The pragmatic way forward in Iraq

Contrary to conventional logic, there will not be a regional war between Middle Eastern superpowers if all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq.  I'll explain why leaving ASAP is the best option for both the U.S. and the Middle East.

An idea is always one of many -- but some ideas, as we have come to learn recently, are much better than others.  Some ideas save lives, accept reality and maximize our long-term geopolitical potential.  Other ideas are self-destructive, unrealistic and set a dangerous long-term precedent for our country's foreign policy.  There is no such thing as a perfect idea, but there certainly are smart ones.  From the very beginning, the idea for war in Iraq was made possible as a result of flawed notions about Middle Eastern political culture.  Still, more than three and a half years after the implementation of that idea, the consequences of the policy still have yet to convince many lawmakers to abandon it and try something new.

Before we come up with a new plan, a number of key realities must be acknowledged:

• The chaos is much more of a political problem than it is a military problem -- therefore it requires more than just a military solution.
• There is a slim chance that a true representative democracy will exist in Iraq this generation, and as an occupation force it is out of our control -- therefore just staying there and waiting for something to happen is nothing more than a policy based on wishful thinking.
• Only between two and three percent of all enemy fighters are Al-Qaeda.  This is a sectarian civil war, made up of towns, tribes and families that have lived in particular neighborhoods for thousands of years -- therefore the notion that we are fighting them in Iraq so we won't have to fight them in American cities is a flawed one.
• Time is not on our side.  During our occupation, even with a large military presence, the situation has consistently been getting worse -- therefore if we don't change course ASAP, expect the political situation to continue to worsen.

No matter what course we decide to take, there will be both good and bad consequences.  It would be smart to implement an idea that minimizes bad consequences -- or, in other words, implement the idea with the most favorable opportunity cost.

Considering every possible course correction and likely outcomes, the United States would be smart to consider the following plan:

1. Redeploy all U.S. combat troops to the periphery of Iraq ASAP.
2. Work through NATO to help secure the northern border with Turkey.
3. Spend the money we would have spent on Iraq between 2008 and 2010 (roughly $192 billion) on a Manhattan-style Project to make the United States completely energy independent.

My initial worry was that by withdrawing troops it would result in a more severe all-out sectarian civil war, forcing the Saudis and Jordanians to intervene on behalf of the Sunnis, and the Iranians and Syrians to intervene on the Shiites' behalf -- ultimately leading to a regional war.

The first is true: there will be all-out war if we leave.  But that is going to happen anyway.  The only thing we are doing through our occupation is prolonging the inevitable.  The longer we prolong it, the larger the man power that each militia will have, and the more destructive an all-out war would ultimately look like.

The second assumption is not true: an all-out civil war will spillover into a war between larger Middle East powers.  That won't happen.  When you put yourself in the shoes of Iran and Syria, a failed Iraqi state is definitely not in their interest.  The flow of refugees and the breakdown of commerce would wreck the Iranian economy, and the conservatives in Iran might face the possibility of being overthrown by the young liberal movement.  Iran's long-term goal is a larger sphere of influence, not a constant state of war that results in a failed economy.  Therefore, once the United States stops involving themselves in internal Iraqi affairs, the Iraqis themselves and Middle Eastern powers would become more involved in reaching a ceasefire.

Lastly, the worry that Iran would potentially control Southern Iraq is incredibly over-stated.  Right now, Moqtada al-Sadr and Iranian authorities are cooperating with one another because they both share the same goal: an overthrow of the Maliki government.  But once al-Sadr accomplishes that, he will no longer need Iran, and would ultimately oppose any Iranian meddling in his territory of Southern Iraq. 

The downside to this idea of deploying U.S. troops is that many Iraqis would lose their lives.  But the longer we wait before leaving, as I alluded to before, the worse the all-out war will be because each militia would have more time to increase its arms and manpower for the big fight.

Again, this is not a perfect option.  But do you have a better one?

Comments

[Tony]

This plan seems to make sense and what is key here is having an understanding of that regions politics and how they react to a situation (and it appears you do). One concern would be how our government would handle an overthrow of the Maliki government. If we do nothing (which is what we should do) does the world look at us as we left yet another leader to hang out to dry, or because of that reason, do we play Big Brother? I think we're damned if we do and damned if we don't...and it all goes back to the original Bush blunder.

[George]

It's good to hear a well thought out, well articulated idea. I'm sure there are even more complicating factors than we can see but for all we know this plan makes total sense.

Let's do it!

(how pathetic it is that bloggers are developing better plans than the President. Damn! Bush has really screwed us.)

[Tony]

What's even more pathetic is this plan could have come from 5 highly respected and qualified advisers and/or strategists, with a Kissinger kicker, but if there was a "D" tagged to them Bush would have kicked the plan to the curb, because either you're with him or against him.

The Washington Post has a poll and asks if President Bush is the worse Pres. in history.

[George]

yeah, but that's because the Democrats want the terrorists to win.

[Administrator: Todd]

Thanks for your comments, guys. When I wrote this, I was just going under the assumption that all states acted in their own interest. Maybe I'm wrong, and Iran and Syria will act against their own interest....but I doubt it. Iran and Syria do not want to see a failed state. Bush needs to tell them that the situation is theirs' to deal with, and we are leaving. Yes, it would Iran and Syria would help al-Sadr kick the Sunnis out of Baghdad. Shiites would control the entire capital. That is the downside.

But is that downside better than leaving our boys and girls in there and prolonging the inevitable? I don't think so.

The longer we wait on this, the worse an all-out war is going to look like.