Looking Ahead to Post-War Iraq
July 14th, 2008 at 05:32am Mark Noonan
We’re tied up in diplomatic knots with the Iraqi government over what to do regarding US forces in Iraq. As this news story notes, we’re not able to come to a complete agreement on how many troops will be in Iraq; for how long; where based; legal issues regarding the independent actions of US forces…pretty much the whole ball of wax, and so what is looked for now is a temporary arrangement to carry the US/Iraqi relations through from the end of the UN mandate on December 31st and the end of 2009. This, of course, will leave the final disposition of Iraq to President Bush’s successor. This means that whatever President Bush envisioned is at least partially set aside and that we don’t know for certain what a President McCain or Obama will do - its all rather up in the air. Here’s what I hope for:
1. A defensive military alliance with Iraq. This will have to be carefully scripted for Iraqi benefit vis a vis our alliance with Israel, but we’ll want an agreement that Iraq will maintain, at least, a benevolent neutrality should we engage in war with Iran, that Iraq will engage in no offensive combinations against Israel, and a right of US intervention should Iran ever attack Iraq. The Iraqi army should be re-equipped, as far as we can convince them to do so, on the American pattern and we should greatly encourage Iraqi military, air and naval officers to train in the United States. We’re trying to build a long-term friendship here.
2. At least two semi-permanent military installations with no more than 50,000 total US personnel based in Iraq - preferrably out in the middle of the Iraqi nowhere and up in Kurdistan. The idea here is two-fold. To provide a “trip wire” should either Iran or Turkey seek to upset the post-war Iraqi settlement and, of course, to secure the military purpose of going into Iraq at all - the ability to project American power into the heart of the middle east. I would still keep our primary miltiary focus on the Persian Gulf - with basing in Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates being far more important given (a) the relative weakness of these States and thus their dependence on a de-facto US protectorate against Iran and (b) our ability to keep major forces outside of the main Arab lands.
3. A bi-lateral free trade agreement.
4. A pledge of US diplomatic support for Iraq in all non-military conflicts with Syria, Iran and Turkey.
That would suffice because, remember, the ultimate point of liberating Iraq is to place into the middle east a functioning, democratic government able to sustain itself against internal and external threats…in the end, it doesn’t matter if the Iraqis vote against us, as long as they vote. The key to winning the War on Terrorism has always been in a free choice by the Arab people to renouce terrorism - and the only way to get that action is by setting up a system where Arabs can choose. Our bet, as it were, always has been that given a free and fair choice, the peoples of the Arab world will choose to live and build rather than kill and destroy.
Keep in mind that as we transition from war to peace in Iraq, there will be bumps in the road - the Iraqis, justifiably, will want to stand up to us and be seen by the world - especially the Arab world - as standing up to us. We must be patient - and always approach the Iraqi people with a sense of understanding for their desire to be proud of their own nation. It is their country - we are in the process of a noble act and nothing can take away from the United States the fact that we sent our best thousands of miles from home to fight for the liberty and dignity of a foreign people. Are reward is the knowledge that after a half century of playing the cynical game of real-politic, we finally went out as Americans and did the completely right thing.
Entry Filed under: Foreign Affairs, War on Terror
16 Comments
1. Tuneup | July 14th, 2008 at 8:11 am
This, of course, will leave the final disposition of Iraq to President Bush’s successor. July 14th, 2008 at 05:32am Mark Noonan
Was there any doubt who was going to clean up yet another Bush mess?
Just like the settlements in the West Bank there will be outside forces creating chaos in Iraq as long as there are U.S troops on Muslim soil. They will lay low for a while and then you will have another incident similar to what Reagan and our marines suffered in Lebanon.
Don’t think for a minute an Iraqi democracy will respond even remotely similar to a Western democracy. Religious influence will make there decision making process totalitarian like.
2. neocon | July 14th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Tuneup,
Two egregiously stupid comments:
1. US Troops on Muslim soil is the reason for the discord.
You’re not this stupid are you? You can think beyond KOS talking points, right?
2. Iraqi democracy will not mirror a western democracy.
So.
Please come back when you can actually add something to the debate.
hasta luego
peace neocon
3. Bigfoot | July 14th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Just like the settlements in the West Bank there will be outside forces creating chaos in Iraq as long as there are U.S troops on Muslim soil.
