Sponsors

A winning Democratic Strategy for Iraq [w/poll] Email Print

In response to Booman's thoughts on Iraq earlier today, I suggested that Bush's failure in Iraq presents a critical challenge for Democrats in advance of 2008.

We must develop a comprehensive strategy for how to deal with Iraq and the Middle East over the next 10-15 years and beyond, or else the Bush debacle will become a watershed moment in American history as opposed to an unfortunate footnote. We have ONE CHANCE to reverse the course he has set us on, otherwise an entire generation of Americans, if not several generations, will be doomed by the consequences of "staying the course."

I've sketched out a three-phased, comprehensive alternative to the Bush "strategy" below. It covers withdrawal of US troops, political solutions to the current civil war, an economic development agenda, a long-term plan to promote regional cooperation and stability, and even a corollary on the Arab-Israeli conflict. A few items have been suggested by others, but much of it is unique and has not been proposed before.

Most importantly, I think it's important to note that this is NOT a strategy for "winning the war." The war is lost. This strategy is for how Democrats can manage the fall-out from our loss, starting in 2008. I think adopting a strategy for manaing our loss will be absolutely critical for any Democrat looking to win the Presidency.  

PHASE I: DISENGAGEMENT AND REORGANIZATION   2008-2010

    The first step in resolving the sectarian conflict in Iraq is to partition it into two separate territories. The first should consist of those areas of western and southern Iraq which are primarily Sunni, and it should be given to Saudi Arabia to control. This will allow them to receive the financial support that comes with being part of an oil-producing nation, as they have been accustomed to, and it gives them a solid basis for stable government along cultural lines they are already familiar with.
    The second territory, made up of the Kurdish north and the Shiite eastern and southern areas, should constitute its own country. This area will include Baghdad. The two pieces within this territory should be united under a relatively weak federal government, allowing for a great deal of autonomy for both groups. This will give the Kurds an opportunity to continue self-government and will help keep the Shiite area from being absorbed as another province of Iran.
    The United States should keep a military base in the northern Kurdish area in order to maintain stability in the country and prevent Iranian aggression. No US bases should be maintained in the Sunni portion of the country that is ceded to Saudi Arabia. No American forces should be located inside cities, and American diplomats should tread carefully for a period of several years in order to demonstrate sovereignty in the new nation as well as tame anti-American sentiment. American forces must be kept on a strict leash in order to protect against inciting such sentiments as well.
    All American forces currently stationed in the western Sunni provinces should be divided in half, with the first group returning home and the second group moving to Afghanistan. These troops should be used for patrolling Pashtun tribal regions and hunting down Osama bin Laden. All American forces currently stationed in Shiite provinces should likewise be divided in half, with the first group returning home and the second group moving to the aforementioned base in the northern Kurdish area.

PHASE II: BUILDING DIPLOMATIC CONSENSUS   2010-2013

    The diplomatic tensions in the region should ease somewhat with the reduction in US forces and the cooling of sectarian violence that results from the partition of Iraq. In order to facilitate the cooling of that violence, however, Sunni and Shiite residents must be allowed to move with some freedom between the areas for a short period in order to reach a peaceful equilibrium amongst the people. Particularly, Sunnis who currently live in Baghdad must be allowed to move to the new provinces of Saudi Arabia.
    The US must negotiate a treaty with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey that guarantees non-interference in the New Iraq (the area formed by the Kurdish north and the Shiite east). This treaty should also include affirmative agreements by each party to enforce border security.
    The US should aggressively pursue the formation of a Palestinian state by 2012 in order to reduce Arab-Israeli conflict in the region. It should promote the inclusion of Palestine and Israel in the EU in order to help remove their conflict from Middle Eastern dialogue, and simultaneously embrace the Arab League as a forum for coordinating other policy, particularly the rebuilding of Iraq and the promotion of commerce amongst Gulf area states. Diplomatic concern about Arab-Israeli conflict should be downplayed in favour of pragmatic economic concerns, and to a lesser extent should shift to balance-of-power issues related to Saudi-Iranian relations.
    In all discussions, Iran should be approached in the same vein as China. Openness, both economic and political, should be stressed in favour of isolation. Non-proliferation amongst all Middle-Eastern nations should also be stressed. Removing Israel/Palestine from Middle-Eastern discussion and inserting them into European discussion should help to ease tensions over this, and a barrier should be built between Israel/Palestine and their neighbors to the east for even greater effect.

