Mike's Plan for Iraq
After reading that godawful "strategy" document again, I have come to the conclusion that the Bush administration is more concerned with the political implications of Iraq than with the actual results. And frustrated by the complete lack of a substantive discussion on how to actually resolve the Iraq situation from politicians, media people, and bloggers both left and right, I have decided to do something rash. I'm actually going to propose a plan to get us out of Iraq.
I think, as is often the case, that to solve Iraq we need to invert George Bush's language. Number one, we need to set a very strict timetable and Number two, we need to stand down so the Iraqis will stand up.
If we're not going to withdraw immediately, Mike's plan is this, in four parts:
Part one: Stop the daily patrols immediately. They are the main source of irritation which is turning moderate Iraqis against us and giving the guerillas local cover. Maintain the effort to go after the small number of foreign fighters, but stop attacking Iraqis unless they attack us. We have no place attacking the Sunnis unless we openly declare a side in the civil war.
Part two: After the election, the US contacts the ruling group and says very sternly that in 60 or 90 days, we will turn x number of cities and regions over to your forces. We will pick the most pacified to start. That's enough time to run two or three sets of people through basic training, and by giving them control of already pacified areas, we help to create the impression that they are capable. That is very important. Plus, this would allow US troops to concentrate a bit to make up for undermanned situation we are in. Repeat every 60-90 days.
Part three: Set up several bases out in the countryside which would allow reaction forces for the duration of the handover. As there may be situations where the Iraqis may lose control of an area, US troops would then be able to step in and assist. This would also move our soldiers out of areas where they are frequently subject to mortar fire, and greatly reduce the violence at gates and checkpoints, yet still maintain an operational ability in the area.
Part four: Immediately relinquish all roles in the rebuilding of Iraq. Let the UN come in as political advisors, anyone working with a US advisor is now seen as suspect and a target, and turn over all the rebuilding moneys to the Iraqis themselves. Their corruption will not be significantly worse that what we've already seen out of the CPA. Lastly, allow the Iraqis open international bidding on all contracts with a "hire locally" clause for a certain percentage of workers on each contract. This would lower the unemployment engine of the violence, as well as allowing the Iraqis to access lower cost construction firms in from Russia, China and elsewhere. UN supervision of this as well would not be a bad idea.
This plan would at least give the Iraqis a chance at success under the current model we're working in. It would force them to take control of their country and, by transferring advisory roles to the UN, would depoliticize the government and rebuilding taking some anti american steam out of the insurgency.
I'm not saying that this is the dead on right solution, but this is a plan. A specific plan.
I just think it's time that somebody out there takes some responsibility and gives a starting point for this discussion. It's obvious the Bush administration has no plan, the Republicans in Congress have pretty much deferred to the Whitehouse. The Democrats have offered no plan. How in the hell are we supposed to end this thing when our leaders don't lead?
So, please, start the debate. Comments, criticisms, right, left, or center. Create your own plan, discuss it on your blog. I don't care.
No matter how we got into this mess we're all in it now, and it is killing and maiming our children just like it is killing and maiming the Iraqi's children.
Nobody's winning right now, and we've got to do something to change that.
Mike
I think, as is often the case, that to solve Iraq we need to invert George Bush's language. Number one, we need to set a very strict timetable and Number two, we need to stand down so the Iraqis will stand up.
If we're not going to withdraw immediately, Mike's plan is this, in four parts:
Part one: Stop the daily patrols immediately. They are the main source of irritation which is turning moderate Iraqis against us and giving the guerillas local cover. Maintain the effort to go after the small number of foreign fighters, but stop attacking Iraqis unless they attack us. We have no place attacking the Sunnis unless we openly declare a side in the civil war.
Part two: After the election, the US contacts the ruling group and says very sternly that in 60 or 90 days, we will turn x number of cities and regions over to your forces. We will pick the most pacified to start. That's enough time to run two or three sets of people through basic training, and by giving them control of already pacified areas, we help to create the impression that they are capable. That is very important. Plus, this would allow US troops to concentrate a bit to make up for undermanned situation we are in. Repeat every 60-90 days.
Part three: Set up several bases out in the countryside which would allow reaction forces for the duration of the handover. As there may be situations where the Iraqis may lose control of an area, US troops would then be able to step in and assist. This would also move our soldiers out of areas where they are frequently subject to mortar fire, and greatly reduce the violence at gates and checkpoints, yet still maintain an operational ability in the area.
Part four: Immediately relinquish all roles in the rebuilding of Iraq. Let the UN come in as political advisors, anyone working with a US advisor is now seen as suspect and a target, and turn over all the rebuilding moneys to the Iraqis themselves. Their corruption will not be significantly worse that what we've already seen out of the CPA. Lastly, allow the Iraqis open international bidding on all contracts with a "hire locally" clause for a certain percentage of workers on each contract. This would lower the unemployment engine of the violence, as well as allowing the Iraqis to access lower cost construction firms in from Russia, China and elsewhere. UN supervision of this as well would not be a bad idea.