While I also consider the Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be provocative (while generally supporting Israel, I do not agree with everything they’ve done), the terrorism against Israel long preceeds the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the construction of settlements. Israel has withdrawn her settlements from Gaza, and yet terrorists in Gaza keep firing rockets into Israel. The recent spate of suicide bombings from West Bank was stopped, not by dismantling any settlements, but by constructing the fence.
As for the danger of another Lebanon-style attack as long as American troops are on “Muslim soil”, the chaos in Lebanon did not stop with the American withdrawal (or “redeployment”, as Reagan put it, a term more recently adopted by some Bush critics), but continued afterwards, and is still going on. The forces that want to create chaos are not going to placated by an American withdrawal.
Was there any doubt who was going to clean up yet another Bush mess?
The only reason that this current “mess” can be cleaned up is because of the president’s surge strategy, which many of his critics opposed. Instead of making things worse, as they predicted, the surge has improved the situation in Iraq.
I trust that our military has learned a thing or two since Beirut in 1983 and will be able to defend themselves should any of these monsters attempt a repeat.
4. bagni | July 14th, 2008 at 9:13 am
markraq
thanks for spatially sharing your ‘hope’
is your hope similar to obama?
or similar to the current admin’s hope
for their 6 week war?
please extraterrestially explain our cluelessness
5. Chuckasaurus | July 14th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Tuneup -
“another incident similar to what Reagan and our marines suffered in Lebanon”
Spoken like a true liberal.
The terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon didn’t happen to America……..it happened to Reagan and the Marines. The only time something happens to America, is when a Democrat is in office. Like the “Blackhawk down” incident in Somalia…….that happened to America because Clinton was in office. If George H.W. Bush was still in office, it would have happened to him, and not to America.
The United States of America is our country, regardless of the party affiliation of the sitting President. Any attack against this country or it’s assets, is an attack against us all……not just against President Bush.
The ability of the liberals to turn their patriotism on and off depending on the outcome of the Presidential election is shocking.
I was just as patriotic when President Clinton was in office as I was when President Reagan was in office. I was just as proud to serve my country in the Marine Corps when President Clinton was in office as I was when President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush was in office.
Try as I might, I just can’t figure you liberals out.
6. Baton Rouge | July 14th, 2008 at 9:50 am
1. Neutrality regarding Iran? that is as foolish as fighting this war in the first place it will never happen.
2. The US balked on the Iraqi proposed 20/20 solution where 20K troops would stay in Iraqi Kurdistan and 20 K would stay in Al Anbar. The US wants four permanent bases with 70K troops total. No soap there.
3. Excluding oil this is doable.
4. Meaningless.
Are [sic] reward is the knowledge that after a half century of playing the cynical game of real-politic [sic], we finally went out as Americans and did the completely right thing.
So by this do you mean the doctrines of Eisenhower in Iran the support of the Shah by Nixon and the (Ed Note; known lie deleted)?
7. Tuneup | July 14th, 2008 at 9:54 am
The only time something happens to America, is when a Democrat is in office. Like the “Blackhawk down” incident in Somalia…5. Chuckasaurus | July 14th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Yeah, I remember all the support you Chuckelheads provided President Clinton (America). Do a quick google to find out what some in the Repug leadership had to say.
8. Carlton Pryor, Lead Economist, TED-OG | July 14th, 2008 at 10:04 am
2. neocon | July 14th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Iraqi democracy cannot mirror western democracy necon because western democracy is an artifice maintained by economic and military power of elites over the means of production and access to wealth on a playing field goverened by the rules of free market capitalism.
The Iraqi economy while sitting atop a precious and valuable resource has no such mechanisms to adjust to the style of western democracy in the next fifty years any more than Americans could adjust to Soviet style state five year planning in the same sense. Stop seeking to find political cherries in matters that are best left to those with the expertise to divine geoeconomic matters in regions on Terra that you only regard as meaningful because of their natural resources.
9. neocon | July 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Carlton darling,
Thanks for the laugh combined with confirming my very low opinion of your intellectual capability.
Re: your ridiculous assertion, wherein has it ever been stated that an Iraqi democracy will emulate ours?
Or is this just another attempt to deflect?
have a hellac day
merci beaucoup
neocon
10. Shuuman | July 14th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
1. How many cargo ships with containers full of lipstick will you need for this pig Noonan?
2. I love when you write using “vis a vis”.
3. How many times have we read your tripe: “we’re at the invitation of the Iraqi government, when asked to leave, we’ll leave”.
