Saturday, November 25, 2006

`Find the right partner' in Iraq

Mohammed at IRAQ THE MODEL has a poignient piece on exactly what's wrong with Iraq and how to fix it...and of course he's right. The Maliki government has to go.

"The government stinks—that’s the overwhelming impression that is undermining the public's support for the government and its institutions.

People are tired of criticizing and there's frustration about the government's ability to take serious measures to contain the conflict or improve performance.

Frankly speaking, the ordinary citizen lost faith in his government—worse than that would be the prospect of living with it for another four years and that sounds like a very bad idea if incompetence remains at the current level, or gets worse.

Each episode of escalation brings to the surface the argument that the government must resign or be made to resign but that is not an easy option because even if it was technically possible to force a resignation there would be no better choices ready at our disposal.

The idea of a 'palace coup de tat' may look tempting and it's one of the popular ideas among many of the people these days as a cure for the deadly instability. But I'm not sure the advocates of this option realize the possible consequences lying beneath the sugarcoating but I understand their attitude because previous coups were mostly smooth and "stability" was regained in relatively no time.

...Iraq is no longer a centralized state and changing the head of the state from within-or from outside-won't be enough to make the entire country accept the change or pledge allegiance to the new administration.

Now, our real problem in Iraq is that we do not have leaderships with patriotic agendas ...the bitter fact is; it was us who brought them to power and gave them legitimacy through elections. But…regret is useless now.

I believe that America would like to see Iraq emerge as a model for the region and is working hard to find a way to solve the current crisis. But that cannot be done without having a cooperative Iraqi partner on the ground who shares similar views for Iraq and the middle east. And that's the point; that partner does not exist, at least not in the government.

And I don't think Iraq's neighbors would instruct their representatives (their servants in Iraq) to give America a hand, even though they pretend to be heading in that direction because their vision for Iraq and the region are fundamentally in conflict with that of America. They want to see America defeated in Iraq and that's of course at the expense of Iraq.

So, to start looking for solutions, America must first start looking for an Iraqi partner, a partner that is devoted to building a model state in Iraq and that favors building a strategic alliance with America instead of grave alliances with rogue regional powers that want to throw Iraq back to the ages of despotism or settle old accounts with America through a proxy war.


Dismissing Maliki's government, whether under a constitutional cover or not, will not be a fruitful act unless before that a fresh patriotic front capable of filling the vacuum is established. {..}

How can that front be assembled?

The only means is explicit, direct support from the United States to this future partner.

Everything is allowed in war and since Iran or other countries support this or that harmful party then America has the right, and the moral obligation, to support a party of its choice.

America is in Iraq now and in order to create a cover of legitimacy to any political or military solution, a strong Iraqi partner must first exist.

My heart goes out to Mohammed and others like him who got caught between the hammer and the anvil. They deserved better.

After all the wasted effort, all the billions of dollars and the lives that have been squandered, all the gratuitous rush to elections the Iraqis were not prepared for and the reluctance of the US leadership to confront Iran and Syria, I wouldn't bet on the chances of the Bush Administration admitting its mistakes and trying to salvage Iraq by dissolving the Maliki government.

In many ways, even if the US did so, at this point it would create more problems then it would solve, since most of the Shiites would erupt into open warfare against the US troops. Aided, of course, by our enemy Iran.

I still say, again and again, that our best option is to team up with the Kurds, our only real allies in Iraq, deploy our troops and our bases there and aid them in the formation of a strong, independent Kurdistan.

By doing so, we maintain our strategic presence in the region for the coming conflict with Iran, and effectively double our combat strength by utilizing the superb Kurdish Army, the Pesh Merga without sending a single additional American soldier or marine there.


Clovis Sangrail said...

Freedom Fighter,
My heart hopes desperately, for people like Omar, that you're wrong in your analysis. I fear (on the basis of what I read, since I'm no expert) that his analysis concurs with yours and that, even were Maliki's crew of cutthroats and Iranian puppets ousted, there is no credible alternative.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello, Canker!
Nice to hear from you.

If as he suggests, the US ousts Iraq's pro-Iranian Shiite government and attempts toinstall what he calls `the right partner', the Shiites will rise up en masse against the `occupiers'.

Actually, Chalbi would have been a good choice for the interim Iraqi leadership, but he was not well liked by the American State Department establishment.

At this point, I'm afraid that the Shiite portion of Iraq is indeed a lost cause, unless the Iraqi people decide otherwise,which is unlikely with Iran stirring the pot.

Our best bet is to throw in with the Kurds so as to maintain a strategic base there.

All Best,

Anonymous said...

Redeploy to Kurdistan...and have the rest of Iraq become a bloodbath? Even if we seperated Iraq into 3 sections, and after the bloodshed that would follow as the minority group in each one was moved out, there would be nothing stopping a Taliban style type of regime taking over the Sunni or Shiite sections, helped by Iran and Syria of course. And let's not forget Baghdad, which is mixed between Sunnis and Shiites. How do you partition a place like that?

For better or for worse, we're stuck in Iraq for the near future.

Freedom Fighter said...

(a)Iraq ALREADY is a bloodbath

(b) It is not our job to `partition' Iraq.And at any rate, it's too late to do so.

(c) unless we're willing to depose the Maliki government, forcefully confront Iran and Syria and destroy the Shiite militias the Shiite portions of Iraq and the Sunni triangle are going to be taken over by Iran and Syria anyway..either now, as we reform our lines in Kurdistan, ally with the Kurds and put our bases there or later,when the Iran proxy government tells us to leave so they can bond with their jihad buddies.

(d) The only reason for us to be in Iraq is a strategic one, with a pro-US government backing us and aligning with us against Iran.

Since none of that happened, and the present Iraqi government has said it NEVER will, I suggest we redeploy to a place where we'd be welcomed with open arms and still maintaina strategic base against Iran and Syria.

Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.



Clovis Sangrail said...

`Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.