|
|
| |
Options: none of them good
|
|
| |
What is "the course" that Bush is "staying"?
Actually, there is no "course." That would be a path to a goal, and, so far, every path has been a dead end. What Bush means by "stay the course" is that he is not giving up his three central goals: (#1) A unified Iraq, (#2) with a western democracy, (#3) that is friendly to the US.
Can we find a "course" to these three goals?
They are not bad goals. But after four years of bungling, they have become exceedingly difficult—and with the Bush's team, they are impossible. Current problems are far and away tougher than those faced when Baghdad fell. The bunglers are not about to complete a Hail Mary pass at this point in the game.
Is "cut and run" an option?"
This is just a slogan used to blame the American public (now 2/3 against the war) for the failures of our government. If the goals were realistic and we had competitent leadership, American would make the sacrifice.
So what are the options being considered?
There are at least four, and combinations are possible.
1. A 3-way partition with shared oil revenues.
2. Diplomacy with Syria and Iran.
3. Pull back and guard the boarders.
4. Bush's new "time table."
Bush's time table will not have a credible threat behind it, because Bush is still committed to "stay in Iraq, fight in Iraq, and win in Iraq" (10/20/06). So what can he say to Maliki, "If you miss my deadline, we will stay, fight and win for you."? #4 is just more of his "stay the course." That leaves 3 real options to consider.
|
|
| |
Can any of the options succeed?
All are long shots that will, at best, seriously compromise Bush's three-part goal. That's not the fault of the options, it's the fault of three years of misguided strategies applied to a dicey situation.
The problems in Iraq are obvious, but there's one here at home that's been missed. Hopes are now being pinned on Baker to provide Bush with a solution. In fact many think it's a setup orchestrated by the Bushes to provide him a fig leaf as he does an about face. Quite the contrary. Bush disrespects Baker who is his father's man, and considers the Baker Group an affront to his competence. He is busy digging in his heals.
The big question is not "can they succeed," but "will they be used?"
The damage from Bush's Iraq policy is growing rapidly. Eventually this will force Bush to change course but at enormous cost to the US and Iraq. But the stronger the message from the American people, the sooner Bush will allow cooler heads to prevail.
|
|
| |
#1: Three-way Partition and share the oil
While almost inevitable, a division of Iraq into separate Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurdish regions will not achieve Bush's goals. Its benefit, if successful would be to reduce the bloodletting and salvage some of our reputation in the process.
Even if division were achieved and the civil war ended, the Sunni and Shi'ite regions will be hostile to the US — that's 80% of the country. It may be impossible to eliminate Al Qaeda from the Sunni region. The Shi'ite region is now dominated by fundamentalist Shi'ites under heavy Iranian influence. This will be impossible to reverse. The failure of unification will offend all of our allies in the region.
Why would partition offend our allies?
A key reason Bush I did not topple Saddam was fear that Iraq would break in three. This would give the Kurds independence and upset Turkey — one of the West's key allies in the region. It would open the door to Syria's control of the Sunni part. Syria is a prime threat to Israel. The Shi'ite part would favor Iran and threaten Saudi Arabia (another US ally), which has a large Shi'ite minority sitting on top most of its oil.
Even the neocons agreed. Cheney's advisor, Wurmser, who wrote a book in 1999 on why Saddam should be toppled, explained that it was necessary because Saddam was so weak that Syria and Iraq were looking for ways to take over parts of Iraq. Israel (later the US) needed to take Iraq first. This is why Bush remains fixed on unification.
|
|
| |
#2 Diplomacy with Syria and Iran
|
|
| |
#3 Pull back and guard the borders
|
|
http://zfacts.com/p/464.html | 01/18/12 07:21 GMT
Modified: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:55:25 GMT
|
|
