A Last Chance For A Stable Iraq

The New Republic: There Is A Way Towards A Stable, Pro-American Iraq, But Will Bush Follow It?

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Dennis Ross.

---

President Bush's commitment to staying the course in Iraq remains as strong as ever. In his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week, he invoked the ideological struggles of the past to explain why we must prevail in the current conflict. While many have questioned his analogies to Southeast Asia and Vietnam, I found his continuing conviction that a "free Iraq" will be an "important ally in the ideological struggle of the twenty-first century" more troubling.

It is an illusion to believe that the new Iraq is going to act as our partner in the war on terrorism. Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not seek trouble with either Iran or Syria. Maybe he has good reason to worry about their trouble-making capacity in Iraq, but his government has actually sought to get us to release the Iranian Revolutionary Guard members that we have seized and has done little to publicize Syria's facilitation of jihadists crossing their border into Iraq. Trying to accommodate them, however, hasn't stopped Iran or Syria from causing trouble in Iraq. President Bush has so far excused Maliki's reluctance to act externally or internally. In his VFW speech, he referred to Maliki as "a good guy" with a hard job to do. That may be, but it also indicates that Maliki will not be an ally in the struggle to change Iran and Syria's behavior.

I don't mean to single out Maliki; it seems to be a cottage industry in Washington these days to say that he is the problem in Iraq. But the problems go far deeper. Is there a Shia leader who has credibility in Iraq who seeks enmity with Iran? Certainly not one who has any prospect of emerging as an Iraqi leader. If anything, that adds to suspicions that Sunnis have of nearly every Shia leader: They are all perceived as serving Iranian, not Iraqi, interests.

It matters little whether the Sunni perceptions are correct. The prospect of an Iraq in which a new political compact can be forged is still a distant illusion. The new National Intelligence Estimate has judged that over the next six to 12 months, the situation of the Iraqi government will become more precarious, not less. At the latest, the surge will end next April, because the U.S. Army does not have the available forces to sustain it longer, and it is unrealistic to believe that is long enough to create the political space needed to overcome Iraq's internal political divisions.

Truth be told, the surge itself was never going to be sufficient to overcome the psychological and political barriers that make internal compromise difficult. The fundamental problem remains that the Shia are convinced that, as the majority, they are entitled to rule, that the Sunnis are unwilling to reconcile themselves to Shia domination, and that there is, therefore, a risk that the Shia will lose their hold on power. Fearing that they can yet have power snatched away from them, the Shia remain unwilling to share it. The surge can't deal with that problem; only the possibility that the Shia risk losing everything if they don't compromise might alter their behavior.

Would, for example, Maliki and Shia leaders act differently if they thought they might actually lose material assistance for the forces they want equipped if they continue to resist all efforts at compromise? One of the Iraq Study Group's proposals was to tie security assistance to performance on benchmarks: Live up to them, and it is provided, even accelerated; fail to live up to them, and it is cut off.

[cofmanaaron]

Great article, but it is sad that Bush will not follow this course of action. For one it is to ''diplomatic'', an approach that the Bush administration does not know how to even begin, he prefers blood and guts and triumphant victory (even if purely fictional and unattainable) to compromise and negotiation without a gun. That''s Texans for you. But also, ending the Iraq war is not in George Bush''s best interests. Let me explain. Yes the war is hurting his party, but the damage has been done and the republicans have bounced back before from unpopularity due to Americans'' short attention spans. Meanwhile all of those no-bid contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater etc. are still rollin'' and these companies are still making bank. This is what the war was really fought for, the monetary profit of those well connected to George Bush, Cheney, and other neocons. George Bush Sr. is on the board of one of the biggest defense contractors, you know. So even if the Republican party is unpopular, it still will be well funded by campaign contributions from its base. So the party will live to fight another day and those the party values and is loyal to will benefit. Its just that most Americans don''t fall into that group. Now you see what republicans stand for.

