Houm....

Point 1, Iraq is going to go to hell no matter what you do. It MUST go to hell first so Iraqis settle all blood deeds. Then, once they're tired of killing each other, they may be willing to work together before the country disintegrrates.

Point 2, USA is bleeding to death about/in Iraq. Is a no-win, much-to-lose situation.

Point 3, time to accept it's been a friggin' disaster and go back home. Do it for your soldiers, for your budget, for your economy, for your children.

Point 4, once you're retreating, do it in the safer way for your troops.

Point 5, call in the UN to establish refugee camps so Iraqis have safe zones to flee at. Invest money in their safety. Ease immigration to Iraqis -you owe that to them, and the immigration ease must be proportional to the need. 33,000 Iraqis a year are a tasteless joke provided there are 2 million displaced so far.

Just thinking out loud.

Yes, there is hope for Iraq. What is hopeless is America's intervention in Iraq. The seed is dead, rotten and weed has taken over the field. But as far as Iraq is concerned, once after they kill each other enough, they will need help to rebuild their country... Iraq won't cease to exist unless intenrational diplomacy spoils it BIG.

The crucial point is that Iraqis are nationalistic. That comes second to the ethnic grudges, but neither Shi'a nor Sunni want to split the country. Kurds want to, but that's because they're Kurd, not Iraqi. Actually in the brutal world of realpolitik, preventing that kurds "steal" the northern half of the country (and its oil fields) could be a lever to push Sunni and Shi'a together. That would suck for Kurds, but, seriously, does someone want to fuck it up wiht Turkey about the Kurds? The Kurd case won't be resolved until Turkey wants to, and that won't happen any soon.

As the USA are concerned, the only real thing left to them is to damper the humanitarian disaster, a great chance to get back to leading the world by the simple method of putting themselves ahead of a marching crowd. It's been demonstrated that the USA can't drag people out of their way, neither politically (Europe, Rusia, China) nor militarely (Iraq). Iraq implies a lot of lessons in humility for the USA.

But, being realistic, the USA will quit Iraq and won't do anything else. They won't touch Iraq with a 10 foot pole, ashamed and with their national pride hurt and disgusted about how "stupid Iraqis" spoiled it all (by being, hum, Iraqis). Meanwhile the world will see how "stupid arrogant American" can't take a lesson, thus spoiling further their already disastrous foreign image. And then it will come the time when American learn the bitter lesson that you can't be part of the world and give a damm of your foreign image, specially when your economy pivots around loans and defficit. Yet that would be another story.

It is likely that chaos and mayhem last about 3 to 5 years in Iraq before they exhaust themselves (run out money, weapons and bloodthirst) and figure that foreign interventionism (al-Qaeda, fai) is about to steal their country from them. It would be sensible to make plans and begin working ASAP to ensure that Iraq is refounded in a convenient way -nobody in West wants it to become a nuttislamist republic. Preserving Iraq's laicism should be the ultimate goal to diplomacy.


(Of course, all this is made in the assumption that Bush won't attack Iran. An attack on Iran is endgame for ME politics as we know them, and may God and Allah have mercy of us while we learn the new rules... On the other hand, all crumbling powers in denial of reality like to "end the world" along with them. Hitler and the no-man-left defens efo Berlin, Japan and the kamikazes, people is not like saying "huh, I've been a fool and my power is dead, time to pass away in silence", rather like "if they don't die, we my followers will do, in a blaze of glory! Banzai!". The temptation to sue their crumblign power to revenge against the world ("let's do it while we can!")will be strong to Bush and his nutters. Let's hope the USA will be lucky and will skip the ultimate nonsense of "necocons". Talking about conventional warfare, of course... any use of nuclear weaponry on Iran will be endgame not just to ME politics, but to USA as a superpower)

My suggestion? Back up.

Since the US won't leave we can only hope we change strategy. Trying to "control" areas of the country will fail unless troops STAY in those areas so the only thing we can hope is that Iraqis do it themselves WITHOUT American intervention.

Conflict is unavoidable. Shiites and Sunnis will kill eachother whether we're their or not, and while this is not the most moral decision out there, I suggest we back up.

Not leave, mind you. My suggestion is that we move to the outside of the country, protecting it from Iranian, Saudi Arabian and Turkish influence and let their violence expire.

Please note that I disagreed with the initial invasion and damn Bush for bringing this thing about... but we can't fight history. Since leaving would create the same problem (but without the added benefit of protection from foreign neighbors) and staying will take us on a long road to no where... why don't we just take a step back and see what happens?

Sectarian violence has stopped in neighborhoods where ethnic cleansing has had a chance to create a strong majority. It's a grissly, yet inevitable conclusion.

Why not let it happen?

The problem is, as was in 2002, that "American influence" around the world is about as welcome as the Plague. And some countries would actually choose the Plague if they could...

Seriously, back in 2002-03, there was peopel who doubted that Bush & co were fit tot he task they had imposed themselves. A task which stinked, and in hands of incompetent people, was not the best way to capitalize the influence gained aftter 9/11.

Also some people claimed that the USA ar epoorly suit to  task like Iraq. Iraq was a case of good old fashioend imperialism. It was the attempt to make it unlike good old fashioned imperialism what killed the possibility to succeed, and it was the blatant intent of playing good old fashioned imperialism in disguise what alienated public opinion abroad. The way to succeed in Iraq after a military invasion and overthrowing of Saddam was appointing a viceroy who used Saddam's army, Saddam's police and to some extent Saddam's methods to keep the Iraqis bloody quiet and foreigners bloody away. Crush any opposition (easy to do with 400,000 Iraqi soldiers at your disposal rather than kicking your ass) and so and so... good old fashioned imperialism. Now, if you feel this is not what the USA are about, welcome to the club as that's what European populace was thinking. What alternative was bout iraq? Nothign. Massive amounts of actively doing nothing.... but ready a few democratic leaders, gathering support of people like Muqtada al Sadr (the ones bleeding in their fight agaisnt Saddam), and readying the ground to get the closest thing to a friendly laicist democracy once Saddam passed away -maybe with some help of iraqi populace. All that were long term plans as Iraq was no pressing business. Pressing business was (is) Afganistan and was (and it really really is) Pakistan. Also Iran, although certainly they where friendlier less hateful until they were squeezed between two US invasions. (Be noted that in Iran USA stands for anti-democracy, dictatorship and being attacked by a psycho with WMD... they would be between the ones choosing the plague in a blink).

Now... well, you don't fight a wildfire from within the flames, if you know what I mean.

Because that would be a categorical US permission for it and translated onto the 'Arab Street' that means orders from Washington made it happen.  US already carries enough explosive baggage from Iraq, adding to it doesn't seem like a good plan.

My greatest fear.  There is no way America will be able to pursue economic interests in the region ever again if said thing happens.

Your greatest fear?  What about 1979?  Iran has already gone down this road and the world didn't end.

And Iran has a hundred times more reason for implacable hatred of the USA than Iraq does.  Iraq is building that up right now, but still has a long way to go.  Four years of US occupation is small potatoes compared with 30 years of US-installed Shah Palavi running a police state.