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) 
Leverage is essential to the exercise of statecraft. The Iraq Study Group seemed to understand that. The Bush administration hesitates ever to apply it. Even its quasi-pressure on Maliki is primarily rhetorical. Why would he change his behavior when he sees far worse alternatives, when he is under countervailing pressures from his own base and other Shia politicians, and when he doubts that the Bush administration will change course?

Instead, we ought to be asking how we can use the process of our disengagement to affect the behavior of Iraqis and their neighbors. Our baseline objective should be to make sure that Iraq's problems are contained within Iraq. But we can still hope to achieve more than that. We can still hope to create a managed transition to an Iraq that has a central government with limited powers, provinces with extensive autonomy, and some means for sharing revenues.

Achieving such a transition is worth one last try. To do so, we should do three things. First, we should declare the surge a success and announce that we will negotiate a timetable for our withdrawal with the Iraqi government. This would give Iraqis input into the timing and shape of the withdrawal and doesn't simply impose it on them. Second, we should set a date for the convening of a national reconciliation conference. Unlike previous such conferences, it should not be permitted to disband until agreement has been reached. Success in this conference would mean greater flexibility in our approach to the timetable on withdrawal, and a stalemated conference would produce the opposite. To increase the prospects of the conference working, we should suggest that French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who has credibility across sectarian lines, play a brokering role in setting the agenda of the conference and its ongoing negotiations.

Finally, we should talk to Iraq's neighbors about how to contain the conflict. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Syria, and Turkey all have little desire to see Iraq either fragment or be convulsed to the point that they get increasingly sucked into the conflict. I have my doubts about whether the neighbors will ever agree on what they want for Iraq, but they can agree on what they fear about it. From that standpoint, we should not be negotiating bilaterally with Iran on Iraq; instead, we should be trying to broker critical understandings between, for example, the Saudis and Iranians on what they will do to limit or contain the conflict.

Maybe it is too late for such an effort to work. For the Iraqis, perhaps there has been too much brutality, too much displacement, too much disbelief in the intentions of the "other," and too little willingness to accept a political solution with its attendant compromises. But at least this plan is guided by an objective that is far more rooted in the reality of Iraq than Bush's approach to date. And it might just be something that the president could accept.

[bluestardad]

BUSHIT IS GOING TO CONTINUE THE SURGE!

[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.

[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 !!

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[tbweb]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.