4. So now we’re past the rhetoric, “finding and removing WMD”, and “removing a evil guy from power”, and “liberating the Iraqi people” (amongst other BS) to: “scripted for Iraqi benefit vis a vis our alliance with Israel”. (snicker)
So really in a nutshell, Bush is going to leave office with Iraq in a smoking, bombed out, ball of confusion.
Along the way, the deficit spending used to finance the debacle has left our, and the worlds economies in shambles.
In another nutshell,
EVERYTHING WE SAID WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, IS HAPPENING.
Advice, get ALOT of lipstick, this is one big pig.
11. neocon | July 14th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
42,
I know I have read that same post before. I think it was in 2004? Right?
You knucklehead, you gotta put the bong down and go outside a little more often.
peace, neocon
12. Mark Noonan | July 15th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Shuuman,
Your divorce from reality is complete.
Congratulations.
13. Shuuman | July 15th, 2008 at 1:18 am
My divorce from reality is complete?
In your world, G.W. Bush is one of the greatest Presidents of the United States…ever. (snicker)
In your world, you believe the war on terror is the kind you win and lose. (snicker)
In your world, our economy is robust, we’re a bunch of whiners. (snicker)
In your world we’re safer now, then we were 7 years ago. (snicker)
In your world, drilling for oil now, will affect the price of oil positively. (snicker)
In your world, even though the dems have given Bush everything he wants, it’s still the dems fault for all the problems we have today. (snicker)
In your world, even though everyone agrees abortion is the last, worst choice for a woman, it’s still the liberal dems fault a woman makes her own choice with her body. (snicker)
Mr. Noonan, you really ought to do a soul searching moral inventory.
Bush’s legacy is what he has earned. Your legacy is expressed in what you write here, and what is honest and truthful. Can you look in the mirror confidently?
You have a chance to free yourself. I suggest you take the chance while you can.
Tony Snow can’t.
I suggest you re-evaluate what you deem is reality Mr. Noonan. So far, I don’t think you can. As such, as blind, as pious and egotistical as you can be, maybe this is reality to you.
Poor soul. You may not really know.
I shall pray for you.
14. Mark Noonan | July 15th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Shuuman,
Your prayers are greatly appreciated.
15. bongoman | July 15th, 2008 at 4:35 am
What a bunch of crap.
16. What? | July 16th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Noonan writes,
“That would suffice because, remember, the ultimate point of liberating Iraq is to place into the middle east a functioning, democratic government able to sustain itself against internal and external threats…in the end, it doesn’t matter if the Iraqis vote against us, as long as they vote.”
And there you have it!
We fought this war and spent all our blood and treasure for what? To have the very people we liberated “vote against us.”
So if this democratically elected government chooses to have strong ties with Iran and Syria, we have won?
This is the most bizarre definition of victory I have seen.
But this is not really what Noonan will accept. You aren’t going to accept “liberating” and watch as it gets cozy with Iran.
Your desire for two large military bases shows you will not be satisfied with this outcome.
What is more shocking is the extent of the terms you want to place on the government. You hope that they basically become a military outpost for us to launch attacks on Iran.
This comment is awe-inspiring:
” the ability to project American power into the heart of the middle east.”
After all these years you still don’t get it. The very power you seek to expand was the cause of the danger.
This poet demonstrates your devastating ignorance of recent history.
The reason why we attacked on September 11 was because of our giant footprint in the Middle East. Now you intend on expanding that footprint?
We had bases in around the Middle East for decades. We have them in Saudi Arabia, the country where the 9/11 terrorist came from. Setting up a military base and sticking a bunch of troops in them won’t weed out terrorists. It will only increase their number. These are criminal organizations, not countries you send an army to fight.
Somehow you have mistaken people of the Middle East as people willing to bow down to this power you speak of projecting. If they know we will kill them at a moments notice, they’ll behave is the assumption you are making. Basically, you think they are wimps
They didn’t bow before and they won’t now. Neither would you if a foreign nation placed a miliarty base on your doorstep and told you to pipe down and play fort to their military.
I like the bi-lateral trade agreement line. Good way to say “Give us your oil.”
Do us all a favor. Drop the whole noble cause bit and admit this is empire building.