www.talkcyprus.org

[Xenos 2Fan]

I thought it would be interesting to see how fellow members would put together a plan for the US and the UK to get out of Iraq. I would welcome any thoughts. Hopefully we can come up with a few good ones that we can submit to the Democrats after this coming Tuesday. Thanks in advance.

[cypezokyli]

a prfo the other day put it like this : with what they ve managed to destroy in iraq, it is absolutely not imaginable how it can be rebuild.

some analysts now even claim that the only way for iraq is to re-create saddams regime!!! to me this sounds as stupid as the predictions the bush adminstration made in 2003, about the outcome of the interventention!!!

heres a list of possible strategies from TDN
Quote:
The first alternative is to withdraw 142,000 U.S. troops from Iraq immediately. This may appease the anti Iraq war lobby and U.S. public opinion, but at a big political price. It would mean an admission of failure by the Bush administration that the military intervention in 2003 was not merely a mistake but a blunder. Father Bush, the victor of the 1999 Desert Storm, is now reported to have advised his son in 2003 not to strike Iraq, although he had himself left the job sadly unfinished. Nevertheless, George had to prove that he could do better than his father in Iraq, so he launched the 2003 military offensive on the false pretence of weapons of mass destruction and without the U.N. Security Council's blessing or international approval.

An immediate withdrawal will mean that the United States is also withdrawing not only from Iraq but also from the Middle East and giving up the Greater Middle East Initiative. Immediate withdrawal will add fuel to the fire to the civil war, so the United States will be blamed for everything. With all this considered, this first option does not seem a feasible option; indeed it seems the least plausible of all the alternatives.

The second option may be to withdraw in stages. This in fact is the present policy in practice. The calendar of withdrawal in stages may be precipitated in this option. The disadvantage may be that it will provoke the insurgency even further, as the calendar of withdrawal cannot be kept secret. A withdrawal in stages may force the Iraqi government, for whatever it is worth, to be obliged to take care of Iraq's security and hence training Iraqi forces as a matter of urgency. This option is more likely to receive support, as it is reasonable, plausible and practicable. The Pentagon and the White House may be in a position to judge the subtleties of this option as the process unfolds.

The third alternative is a radical change in U.S. policy towards Iran and Syria, described once upon a time as the axis of evil along with North Korea, and they may be indirectly involved in the solution of Iraqi insurgency. Baker and the British are said to be working on something like this and may propose to Bush that he encourage the involvement of Iran and Syria diplomatically in solving the Iraqi conundrum. In fact, it is a proxy war that the United States is fighting in Iraq against the Shiite militia supported by Iran and Syria, to a lesser degree. They can all join forces against the Sunni al-Qaeda. Bush may have a built-in opposition to this radical volte-face, but in diplomacy and politics nothing is impossible. "My enemy's enemy is my friend." Nothing can be ruled out and a flat "no" is never an answer in diplomacy. To save face, what the White House can do may be to engage in a kind of secret diplomacy towards this end while denying that they ever heard about it. This diplomatic option is expected to be opposed by the Iraqi Kurds, but they have to keep quiet, at the direction of the United States, their big brother. This soft power maneuver may complement the gradual withdrawal option.

The fourth alternative is to use more force against the insurgency by appointing a strongman supported by a military junta, to replace the democratically elected but toothless government and the federal constitution, which will further divide Iraq along sectarian and tribal lines. It is doubtful if more force to wipe out the popularly supported insurgency will solve Iraq's myriad problems. More force will provoke stronger counter reaction. Iraq's insurgents claim to be fighting a liberation war. At first it was liberation from the yoke of Saddam's tyranny. Now the second stage, as they see it, is the liberation of Iraq, their homeland, from U.S. occupation. The Americans never anticipated a war of attrition against themselves as liberators, although many others did. There is no guarantee of success for this option, nor will it be a popular alternative in the United States. Even many neocons do not believe any longer that more force will solve the Iraq civil war. Iraq has deeper sociological roots to be understood and addressed. It is an alternative with a doubtful question mark.

The fifth alternative may be, as discussed in the media, the "de facto" partition of Iraq, which will be the result of the envisaged federalism previously agreed, although with room for amendment in the new Iraqi constitution. Partition is anathema to the regional neighboring powers, including Turkey, who suggest that it will upset regional balances, including those between Iran, Turkey and Syria, and will create a power vacuum in the region, as the proponents of this alternative suggest. Federalism will explode the Iraq powder keg. Federalism will create large population migration within and outside Iraq. So far, 1.6 million Iraqis are said to have left Iraq for Syria and Jordan and other countries. About an equal number is already displaced within Iraq for personal safety. To give up federalism for a confederal system is among the alternatives; however, neither federal nor confederal options can prevent Iraq from partition into at least three, so in all likelihood keeping a unitary system as in Saddam times may prevent the dissolution of Iraq.

The sixth alternative, suggested by the military, is a tactical retreat of U.S. forces to their desert bases in Iraq or to bases in nearby neighboring countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Lebanon, if those countries are willing to provide base facilities. Nevertheless, at any rate such a "Sword of Damocles" approach means in effect that the U.S. forces would still be there. This option involves a practical difficulty in returning to the scene of action if and when needed. It may be a military face-saving tactical solution as a psychological move but with little contribution to a final solution.

The seventh alternative is to increase the number of troops from 142,000 to a bigger number, double or triple, to win the war in Iraq and prove Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair right historically. The Pentagon generals in the field were repeatedly in favor of a similar strategy but were constantly refused by their big boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, right from the beginning of the military intervention. Rumsfeld may not budge from his initial stance, while Bush may favor this alternative to finish his second term with glory, rather than in disgrace.

Some of these alternatives may not be contrary to but rather complement each other. In other words, a combination of some of the alternatives to address the Gordion knot of Iraq, once and for all, with the advice of generals on the ground and civilians in the know in Iraq with all the experience and observations laid out may work.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=58343

i dont know if thats all...

but perhaps we should first identify the interests behind the invasion, and how can they still (if or to what extend) be satisfied today.

[pg]

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=58362

I suppose moving the army from Iraq to Iran is one way to do it...

[cypezokyli]

no way.
they are not mooving in iran.

[Xenos 2Fan]

cypezokyli wrote: no way.
they are not mooving in iran.

I totally agree with you Cype. No way. Americans would take to the streets and camp out on the White House lawn. Thanks for your posts I think it's going to be interesting the next few weeks here in America.