We are in post-Murtha America. The "withdrawal" card has been played and the debate is now firmly out in the open. However, if you listen to everyone in the "debate" so far, strangely, our current situation in Iraq only seems to have two possible outcomes, which are predictably Manichean:
> Either we "stay the course" and continue to lose a grueling guerrilla war that only worsens U.S. security, influence and prestige (to say nothing of the death toll for our troops and Iraqi civilians); or
> We "redeploy immediately", which most likely leaves Iraq incapable of controlling itself such that it is easy to imagine all hell breaking loose with an all-out civil war, invasions by Syria and Iran and Turkey and basically WWI happening all over again, only in the Middle East this time.
I think there's another option, and I have yet to hear anyone talk about it:
I have yet to read any diary or news account about what I am proposing, nor have I heard a single talking head or bloviator or just plain anybody say anything about what occurs to me to be a fairly obvious compromise. [And please, please correct me for being wrong about that.]
It is obvious that the U.S. is not going to be in Iraq indefinitely.
It is obvious that the U.S. stirred up a shitstorm by removing the force (Saddam) that held Sunnis and Shiites apart from killing each other.
It is further obvious that it is pretty much everyone (even Israel's) best interest that a major regional war threatening the majority of the world's oil supplies not break out.
So, given all of this, it also seems obvious that the U.S. needs to replace our so-called "coalition of the willing [arm-twisted]" with a real coalition. With a regional coalition. With neighbors. With Arabs. With fellow Muslims.
I am not talking about a UN force, although that wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea.
I am really suggesting something more like ECOMOG. From Wikipedia:
ECOMOG is a West African multilateral armed force established by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The name is an abbreviation of the ECOWAS Monitoring Group. ECOMOG is not a standing army, but a formal arrangement for separate armies to work together, along similar lines to NATO. Its backbone is Nigerian armed forces and financial resources, with sub-battalion strength units contributed by other ECOWAS members - Ghana, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Gambia.
ECOMOG was a great solution to a regional problem. Of course, since it's African, very few Americans have ever heard of it. But I think it's one model to think about.
I'm saying, we need some regional diplomacy to get the big players of the region involved in keeping Iraq from blowing apart, because we're leaving, probably sooner rather than later, and it is in their best interests to keep Iraq from blowing apart. We should be leaning on Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, Syria and Iran (yes, Syria and Iran) to form a regional force that would try to keep the peace (what there is of it) in Iraq. Sure, they're foreigners, and Iraq wants foreigners out. But they're not American-foreigners, they would be neighbor-foreigners.
Obviously the UN would have to be involved, I'm imagining.
Given the US's scorn for all things multi-lateral, and especially for the UN, I doubt any of this would come to pass. I even doubt that many of these countries would want to send in troops into a zone that is so dangerous.
But as I see it, if Middle East countries don't do something to step into the breach when we leave -- and we ARE leaving, make no mistake, and it won't be because we've "won", either -- if they do nothing, then the civil war that could well erupt will slowly drag them all in. The Kurds could want to secede and set up an independent state -- that would bring in Turkey. The Shiites would want solidarity with Tehran, that would bring in Iran. And so forth.
Strangely, though, I hear no one talking about what we can do to both a) get us out of a bad situation, but also b) avert a melt-down in a critical region.
I don't pretend to think I have answers or that this suggestion is an answer. I just have heard only STAY-NO-MATTER-HOW-MANY-DEATHS or LEAVE-NO-MATTER-WHAT-SHIT-HAPPENS.
Why on earth should someone else clean up the mess we created? Well, that's a damn fine question. But the relevant issue here is continued misery. In fact, the issue is whether we can staunch the blood flow now -- on both sides -- or whether even significantly more people, from even more countries are going to die because of our short-sighted Middle East adventure.
I think there are ways out of this mess. But we -- I mean, the administration -- must be willing to ask for help, and to admit they can't solve everything themselves. We are the problem here, but we can part of the solution, if we work at it. That sounds terribly glib and Hallmark-cardsy, I know.
I'm trying to be optimistic. Really trying. But I am well aware that I am asking a lot of an administration that is pathologically adverse to diplomacy and seems to believes its own delusions and lies. But one has to try.
So what do you think. . . .