Next US President?

[Edric O]

She should have quit weeks ago - perhaps months ago. At this point I don't think it is possible to stop McCain, so the race for the Democratic nomination is in fact a race for the honour of getting stomped in November. Let Obama take the fall.

[Andrew]

100 years in Iraq!

So how long has the US had military bases in Germany and Japan? When will the troops be pulled from those countries? ::)

If "100 years" is all the democrats can come up with then they will lose.

[Edric O]

The US has had military bases in Germany and Japan since 1945 - so that makes it 63 years. Only 37 left to go! :P

And while the three current presidential hopefuls have rather similar policies in all fields (with the exception of health care), I think in the matter of Iraq they are closer than on any other subject. Neither Clinton nor Obama could afford to pull out of Iraq. McCain's policy is everyone's policy, even though they may not admit it.

[Mahdi]

Well, any other policy would be reckless result in a larger number of deaths.  A rock and a hard place, sure, but they made this mess and to leave now would be the greater sin, imo.

[Edric O]

Well, any other policy would be reckless result in a larger number of deaths.  A rock and a hard place, sure, but they made this mess and to leave now would be the greater sin, imo.

True, though I am wondering whether the US presence is merely postponing the inevitable. If the US left Iraq in 2003, the result would have been civil war. If the US leaves Iraq tomorrow, the result will be civil war. Will there ever come a time when a US withdrawal would not result in civil war? In other words, is it possible to forge Iraq into a stable democratic country at all? And even if it is possible, will the US ever have both the ability and the will to do it? Right now they seem to have neither.

[Caid Ivik]

Is it possible to "forge" any country into a stable democratic country?

[exatreide]

You all know where my votes going..

[Edric O]

Hehe, the sad part is that I understand the reference. :) Picard - Data '08!

Is it possible to "forge" any country into a stable democratic country?

Possible, I would say yes. But highly unlikely.

[Andrew]

In other words, is it possible to forge Iraq into a stable democratic country at all? And even if it is possible, will the US ever have both the ability and the will to do it? Right now they seem to have neither.

Look at Lebanon. The

[Dunenewt]

Lebanon has a lot of Christians as well.  Also, different branches of Islam don't always see the other branches as 'Islamic'.

[Mahdi]

Look at Lebanon. The

[Mahdi]

True, though I am wondering whether the US presence is merely postponing the inevitable. If the US left Iraq in 2003, the result would have been civil war. If the US leaves Iraq tomorrow, the result will be civil war. Will there ever come a time when a US withdrawal would not result in civil war? In other words, is it possible to forge Iraq into a stable democratic country at all? And even if it is possible, will the US ever have both the ability and the will to do it? Right now they seem to have neither.

I don't disagree, but I believe they have to give it a shot, even if the resutling "stable democracy "is not friendly towards them.

Are you arguing the "rip off the bandaid fast" position?  Better they have a civil war now and get it down with, no matter how much it hurts?

[Edric O]

I don't disagree, but I believe they have to give it a shot, even if the resutling "stable democracy" is not friendly towards them.

Are you arguing the "rip off the bandaid fast" position?  Better they have a civil war now and get it down with, no matter how much it hurts?

I'm not sure. I'm not sure if the US presence will make things better or worse in the long run. It could make them better, if it results in some kind of stable regime that will face only a non-violent political crisis, as opposed to outright civil war, when the US eventually withdraws (I don't think it's possible to create a government that will survive the US withdrawal intact, but it is possible to create one that will collapse peacefully). On the other hand, the US presence could make things worse in the same way that the British Mandate made things worse in Palestine and set the stage for the never-ending conflict there. In other words, if handled badly, the US presence could put Iraq in a situation where the outcome will be perpetual war, rather than a temporary civil war.

I think at this point the worst option is what the US is currently trying to do - get all the different factions to give up their weapons and sit together to form a pluralist democratic government. It is the worst option because all the faction leaders really want to do is kill each other, and they will proceed to do so as soon as they no longer have the US watching over their backs. It is setting up Iraq to be another Yugoslavia - a time bomb.

