, in-country. Publically, loudly, and constantly.
What an utterly arrogant and ugly people we have become.
What do the Iraqis want?
The basic premise is that the rebellion is driven by Sunni Baathists driven out of power and hatred of Christian foreign occupiers who are killing and humiliating your tribe.
The only way the USA can win is to kill every Sunni Baathists and every tribal member contesting the occupation. If the USA is unwilling to conduct genocide, it can never pacify Iraq and at some point the USA will withdraw from Iraq.
The only middle way is the UN option. But, with so many caveats, such as a federation granting Sunni power again, and splitting oil wealth among the ethnic groups and peacekeepers, to make the third way almost impossible. Simply a fantasy with the GOP in control of all branches of the US federal government.