heyzeus wrote:The question that I'm waiting to hear answered is, what do we do now. try to ignore the misinformation and potential duplicity that got us into the war. Try to ignore the blood that has been shed. What do we do now that results in a workably stable Iraqi government?
That is indeed the question. I think it is clear now that Saddam was in charge because that kind of brutality was (is) necessary to keep the lid on all the contending rivalries and passions that make up the political mix in Iraq. We forgot that Iraq was carved out by the British as a way to ensure lots of infighting in pursuit of the 'divide and conquer' imperialist ideal (look it up).
I see two ways out.
1: Tell our allies first that we plan to be out in 9 months. Give them 3 months to adjust. Then tell the Iraqis we are gone in 6 months. Fall back to the old fly zone / borders. Enforce the rules of engagement and minimize the influence of Iran/Syria/etc on what course Iraq takes. Wait for the next strong man to emerge and then deal with him. Don't worry, the Iraqis know how to run their own country. They were doing it for centuries before we invaded. Really running water, indoor plumbing, electricity, gas stations. All that stuff they don't have now. Really - they can do that all by themselves. They may need a tyrant to keep the peace but it is peace for the little guy. And believe me, the rank and file Iraqi knows that.
or
2: Break the country up into 3 countries: Kurds/Sunnies/Shiites. But this is going to be difficult as the rest of the big countries need to be on board with it. Not sure your going to get that kind of consensus.
But right now, the status quo is bleeding what is left of our prestige and our resources. A colossal blunder of historic proportions.