PHASE III: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REGIONAL INTEGRATION    2013-BEYOND

    The US should negotiate a treaty between Iran, New Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Afghanistan that creates a Free Trade Area by 2015. It must include strong border controls and require strict documentation of the import/export of goods and services in the interest of security, but also remove tariff barriers and encourage capital mobility. The treaty should also encourage governments to re-invest oil revenues into industries not related to petroleum production, and mandate that a minimum percentage of oil revenues be invested in education and infrastructure.
    A high-speed railroad network should be built along a corridor from Saudi Arabia, through the Gulf States, and into New Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. It should include some connections to Turkey, Jordan, Syria, and other areas, but its main focus should be to facilitate trade and economic cooperation amongst Iran, New Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. The primary focus of the corridor should be to facilitate trade and development amongst these nations, with a secondary priority placed on encouraging export growth.
    A common policy of anti-terrorism should be encouraged throughout these nations, including efforts to apprehend known criminals and cut off sources of terrorist funding. Simultaneously, a policy which identifies and promotes those organizations, businesses, banks, charities, etc. which are known to be peaceful must be adopted. These policies should be uniform and should begin by focusing on common elements affecting multiple nations, such as the Al Qaeda organization, which do not threaten the individual governments but rather regional stability in general. External pressure from the US and the EU must be applied in order to assure that legitimate opposition groups and religious organizations are not targeted under the guise of anti-terror operations.
    Intellectual exchanges should be promoted and actively encouraged, particularly amongst religious scholars within the region and abroad. Likewise, educational initiatives should be funded with an emphasis placed on higher education and professional skills development, including cooperation with American, European, and Asian universities. Satellite campuses, student and professor exchange programs, and collaborative research projects should be the focus of these efforts.
     A comprehensive development aid package should be negotiated amongst international donors for the reconstruction of New Iraq. Donations should be solicited chiefly from those countries which did not participate in the 2003 invasion, such as China, Russia, Germany, Canada, France, India, and others. Assistance should also be cultivated from Japan, South Korea, Australia, and others, but to a lesser degree. US aid should continue to be offered, but all efforts should be made to overshadow American money with donations from other nations. No matter what the final balance of aid, however, it should not be dominated by any one country, least of all the US.
    The New Iraqi oil industry should be entirely state-owned until 2025 in order to funnel oil revenues to domestic reconstruction and promote the stability of the government. At that time, half of the remaining reserves should be opened for private development in order to encourage foreign FDI and improve its efficiency.


KEYWORDS: , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

Poll

Should Democrats adopt this sort of strategy?
Yes 75%
No 5%
It's a good start but needs tweaking 20%
Why do you hate America? 0%

Votes: 20
Results | Other Polls
< Remembering History so we Don't Repeat It: Today in Labor History | 9/11 -- Eliminating the Impossible >
 Display:
The first should consist of those areas of western and southern Iraq which are primarily Sunni, and it should be given to Saudi Arabia to control.

Sure, considering that Saudi Arabia will just gladly accept a violence ridden province to be added to their country, thereby greatly increasing the possibility of their own instability. It might be ideal, but you could never realisticaly get the Saudis to agree to this.


The second territory, made up of the Kurdish north and the Shiite eastern and southern areas, should constitute its own country. This area will include Baghdad.

I think you may be forgetting the number of holy sites located in Baghdad that are important to both Shi'ites and Sunnis. The Sunnis will not calmly accept the loss of the city, given this fact and also that it is the greatest center of capital and economic, financial, and government resources.


The US should aggressively pursue the formation of a Palestinian state by 2012 in order to reduce Arab-Israeli conflict in the region.

Yes.


It should promote the inclusion of Palestine and Israel in the EU in order to help remove their conflict from Middle Eastern dialogue.

Considering that Turkey had a hell of a time when it tried to enter the EU, I don't think this is a possibility. It would be a tough to make a geographical case claiming both countries' existence as a European state. Furthermore, how are you going to simply "remove their conflict from Middle Eastern dialogue"? You can't. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan all fought against Israel for the Palestinian cause. This fight is in their blood. You would have to simultaneously brain wash every Arab in the region in order for this to occur. Ideal? Yes. Realistic? No.

by Onward Zapatista on 04/12/2006 03:11:13 PM EST

 Display: