This guy supports the occupation! What's he doing writing articles on Alternet?! Alternet keeps supporting pro-occupation positions. I thought this website was supposed to be "progressive," not militarist.

Guess I was wrong.

Have a look at the Iraq War Timeline. I think it shows pretty clearly that the only constant in the war is a deterioration of conditions for everyone involved.

And look at the quote from March 27. Think about it, Alternet, why continue supporting an oil war? Your position is like a robber breaking into someone's home, shooting one of the inhabitants, and proceeding to execute everyone else just to finish the job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I didn't support the invasion either, I think that it is a moot point now, and the real thing that matters is what is the best solution for the mess we've made. I think the article makes some good points; I think no one knows what is the best solution would be, and this would vary depending what one believes we owe the Iraqis (this may range from nothing to owing them our best efforts to fix the problem we've created). Since I fall more toward the latter belief (and also the possible "failed state" that might be created is worrisome to me) it is not at all clear to me that precipitous withdrawal would achieve the best result in achieving long term stability in Iraq. Of course if the only objective is not losing any more American lives or money, and to hell with whatever happens to the Iraqis, immediate withdrawal makes perfect sense.
Blueneck

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article has many good points and proposed something looks better than the current policy. However, the author is still thinking the whole thing in a westernized mind which is very different from a non-westernized mind and logics. He is trying to find solution for an un-solvable problem.
There are a few things which are very clear if we look back at the history.
1. Foreign occupation, especially in a country with different culture and religion, never worked.
2. The purpose of Bush administration is not about building a peaceful and stable Irag, but about building a pro-US Iraqi government. In current Irag, only Kurd group could form a pro-US government as it wants to get US' support to get more oil resource and to get independent from Turkey, which is the price US doesn't want to pay. The Shiite group would never be pro-US, period. If you don't believe it, just look at the current Iran. The Sunnis group could be pro-US only if they are to be allowed back to their dominant political position, which is very unlikely with the raising of Shiite power. Essentially, the Iraqi war opened the Pandora's box by releasing the Shiite power, hence to make the possiblity of a pro-US Iragi government impossible. Poor Bush.
3. You would never have a stable government or country unless you have either a balanced political forces in a society or a abusolute dominate political force. Irag has neither once US removed Saddam.
4. So called Iragization or Vietmanization is just a window dressing. The policy is not so much to win the heart and mind of locals, but more to reduce US' casualties.
5. In a "people's war" you cannot wind the heart and mind by building schools, improve the hygiene, and hand out candies to children. It is laughable to even thinking about doing so. It is by wealth re-distribution, which US would never do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you Stephen for a thoughtful and historically based analysis. Even though I did not agree with the initial decision to go to war in Iraq, and the following orgy of military and political mistakes by the occupying forces, I greatly appreciate your analysis of the current situation. This is the best 'what do we do now' advice I've seen to date.
It seems, however, that there is another option, which was marked as taboo for the unknown to me reasons, and which has not bee discussed.
It seems to me that in the face of the currently deteriorating situation and the ethnic mistrust and violence in Iraq the option of an actual country division along the ethnic lines becomes a more logical option. If in the past, as several analysts now agree, the only thing that held Iraq together was the ruthlessness and brutality of Saddam, and we all can agree that the repeat for such a regime is undesirable, than why not let the natural repulsion forces play out and establish three separate ethnically homogenous countries. Kurds in the North have had a de-facto autonomy for over 10 years and like it just fine.
If these people are afraid of each other, mistrusts each other, and hate each other, why are we trying to force them to live together?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I really liked this article until Biddle began prescribing his strange, studied-under-Kissinger solutions. His assumption that a U.S. threat to turn on the various Iraq factions would compel their improved cooperation borders on laughable.

Those factions are addicted to the status quo in Iraq because they have learned to profit enormously from it. U.S. money covers Baghdad like an ongoing snowstorm -- or so I've heard. Not only the insurgents but garden-variety street thugs and even a few legitimate business people are making money hand over fist. No wonder it's taking so long to form a government: Nobody wants to envision spitting out that money teat.

The best approach for the U.S. is to immediately redeploy to Kuwait and let the new government sink or swim. After the carnage subsides, we can re-enter and do what we always do: Bribe the locals for access to their cheap oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another think-tank pundit's plan for VICTORY in Iraq. Great. This is the best that "pwogwessive" democrat sites like Alternet have to offer?

Guess it shouldn't be all that surprising. The dems make just as much $$$ off the war as the rethugs. It makes sense that democrat echo chamber media like AAR and Alternet would pimp the dem's repulsive "We can manage the war better!" line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"It's an oil war, but we can't leave."

This one just doesn't make sense. Would you say the same thing about an armed robber entering your home? The robber has killed one of your family members, but can't leave, because if he/she did, your family would fall apart. Therefore the robber should stay to finish the robbery, and execute everyone else inside.

"We need to support the troops by keeping them in Iraq, away from their friends, families and communities."

Bringing our troops home is the only support that has any meaning. If the Democrats/Republicans would stop funding the war, our troops would come home. The Democrats/Republicans want you to believe the troops would just be abandoned if war funding were to end. That's insane! Bring our troops home to their families, friends and communities.

"The Republicans lied about the intelligence, which absolves Dems of any responsibility."

Hillary Clinton voted FOR the war and has since voted for funding. Maybe both parties lied? If that's too painful to accept, then logically explain why Hillary, who would have known better, voted FOR the war.

"If the troops left, Iraq would be a terrible place."

Iraq already is a terrible place. Child malnutrition has doubled as of a year ago. Surely it has gotten worse since then.

Civil war is raging, no longer brewing. What more do you want? What's worse than civil war? Be honest with yourself. The military occupation is a disaster for Iraqis.

Here is a tiny sample of Iraq war photographs. This is where your tax dollars are going -- to guerilla warfare, defending a military occupation. Can't think of anything better to do with your tax dollars? Neither can the Republican Party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the West Coast of Africa to East Timor, we have a string of failed Muslim dominated states ( Except Israel,India,Spore)
Malaysia may qualify as a more or less working democracy though it was under Mahatir for eons.
The insurgency in Irak is as much about ideology as it is about social class and power. The sunnis used to rule Iraq. Nothing sectarian here but pure undisguised power grab.
Any Muslim country is dominated by either or.
This war is as much a communal war as it is a people's war and sophistry is no solution.
If there is one, it has to be an arab solution, not some brokering compromise. Theocrats rely on submission, not dialogue. Just look around these countries. Naked power, torture, police states all with its unavoidable corrupt class of politicians, generals or absolute Monarchs
Saudi, Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco etc... or ruthless strong men or both.
Should the US withdraw? Of course it should and let them sort out their own mess. These are messy countries by any measure.
Of course the US should never have invaded. This was a stupidity of the highest order.
Should the US bankroll Iraq? You bet. It has a moral obligation to do so until Iraq can stand alone. This may take a 100 years. It is no Japan or Korea.
And yes, I do not much like Muslims. I only love people, particularly children and to me the horror visited on Iraq by US troops is criminal. Simple guy really...
I find the punditry of this article insufferable.
These are the very people who created this mess.
These people in Think Tanks should fill them up to the brim and drown in their rubbish verbal diarrhea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I must say that I think this author is over estimating America's influence in Iraq especially in relation to the Shite parties who only tolerate America's presence b/c it is convenient for their current situation. Grand Ayatollah Sistani has already demonstrated that Washington fears Iraq’s Shia majority. I don’t believe for a moment that the Shia will cow under to threats of a US political realignment. US supply lines MUST run through Shia dominated territory which gives the Shia a significant amount of clout in negotiating w/ US forces. Imagine if the US really did attack the Shia then our troops will essentially be cut off from their supplies and would face an insurgency that is supported by nearly 80% of the population. I don’t think that US soldiers could survive for long in that environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So lets see if I have this right. While we made a mistake by using our military muscle when we invaded Iraq - the way to fix the problem we created is to use more military muscle. Yep, bullying, threats and beatings work for me. You idiot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I also have some reservations with the conclusions the author comes to. However, his desciption of the current situation in Iraq is dead on, based on what I saw there. It is fear that drives both the Sunnis and Shia to violence. Each group is terrified they will be on the receiving end of revenge killing, so the preemptively strike out and try to gain power and the upper hand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]