In a comment published in response to a thread in hte main section,
Thunder brings the question of an exit strategy in Iraq to debate table. He quotes former Carter administration Secretary of State Brzezinski outlining the options the US have in Iraq:
Tonight, on Charlie Rose, Zbiggy Brzezinski finally said it like it is. According to him, we have three options: 1. Stay the course. 2. Change the cast of characters in DC to mend diplomatic fences and get our allies on board. 3. Withdraw.
You know something? The only ones talking about getting the allies on board to occupy Iraq with the US are American.
Tell you what, folks. Read my lips: not gonna happen. No sir.
Even if the Americans in their (I hope) infinite wisdom get rid of the Bush Cabal, I don't expect a sudden influx of international troops taking over the "security mission" in Iraq.
Why? Nobody knows how to fix the mess. Listen for instance French President Jacques Chirac, in a joint press conference on Monday with his Spanish and German counterparts: "We have opened a Pandora's box in Iraq that we are unable to close".
So, if the UN would meet at the request of President Kerry on Jan 21, 2005 to vote a UNSC resolution mandating a Blue Beret force in Iraq, which country would volunteer troops?
Let's take a look at countries with substantial manpower and/or some interest in providing soldiers for UN peacekeeping:
- The Chinese don't do that sort of thing.
- The Russians are pretty busy right now with their own mess in Caucasus (which I might add is of their own doing).
- North Korea: Hey why not, they have a large standing army...
- NATO? I don't see anyone (except for Blair and Berlusconi) rushing to the rescue. France Germany, Canada, Belgium et al. are proven more right every day.
- The Esatern European countries: Poland, Bulgaria and the Ukraine have sent large contingents to the 'Raq. Now they're working like mad to pull them out without offending the US.
- Turkey: They'll go... to Kurdistan.
- Israel: They've got the experience... but the public diplomacy would be "problematic".
- Pakistan and India: too busy preparing for their next celebration of friendship over the disputed region of Kashmir.
- Bengladesh: too busy cleaning up the 10 feet of water they recieved monday in Dhaka.
- The Arab-Muslim countries: the US is not very popular in Syria, Iran and Egypt, the three large potential providers of infantry for an Iraq operation.
I don't see most of these countries providing more than a bataillon of troups, unless there is a request from the main factions with real popular support in Iraq (not the expats such as the INC or the INA).
Instead, I see a gradual deterioration of the situation once the collaborators and the occupation is gone. And it will get worse, whether the US leaves or not. Then, we have the big power vacuum, followed by a civil war to settle scores and to pick up whatever is left. And I am sorry to say, the moderate and pro-democracy factions won.'t have much to say for a while.
In Vietnam at least, Kissinger was able to negociate with someone who spoke for a united resistance and a nation-state. The next SecState won't have this luxury in Iraq.