In both cases there is the concern that retreat sends a bad message to the terrorists. The Israelis have decided that that is of secondary importance. They decided to reject their burden, Gaza, and to focus where their long term interests lie. The US should do likewise.
Let us assume that the US took my advice and just disengaged unilaterally without regard to what happens constitutionally. Let the parties sort it out for themselves or not as the case may be.
The US should then move their troops to friendly Kurdistan, including Kirkup. From this position they would have considerable influence on Syria, Iran and Turkey all of whom worry about the secessionist Kurdish movements in their own countries. The US could support these secessionists Kurds in these countries to destabilize their host countries just as Iran and Syria use Hezbollah to destabilize Israel and the US in the ME. This potential would give them considerable leverage. Thus they would be returning to the policy of pre-emption.
Meanwhile the Shiites would be happy to go their separate way with the support of Iran. Shiitestan could then focus on increasing their oil production which could lower the price of oil. Another win for the US. But the problem of the Iranian /Shiitestan union or collaboration would have to be dealt with regardless
The Sunnis would be bereft of oil revenue and decidedly unhappy. They would not take it lying down. The Sunnis with the support of Saudi Arabia and Syria would go to war against the Shiites or at least continue the insurgency. But they couldn’t continue to kill Shiites with impunity..
There is no question that such a policy would have unpredictable results. Perhaps it would result in the Sunni/Shiite war as I have suggested with the result that Saudi Arabia or Jordan could be destabilized. Perhaps it would result in regime change in Iran and Syria also.
What a mess. The problem is that the US cannot transform the ME to its liking whether it stays in Iraq or disengages. Nor can it submit to Al Qaeda’s demands that it get out of the ME entirely.
It is clear that there will be no pax-Americana. Perhaps a guerre-Americana would be a better solution. It is in the US interest to have the Sunnis and Shiites fight each other as they did in the Iraq/Iranian war. It would preoccupy the terrorists and the regimes that support them. It would also make all the regimes vulnerable and concerned with their own survival.
Bush should take his former advice and not be in the business of nation building. A policy of deterrence would be better. From a base in Kurdistan it could have great influence over how all their protagonists act. It should be prepared to punish them by bombing them if need be. It should also support Israel and allow it to do likewise.
The US needs to have a Disengagement Plan for Iraq.
By Ted Belman (written Aug 25, '05)
The reasons for the US quitting Iraq are not dissimilar from the reasons for Israel quitting Gaza.
When the US invaded Iraq it seemed like a good idea at the time. Israel didn’t have a choice to occupy Gaza in ’67 but later decided to hunker down and settle the land. Recently Israel decided it was a no win situation and just got out. The US has also decided it’s a no win situation. They are hanging in there to save face. Does it really want to waste treasure and to have their sons die in order to create an Islamic state friendly to Iran? Even if a constitution is agreed upon, the resulting union will be unstable and as soon as the US leaves it will fall apart. In any event, Iran will have the dominant influence.
In both cases there is the concern that retreat sends a bad message to the terrorists. The Israelis have decided that that is of secondary importance. They decided to reject their burden, Gaza, and to focus where their long term interests lie. The US should do likewise.
Let us assume that the US took my advice and just disengaged unilaterally without regard to what happens constitutionally. Let the parties sort it out for themselves or not as the case may be.
The US should then move their troops to friendly Kurdistan, including Kirkup. From this position they would have considerable influence on Syria, Iran and Turkey all of whom worry about the secessionist Kurdish movements in their own countries. The US could support these secessionists Kurds in these countries to destabilize their host countries just as Iran and Syria use Hezbollah to destabilize Israel and the US in the ME. This potential would give them considerable leverage. Thus they would be returning to the policy of pre-emption.
Meanwhile the Shiites would be happy to go their separate way with the support of Iran. Shiitestan could then focus on increasing their oil production which could lower the price of oil. Another win for the US. But the problem of the Iranian /Shiitestan union or collaboration would have to be dealt with regardless
The Sunnis would be bereft of oil revenue and decidedly unhappy. They would not take it lying down. The Sunnis with the support of Saudi Arabia and Syria would go to war against the Shiites or at least continue the insurgency. But they couldn’t continue to kill Shiites with impunity..
There is no question that such a policy would have unpredictable results. Perhaps it would result in the Sunni/Shiite war as I have suggested with the result that Saudi Arabia or Jordan could be destabilized. Perhaps it would result in regime change in Iran and Syria also.
What a mess. The problem is that the US cannot transform the ME to its liking whether it stays in Iraq or disengages. Nor can it submit to Al Qaeda’s demands that it get out of the ME entirely.
It is clear that there will be no pax-Americana. Perhaps a guerre-Americana would be a better solution. It is in the US interest to have the Sunnis and Shiites fight each other as they did in the Iraq/Iranian war. It would preoccupy the terrorists and the regimes that support them. It would also make all the regimes vulnerable and concerned with their own survival.
Bush should take his former advice and not be in the business of nation building. A policy of deterrence would be better. From a base in Kurdistan it could have great influence over how all their protagonists act. It should be prepared to punish them by bombing them if need be. It should also support Israel and allow it to do likewise.
Posted by Ted Belman at November 21, 2005 02:04 PM