Solution To Iraq – No Mystery
By Dan Lieberman
07 January, 2007
media discussions surrounding President Bush’s stumbling decision
of how the United States can extricate itself from Iraq, without showing
the world its incompetence, make it seem that the decisions are a huge
mystery. No such mystery.
U.S. government methods follow
closely those of U.S. corporations. The first rule is: “when in
trouble, punt,” or send the ball to the opposing side. Bring in
a new managerial staff of expert strategists who are presented as the
new team that will turn the company, or in this case, the country, around.
This closely follows the accepted manner of appeasing the fans; when
the ball club is losing too many games; change the manager. Actually,
as in industry, the “turn-around” guy is often the closure
guy. It’s his or her task to keep the employees and public engaged
while he or she subtly prepares to shut the firm down.
There is an additional kicker
to Bush’s strategy: Those presently in charge don’t want
to be entirely associated with the debacle and they are willing to step
aside and let others share the blame. The army especially wants the
Navy to take a few licks – so, we have Adm. William Fallon replacing
Army Gen. John Abizaid as head of U.S. Central Command, and leading
U.S. military operations in the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ms. Condoleeza Rice, who has constantly moved up the ladder by neither
doing anything, nor by having her name associated with doing anything,
must have been the architect of this plan. Note that in her entire two
years as Secretary of State, Secretary. Rice has not accomplished anything,
has not resolved any of America’s engaging problems and does not
have her name linked to any initiative. She is neither in awe with success
or disconsolate with defeat. She isn’t directly attached to anything
and can’t be blamed for anything.
This doesn’t mean that
Bush doesn’t have a plan. It’s just that no plan can work
well for the United States. There is one plan that will work for Iraq
and that is the plan that will probably be placed into operation. The
plan halts the sectarian strife by assisting those who have the best
chance, with U.S. backing, of becoming the victors. These are the Shiites.
The Shiites are not in insurrection
– after all, they are the principal part of the government. Nor
are the Shiites in conflict with the Kurdish population. The minority
Sunnis are in conflict with everyone: economic conflict with Kurds and
Shiites, religious conflict with Shiites, social conflict with the government
and cultural conflict with everyone. Only stopping the Sunnis insurgency
will halt the civil war. The Sunnis are vulnerable. They are being forced
to move from their established homes and are slowly being displaced
as the economic force in Iraq. Those Sunnis who want to survive will
take a secondary role in Iraq’s affairs. It’s either move
over, stop fighting or perish. The hastened death of Saddam Hussein
was meant to signal the rebellion has no leader. The U.S. will probably
send more troops for awhile to assist the Iraq Shiite led government
to crush the Sunnis, or at least have them retreat from Baghdad to less
The success of the Shia in
Iraq poses a problem for the United States. The U.S. will have succeeded
in a counter-productive policy of strengthening the radical Shiites
and bringing Iraq closer to Iran. What else is new? Doesn’t the
usual result of U.S. foreign policy go full circle by trying to impose
a regime, and then enabling an antagonist regime to take power? Note:
Vietnam, Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Union
briefly in Somalia, present day Nicaragua, Haiti and most Latin regimes.
Originally billed as the
route to stabilizing the Middle East, the Iraq debacle will de-stabilize
the world. Certainly, a Shiite Iraq, together with Iran, will try to
do as much as possible to overthrow its most despised foe – the
Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia, who have greatly mistreated the Shia. The
Shia line from Iran, through Iraq and to the Hezbollah in Lebanon, all
have common enemies of the U.S. and Israel, and will reinforce one another.
Jordan and Lebanon, both with more secular Sunni populations, and which
are unsettled by Sunni refugees, 1 million in Syria and 750,000 in Jordan
according to the UN High Commissioner on refugees, might feel threatened
by close tied Iraq and Iran
Jordan and Syria, that feel
threatened by Iraq and Iran, might become more conciliatory to the U.S.
and Israel (USrael) and seek their protection (as in mafia protection).
The U.S. might bow out and let Israel proceed in its own plans. Israel
might be the biggest victor in this calamitous and haunting adventure.
is editor of Alternative Insight, a monthly web-based newsletter. He
can be contacted at: email@example.com
Share Your Insights