This plan would at least give the Iraqis a chance at success under the current model we're working in. It would force them to take control of their country and, by transferring advisory roles to the UN, would depoliticize the government and rebuilding taking some anti american steam out of the insurgency.
I'm not saying that this is the dead on right solution, but this is a plan. A specific plan.
I just think it's time that somebody out there takes some responsibility and gives a starting point for this discussion. It's obvious the Bush administration has no plan, the Republicans in Congress have pretty much deferred to the Whitehouse. The Democrats have offered no plan. How in the hell are we supposed to end this thing when our leaders don't lead?
So, please, start the debate. Comments, criticisms, right, left, or center. Create your own plan, discuss it on your blog. I don't care.
No matter how we got into this mess we're all in it now, and it is killing and maiming our children just like it is killing and maiming the Iraqi's children.
Nobody's winning right now, and we've got to do something to change that.
Mike
posted by mikevotes at
9:54 PM
6 Comments:
Your plan sounds like a good plan. Only one problem. We didn't go in with the inention of establishing an Iraqi democracy run by Iraqis. We went with the intention of establishing an Iraqi democracy run by Americans. Our intention hasn't changed read oil (over and over and over again). I think the USA has shown that it is not interested in peace or stability so long as there is a risk of losing control of (or even being required to pay for)oil resources
By
Justin, at 3:47 AM
Valid Point. But then what do we do?
By
mikevotes, at 7:12 AM
Stop participating! Go on strike. Don't buy gas. Don't drive. walk to work. Burn a car. Refuse to pay taxes. Leave the country. Spread the word. Do pretty much anything you like. Grow your own food and for crist sake learn to cook.
please don't think I'm attacking you.
viva la paz!
By
Justin, at 8:58 AM
I don't think you're attacking me, Justin.
And I do take some measures to consume less oil than I could. I drive a diesel which gets a little over 30 mph. Try to combine trips and share rides where possible. I try to leave my thermostat on the friendly side. I avoid plastics and packaging where unneccessary, and just generally try to be responsible.
As you know, it's impossible to live the way we live under the current energy structure without doing some damage. I don't think proposing a return to the woods is a realistic solution. But, if the US were to cut it's energy efficiency by say 25%, it would make a tremendous difference in the world.
So, as Gandhi said, "we must be the change we wish to see."
At this point I'm trying to work from where we are. I believe that the Bush admin committed many sins in taking us into Iraq, and I think I've been exploring that in this blog. And I think the whole thing should be thoroughly investigated, and wrongdoing puninshed.
But the purpose of this post was to try to realistically look at how we get out. Frankly, I'm not against an across the board withdrawal tomorrow, but, as that is not politically viable, I thought I'd offer this as a starting point for discussion.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 10:58 AM
Good point. I was getting a bit off topic. Well not really, There is no way the neoliberal/neocon whatever system can survive without oil. So, while everything about the plan in you post makes perfect sense, the American/british public will never be able to push it on their administrations because this is a matter of life or death for their model of the world-economy not to mention their own pocket books.
We have already seen that some countries can get out. Take spain. Spain had an almost immediate withdraw from iraq. But what was their stake there? For them the whole debacle, was an attempt by the center right Aznar to cozy up to Bush. No one (or very few) neither corporate nor private had a reason to be there.
In the states it's a bit of a different story. There are too many paragovernmental interests there. I feel a major oil crisis is looming. and the only way for the American lifestyle and the neocon/lib/whatever dream to be maintained is if oil is free ie. not tied up in the hands of unfriendly govs.
Getting out quick is going to take massive action by everyone who is concerned and it's going to take a major overhaul of the American lifestyle. Otherwise, "Hello festering wound that won't close up for another ten or fifteen years."
I'm new to blogland so I hope it's ok to be longish in commentnig
By
Anonymous, at 11:32 AM
First, off Welcome. I'm flattered to be one of your first.
Long comments are great as long as you're saying something, which you are. At least I believe this to be true, as you can judge by looking through my responses to comments throughout this, my blog.
Second, I go back and forth on the oil crisis. In the long term, the peak oil people make a pretty persuasive case, but not being an expert in the area of reserves, I don't really feel right selling it on the blog. I don't doubt their logic or method, but the whole case rests on the fact that they have all the data, and I just don't know enough about that. We could already be past the peak, or it could come in 2050. But it has to be said that a number of oil companies have recognized the reality of peak oil, but their time frames are usually 20-30 years out.
In the short term, though, we are in a bit of an oil crisis as demand is outstripping supply, at least at 20-40 $/gallon prices. And that will not resolve in the near term.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 6:24 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home