What do you think should be done about Iraq?

Éomer of Rohan

Given the impending doom....I mean visit by GWB to London, what do YOU think should be done about Iraq?

The Irish Anti-War Movement (which for the most part is the SWP leading some small and politically inept trade unions around by the nose) has decided that the US and UK should be unconditionally withdrawn.

The right wing naturally believe that the US and UK did the right thing and we hear the jingoism of 'in it 'til the end' and other such anti-intellectual rot.

Certain circle see some form of UN involvement as a replacement of the US but given that this idea is fairly unfeasible, what can be done about Iraq?

Is it possible that the US and UK can be withdrawn completely without allowing the country to tear itself apart in the throes of becoming a new dictatorship?

SkepticOne

Whether or not the US/UK 'did the right thing' they need to stay until such time an Iraqi government can get established.

deco

There is a certain truth to that...

But if they don't get out quickly it really has the potentail to be another Vietnam.

mr_angry

I think the US and the British should withdraw, leaving an interim Iraqi government in place until such time as elections can be organised. An official UN international secuity force should stay there to protect the country from being seized by terrorists and warlords, and the Iraqi people should be allowed to get on with the rebuilding of their country in the manner of their choosing.

dathi1

The inevitable outcome should be drawn up now...set up 3 regional governments, one for the Sunni area, one for the shia area and one for the Kurdish area. See if an Iraqi federation is acceptable to all sides in a nation wide referendum (which is probably unworkable?) If not..just like Yugoslavia, let all 3 regions break up into separate entities.
Withdraw all western government troops and put in Indonesian, Malaysian, Moroccan, Tunisian...and even Libyan peace keepers under an International agreement.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by dathi1
The inevitable outcome should be drawn up now...set up 3 regional governments, one for the Sunni area, one for the shia area and one for the Kurdish area. See if an Iraqi federation is acceptable to all sides in a nation wide referendum (which is probably unworkable?) If not..just like Yugoslavia, let all 3 regions break up into separate entities.
Withdraw all western government troops and put in Indonesian, Malaysian, Moroccan, Tunisian...and even Libyan peace keepers under an International agreement.

This is definitely the best idea I've heard so far. I think the idea of single Iraq or even an Iraqi Federation ever working is pretty remote. However, you'd want to keep an eye out to make sure a new Saddam Hussein doesn't pop up and decide to invade the other "new" countries.

pork99

Originally posted by deco
But if they don't get out quickly it really has the potentail to be another Vietnam.

There is a prevalent left-wing myth that the USA was driven out of Vietnam by Viet Cong guerillas. The truth is that the VC were exterminated in the Tet Offensive in 1968 and therafter the US and ARVN forces were facing mostly the North Vietnamese regular army. At the end of the day the Americans pulled out and left the South Vietnamese to defend themselves in 1973 (the policy of "Vietnamisation") and 2 years after that the North Vietnamese annexed South Vietnam with an invasion by their heavily Soviet/Red Chinese equipped regular army, with T-55 tanks, helicopter gunships etc. Had the US forces still been there this would have been impossible for them.

To get back to the point I can not see who is playing the part of North Vietnam with it's logistic support from the USSR and the PRC in the current Iraq situation. Iran? Syria? Even Saudi Arabia? None fit.

It's closer to the American capture of the Phillipines from the Spanish in 1898. They were welcomed as liberators at first but when it became clear that they were not leaving they faced a similiar backlash to that in Iraq now and then had to win a nasty little guerilla war against Phillipino insurgents.

I think the current Iraq situation is George's re-election video gone horribly wrong. They should not have invaded without clear and viable planning for Post-War occupation; the plan such as it existed seems to have seems to have been - we invade, followed by ecstatic welcome from liberated peons, followed by victory parade in DC, followed by GW landslide in 04. (The man who could have stabilised the situation, Jay Garner, was sacked to appease the Neo-Cons)

Napoleon called his war in Spain, one characterised by a lot of guerilla resistance, his "Spanish ulcer", George has got himself an "Iraqi ulcer". And it was meant to be such a cool backdrop to his re-election campaign!

They have no option but to fight it out to the bitter end now. An Arab/Moslem peacekeeping force would be grand but I think its too late and the people resisting the Americans now would make kebab meat out of them. The Americans will simply have to prevail militarily, it won't be pretty and Chickenhawk* George's ass will be very far from "the line"


*Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

Sand

This is definitely the best idea I've heard so far.

Ah come on now- theres been better - Like Pakistan and India, North and South Ireland, North and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, etc etc.

mr_angry

I love that description of Chickenhawk. Very apt. A phrase like that could end up as somebody's signature...

Victor

Originally posted by ReefBreak
This is definitely the best idea I've heard so far. I think the idea of single Iraq or even an Iraqi Federation ever working is pretty remote.

For the last 10 years there has been a de facto Iraqi Federation - it stopped the middle level - tribal chieftains and the like - from organising a push indeed putsch against Saddam as it would jeopardise their own new-found power.

Originally posted by ReefBreak
However, you'd want to keep an eye out to make sure a new Saddam Hussein doesn't pop up and decide to invade the other "new" countries.

Why get a new Saddam Hussein when you still have the old one popular in his home area?