A middle-of-the-road option would be to partition Iraq into three separate states with appropriate population transfers. That would avoid civil war. It would also avoid war between the three new states, since the Shia south would immediately join Iran, Turkey would invade the Kurdish north, and Syria might try to grab the Sunni middle for the hell of it. But let them do it, I say. Once their respective occupations are complete and secure, the three invading countries will not go to war with each other. There won't even be insurrections in the Sunni or Shia areas; there will be in Kurdistan, of course, but that's nothing new.

The best option, and the one I would pursue if I were in charge of Iraq, is Kemalist iron-fisted nation-building. It worked for Turkey, and it can work for Iraq. Forget the misguided notion of a balancing act between Iraq's rival factions; the point is to annihilate the factions, to destroy all sources of loyalty other than the state - to eliminate tribal, ethnic and religious loyalties, in other words. A strong central government should be set up, with a constitution that is democratic but bans all political parties established along tribal, ethnic or religious lines (in other words, all parties should be required to have members from all over Iraq, representing a balanced mix of ethnicities and religions). Use of tribal names should be forbidden. Public institutions should be thoroughly secularized, banning references to religion or the wearing of hijab. A Turkish-style ultra-secular military must be set up. Iraqi nationhood must be celebrated at every corner and with every opportunity - the ancient history of Mesopotamia can be used to create some useful national myths (because, let's face it, there is no such thing as an Iraqi nation yet; but one can be created). Inter-tribal, inter-ethnic and inter-religious marriages must be encouraged and given financial incentives. The slightest hint of sectarian feelings must be met with draconian punishment. Keep this up for two or three decades and Iraq will be another Turkey - rabidly nationalistic, unwilling to confront its own past, semi-democratic... but safe and stable. (except, of course, for the Kurdish issue)

[Caid Ivik]

Well, if you were US president, would you like to have a strong, independent Iraq in few years or try to prolong the justified control? They have a cause to stay there - if they move out it would cause a civil war - and thus have a strong position for pressure against Iran. Also, is it in US' long-term interest to change countries like Serbia or Iraq (or any other) into strong regional players like Turkey? Friendly policy towards early era of Hussain and Milosevic turned fully against them. One may say - it costs a lot to be a world police between many weak states; but I say an open war every twenty years would cost much more.

I suppose the ideological goals like spreading democracy, justice etc are irrelevant  ;D

[Dunenewt]

A middle-of-the-road option would be to partition Iraq into three separate states with appropriate population transfers. That would avoid civil war. It would also avoid war between the three new states, since the Shia south would immediately join Iran, Turkey would invade the Kurdish north, and Syria might try to grab the Sunni middle for the hell of it. But let them do it, I say. Once their respective occupations are complete and secure, the three invading countries will not go to war with each other. There won't even be insurrections in the Sunni or Shia areas; there will be in Kurdistan, of course, but that's nothing new.

Based on a lot research into similar situations, this is also what I'd propose.  The US really needs to start consulting Iran, and get them involved in what's going on, but they'll never do that, because, quite rightly, it will piss off the Israelis.  However, this situation will never get resolved without Iran's help in my opinion.  If the US invited Iran into discussions about the future of Iraq, then it would go a long way to improve Iranian relations with the West, and could be used as a lever to stop Iran trying to blow up Israel all the time. 

However, I would not advocate any Turkish invasion of Kurdistan.  I would partition southern Iraq into Shia and Sunni states, to do what they wished, and place all the current coalition troops into Kurdistan, to utterly annihilate any Turkish forces that cross the border, and proceed to follow them back across the border, and wipe out the military bases that these attacks occurred from, until Turkey stops.

