Washington Post: Pentagon to Reevaluate Strategy and Goals in Iraq
With the election over, Democrats in charge of the House and the Senate, and finally with Republicans saying, "Now you guys are in charge, so what are you going to do about Iraq?" It is time to answer that question -- or at least explore some options.
Throughout the election cycle, we heard about "cut and run" and "stay the course." Each seemed to be diametrically opposed to one another. But those slogans hardly describe the problem of finding a solution to the mess in Iraq. I don't profess to know all the answers -- heck, I don't know any of the answers -- but here is what I've been mulling over as possible courses of action.
First let's establish some baseline conditions that have to be established:
- The violence -- sectarian, insurgent, terrorist and other -- has to be contained and eliminated.
- A viable government must be established that will enforce national unity while recognizing ethnic, tribal and religious differences, and suppressing factional violence. This government must also be recognized by other governments in the region as well as the United Nations.
- Basic services must be restored to the populace. That is: food is plentiful and affordable; medicine and medical care is readily available.
- Utilities such as gas and electricity, services like water, sewers and waste management are all operational in all areas of the country.
- Second-tier services such as educational institutions are open to all who wish to attend.
- There is a system of providing news and information to the populace.
- The national economy is restored. Farmers can farm and sell their crops, oil can be drilled, refined and shipped. Goods can be imported and exported. The monetary system is stable.
- There is a national guard to defend the country against intruders. There is a police force to serve and protect the people. There is a legal system to enforce criminal and civil law.
- There is a codified system of justice which includes rules for a fair trial, appeal, and punishment.
Of course, there is more to nation-building than what is on my small list, but that would be a good start. Now to the options.
Let's agree that the situation in Iraq today is unacceptable. And, for the sake of discussion, say that our approaches to rebuilding Iraq will start from point zero: it's irreparably damaged and we must start over. Mind you, that I am not advocating any particular course of action, just mulling over some of the options.
Option 1: Turn Iraq into a US colony (Think British Empire)
To accomplish this option we need to re-invade Iraq, overthrow the Maliki government, secure the borders, and install a strong provisional government staffed by Americans. Americans would govern Iraqis. Americans would replace Iraqis and all foreign nationals as managing directors of all Iraqi companies, and hold all top management posts. Iraqis would provide the labor force.
To quell the sectarian violence, Iraq would be divided into as many provinces as needed to separate the various factions: Sunni, Shi'ia, Kurd and any other. The population would be relocated to the appropriate province of their ethnic background. They would be paid reasonable compensation for the inconvenience of the move, the loss of any property and start-up funds for life in their new home provinces.
The Iraqi police and the Iraqi military would be re-developed under US command, at first as auxiliary units with limited power.
All persons who cannot establish bona fide ties to Iraq, will be detained or deported. Those who are detained would live in a designated "detainee city" where they would be allowed to work and live, but not travel beyond the city borders.
Over time, some of the harsh restrictions would be relaxed, and eventually (20 years?) the US would relinquish control to a hand-picked government. US forces would withdraw, and the US would maintain "interests" in the country. A civil war or other form of unrest may occur after the US departs, but that seems to follow the natural course of colonialism. If the government is strong enough, it may withstand the unrest, otherwise there will be civil war.
Option 2: Choose to back one of the factions. Use the CIA and other covert operatives to create a viable opposition party to overthrow the Maliki government.
In this option -- similar to actions the US has taken in other parts of the world to
de-stabilize or replace governments we didn't like -- covert forces (CIA, Defense, NSA, State) are used to infiltrate and support one of the sides, provide them with funds, arms, behind the scenes training so that the selected faction's leadership can do the dirty work of overthrowing the
Maliki government. The regular US military forces would be withdrawn, leaving the undercover agents to operate freely. It doesn't matter -- in fact it may help the operation -- to announce a withdrawal deadline. The US troops could be re-deployed to some other areas in the region, so that when the "winners" surface, troops can be repositioned to support the newly formed "legitimate" government of the people. The new government would explicitly request the help of the US to maintain peace as the transition continues. That request provides cover for the US continuing to pursue its "interests" in the country.
Option 3: Encourage an allied country in the region to step in and maintain order.
This option is a variation of Option 2, but uses a third party, with full US support, to take over the country. The sole advantage here is that a regional solution might allow for more stability because it is a neighbor -- and not the US -- doing the behind the scenes manipulating. After withdrawing, the US interests in the country are limited, and the US would have to go through the third party to operate in the country.
Option 4: Give the existing Maliki government an ultimatum and a timetable, including a date certain when US troops, and all other support for the government, will be withdrawn.
The ultimatum is that the
Maliki government needs to take control of the country PDQ (
pretty damn quick), insure that all Iraqis, not just
Shi'ites, are represented and protected by the government. The Iraqi army must be reconstituted, borders secured, violence quelled. If
Maliki balks, the
"or else" is that US troops leave immediately and the Iraqis can fight it out. The US should let
Maliki know that should any other regional power (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Turkey) invade, we will not help defend Iraq.
If
Maliki agrees to the ultimatum, the US will proceed to an orderly withdrawal, with border security becoming the primary mission prior to departure.
Will any of these options work? I don't know. All have their advantages and disadvantages. The problem with Iraq today is that the situation is so far out of control that there is no clear solution. The heavy-handed tactics of Option 1 make the US look like a greedy bully. The under-handed tactics of Option 2, leaves other countries around the region and world fearful and suspicious. Option 3 looks more palatable, but means we'd have to play favorites to pick a country that would do our bidding and support our interests. Option 4, or some variation of it is probably what we'll end up doing, but unless we are ready march out immediately if
Maliki balks, it has no teeth.
The $64,000 question is: Which one would I choose I if were President? I'm not a hawk and didn't support this misadventure in the first place. But if pressed to choose, it's between Options 1 and 4. I would probably offer Option 4 first, and if that fails, invade again and start over. Option 4, try to work with
Maliki government is the right thing to do. But forceably turning Iraq into a peaceful US colony -- and not just a military outpost -- may be the only answer at this point.
I just don't know. And so far, neither does anyone else in Washington.