[gkc99]

Who wants a stable Iraq with the US out? Surely not Bushit or the neocons who operate him like a puppet. It''s important to remember the real goal of the neocons: control of major middle east oil reserves, and the establishment of a ground base for a powerful US military presence in the region. Saudi Arabia can no longer serve this role. Furthermore, the recent discovery of vast new reserves in Iraq--over 100 billion barrels of easily recoverable oil in western Iraq--makes this an even more desirable goal. Therefore, Bushit and his crew want continued instability in Iraq. So what if US soldiers and Iraqi civilians die. Their deaths mean nothing in the geopolitical game being played here. The supine Congress certainly isn''t going to intervene, and the privatization of the military operations, with over 100,000 mercenaries on the ground in Iraq, means that there will be no draft to mobilize young Americans against the war.

Get ready for the permanent occupation if the Republicans win the next election.

[one_american]

Seems like everyone THINKS that they are experts on foreign affairs - or have a magic crystal ball in which to see the future - as long as they can form an opinion contrary to President Bush.

In reality, these arm-chair wannabes are simply second-guessing in hopes that their idea might come to pass.

The New Republic just makes it all up as they go along anyway. Just ask their phony lying soldier reporter, Scott Beauchamp, who made up stories about supposed atrocities committed by our soldiers.

[brianbwb-2009]

The New Republic: There Is A Way Towards A Stable, Pro-American Iraq, But Will Bush Follow It?

The Old Brian: Iraq Must Settle Its Own Problems, We Cannot Force It To Be Pro US, As They Were Until They Found Out We Were Selling Weapons To Both Sides During The War With Iran.

[tbweb]

Stable Iraq? We''re doing oxymoron''s again! Here''s one; Stupid Genius!

[ianlou]

Is it true the Iraq Government took a month off this summer even after Bush warned them that this was not a good time for a vacation considering that American Solders continue to die every day in Iraq?

If so, this should be reason enough to leave them with themselves.

[knyghtwolf]

We should just turn the whole country into a hog farming community and open up universities that cater to women. That would solve much of their problems right there & do it while the government is out on vacation, or better yet, REPLACE the government with ALL WOMEN and see how they like them apples!!!! Economics versus Religion, supply and demand. While you are at it, hand the bush(wacker) a bow & fiddle, drop his sorry butt in the middle and allow him to commence doing a hoe-down for the republican party, beer and ribs all around boys!!!!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWWWWW

[hwk_i67]

The thing that has me so dumbfounded is that we invaded their country in the first place and can''t figure out why they can''t get along and straighten their country out. We created the mess, we need to figure out how we''re going to fix it.

[klifton2-2009]

Perhaps a better job could be done with Iraq, the ill-conceived invasion. Unfortunately, Bush is NOT the man who can do it. The tragedy of it all is that he does not realize his limitations and thinks that stubbornness is a strength while thousands have died for his ineptness, incompetence, and downright stupidity. The problem with an intellectually blind person, which Bush is, is that he does not know he is blind and goes poking around with disastrous consequences. What a moron! Bush sleeps walk through the 6 plus years and all evidence point to the fact that he will be sleep walking for the remaining months of his presidency. When he leaves, he will be leaving behind a monstrous heap of garbage for the next sap to clean. What an irresponsible man! Started something and cannot finish nor know how to finish. What a horrible example for our children and our children''s children et al

[johnshaft4]

Here we go again...Yet, another Jew/Zionist propaganda lying machine (OPS/WMD) that wants Americans to die for stupid Jew wars. Look, Jew/Zionists jerks (Kristol, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Perle, Addington, Wurmser, Feith, ''yada yada'' et al,)...Screw Israel.
We should be GIVING nukes to Iran (big ones).
SEE: NoWarforIsraelDOT.com

[ioweign]

When he leaves, he will be leaving behind a monstrous heap of garbage for the next sap to clean. What an irresponsible man! Started something and cannot finish nor know how to finish. What a horrible example for our children and our children''''s children et al
Posted by klifton2 at 05:15 PM : Aug 31, 2007


He knows that. He is dragging Iraq out so the next president has bring the troops home. He can claim he was winning !!

[phil-in-fin]

At least someone is trying something to bring some peace to Iraq, besides a troop buildup.

http://www.yle.fi/news/id68659.html

It''s strange that no one is reporting this initiative in the US.

[bluestardad]

BUSHIT IS GOING TO CONTINUE THE SURGE!