[Anathema]

Based on a lot research into similar situations, this is also what I'd propose.  The US really needs to start consulting Iran, and get them involved in what's going on, but they'll never do that, because, quite rightly, it will piss off the Israelis.  However, this situation will never get resolved without Iran's help in my opinion.  If the US invited Iran into discussions about the future of Iraq, then it would go a long way to improve Iranian relations with the West, and could be used as a lever to stop Iran trying to blow up Israel all the time. 

However, I would not advocate any Turkish invasion of Kurdistan.  I would partition southern Iraq into Shia and Sunni states, to do what they wished, and place all the current coalition troops into Kurdistan, to utterly annihilate any Turkish forces that cross the border, and proceed to follow them back across the border, and wipe out the military bases that these attacks occurred from, until Turkey stops.

That would be... I don't know, but treacherous doesn't begin to cover it. Turkey's always been extremely helpful to the USA by allowing troop and material transport into Iraq. It would also be completely stupid as they're the only ally in the region they have who is both useful as such and reliable. (Israel fails on the first count, others on the second)

Anatolia/Turkey was pretty much ethnicly homogenous, after the Armenians and Pontic greeks were purged, anyway. Iraq's not, so I don't think that the Kemalist approach will work longer then Edric's lifetime ;) and instead go the same way as Yugoslavia after Tito...

If I had been in Bush' shoes after the invasion, I'd have done as people had advised me: I'd have coopted the sheiks into the new government structure, kept the Iraqi army in employment, and all other sorts of things that would offend a lot of idealists (who most likely didn't support the war, anyway) but wich at least work. It would essentially be an oligarchy of Iraqi's that actually matter, instead of people handpicked by their supposed democratic credentials.

Right now, though...I get the impression that Iraq's slowly stabilising since it's not dominating the news as it once did (and I'm not actively following it on my own initiative). As long as the new President doesn't suffer from borderline naivety like the incubent and at least listens to people like Petraeus, the current Iraqi state might have a chance.

[Dunenewt]

That would be... I don't know, but treacherous doesn't begin to cover it. Turkey's always been extremely helpful to the USA by allowing troop and material transport into Iraq. It would also be completely stupid as they're the only ally in the region they have who is both useful as such and reliable. (Israel fails on the first count, others on the second)

It is a shame that the Army is the one keeping the country secular, yet cannot stop itself from crossing the Kurdish border all the time.  I'd just put that country back in the stone age if I could, it would solve a lot of problems in Europe and the Middle East.

[Anathema]

Meh, I never looked at the Turkish army as the good guys. I'm not knowledgable enough about Turkish history to judge their previous takeovers, but what I've read about the AKP (the current ruling party, islamic) indicates that they're about as fanatical as the average christian democrat from Germany. Not allowing people to wear head scarfs for their passport pictures is one thing, banning it from all but the privacy of people's houses is another.

What bothers me about Turkey most is the near-worship they reserve for Ataturk. You probably couldn't even announce that he, too, passed a fart occassionally without at least one idiot lawyer trying to prosecute you.

For that matter, I sometimes wonder wich cartoon would offend the average Turk more: one depicting Mohammed or Ataturk.

[exatreide]

Just bring the Ottomans back, that will solve all the rabble rabble.

[Dunenewt]

Depends what period of Ottoman rule.

[exatreide]

Sullyman II era.

[Dunenewt]

As long as he was one of the Caliphates that recognised the supreme power of the British Emp....oh never mind.

[Edric O]

It is a shame that the Army is the one keeping the country secular, yet cannot stop itself from crossing the Kurdish border all the time. I'd just put that country back in the stone age if I could, it would solve a lot of problems in Europe and the Middle East.

No, actually, it would cause a whole lot of problems as Greece, Bulgaria, Armenia, Iran and Syria would immediately invade the former territory of Turkey, the Kurds would proclaim independence, and all hell would break loose.

[Dunenewt]

What exactly is wrong with the Kurds claiming independence?  You seem to advocate a Kurdish genocide instigated by the Turks...

[Khan]

Based in history I think Edric would rather see a united Iraq with problems to overcome than three new micro nations which have disputes over land and become targets for the existing states.