It is becoming increasingly clear that long-lasting peace will only come to Iraq when it is finally partitioned into separate Sunni and Shia states (the Kurds will need to accept limited autonomy within a Sunni dominated Northwest Iraq). This kind of resolution should be acceptable to all Americans if it would end the hostilities between the Sunni and the Shia and give the vast majority of the population freedom from fear. So what if we weren't able to preserve the Old Iraq. That's really irrelevant right now, isn't it? The reality we are facing is that the Bush Administration has been lying to us all along re: what is at stake in the region. The Iraqi people need to stop dying as a consequence of our leader's sins.
Which troops should replace us? It is imperative that the people living in particular areas of Iraq trust the troops that are protecting them from threats. That is to say, a lot of Iranian troops should be stationed in those areas that are dominated by the Shia and a lot of Saudi/Egyptian/Syrian troops should be among those providing security in Sunni areas.
If Western Nations (and Russia and China) are concerned about this kind of arrangement, then they'd certainly have the option of committing large numbers of their own troops to a Grand Coalition Security Force, thereby optimizing their influence on the behavior of the occupation forces. The more nations involved in this, the better, but Iranian troops should still make up maybe 50% of the troops occupying Shia areas and Sunni troops should comprise a similar percentage in those areas where Sunnis dominate the population.
This kind of solution would quickly eliminate one outstanding cause of the violence, the presence of the Americans who invaded and occupied their land. It would then be possible to focus attention on a final resolution of the land disputes between the Sunni and the Shia. Of course, we should be willing to contribute a lot of money to the cost of this military occupation since, well, we broke it and because we want to take away any objections that some countries might have in the beginning.
The Bush Administration's framing of this issue has always been profoundly flawed for the reasons I have mentioned. It's not 'us or nobody...us or civil war.' It is instructive to note that Bush would not be able to pull off this kind of solution, himself, because most civilized countries around the world have been quite happy to watch us crash and burn for George Bush's sins, but it most certainly is something that Barack Obama could pull off, especially because he was one of the few politicians in America who was opposed to the war from the beginning. Come on, Barack, let's make it happen.
nontrivialpursuits.org
Comments are closed on this story.