American Exit Strategy for Iraq?
 

Salaam,

A new topic is being started. Please contribute to your level best.

America has realized that war in Iraq was not worth fighting. She has even apologized for her ill-conduct.

The guerilla warriors/insurgents have created HELL for the American troops. America is being pressurized by its people to withdraw the forces. But withdrawing them without stablizing the country would be a shoe on her face (Vietnam is an instance). The stability of the country doesn't seem to be in sight so far.

Further stay means more deaths of American soldiers and increased pressure from the citizens alongwith more condemnation from all the quarters of the world.

Please suggest America how to exit the country most favourably?

Regards,
Adil

lets hope that things go smooth, but the way they r going, ot seems that the conditions r rushing towards either a very loose federation or an independent Kurdistan. Kurdistan has long been the need of US in mid-east, situated at the juncture of Iran and Turkey.

Masud Barzani who is the head of current semi-autonomous Kurd region is staunch anti-Iranian. His father Mustafa Barzani had links with the US too. Kurd region of Iraq even has its army called Peshmerga.

It will be useful information that Iraq has the least number of Kurds (4.5 million) and yet they have the greatest autonomy in Iraq than either Iran or Turkey. Iran had 7.5 million Kurds in 1950. Add to it the population growth as well as the influx from Iraq, courtesy Saddam.

Well Adil u have asked for suggestions that how America can come out of this situation which now become hell for them.
i think there is no chance for them to leave with the claim that they have won this war. they are totally in lose if they left this in this situation then for world they are looser & if they think that they will won this if they stay there then they are also considered as looser because it doesn't seem that there might be some peace in very near future.... with more stay they have to sacrifice more Soldiers, more money. which is also a loss.....

waisey bhi they don't need our suggestion they will do what they will think right for them.... ( waisey mera to khayal hai abhi Iraq main thori si aur pitaye honi chaheye ... they think all are same kuch to saza milni chaheye ;) )


take care all of u

Salaam,

Thanks for writing.

Tropican Brother: The implications visible to me seem far more severe. In case America breaksaway at these critical moments, civil war may break out and the country could lead to the verge of collapse. Two of the three major communities in Iraq have mentally set up their minds for the disintegration. After the disintegration, the adjoining countries might try to take over the broken fragments and Iraq will nearly diminish from the map of the World. These are just the possibilities.

However if anything like that happens America will suffer a serious image-shock. I can't estimate what will be the aftermath for America.

I agree with your point regarding the Kurds. You're 100% right.

Rabia: You're quite violent. Keep your hands off me! :p


So far... no-one replied for the exit strategy. I think if America is unable to think of an exit-strategy, I am sure nothing at all to derive such a plan.

My opinion may seem absurd but I will just try to answer. I think the Americans should publicly apologize to the public of Iraq. America should promise reconstruction of the country. She should immediately leave the country leaving behind UN Peace Forces or forces from her Ally Muslim Countries (which are quite less in number by the time now).

I am ready to face the criticism.

Regards,
Adil Memon

It is a multi-faceted problem. If we look it in the context of pure american nationalism , then the americans are at a great loss.....But if we look it in the context of the recent cult of NeoCon ideology, then americans do need such sort of misadventures in other countries as well,...
My points would seem to be a bit ambiguous to most of the readers...i would like to explain it as follows......
1.. If we look it in the light of pure Yankee nationalism , it is a bigger quagmire for the US than Vietnam...they are caught in a dilemma which would definitely keep on haunting tem for the decades to come... The recent tragedy of New Orleans , has shown the too much diversion of the american resources towards this untoward war...majority of general americans are against this invasion,,,George Bush,s popularity ratings are at an all time low since 2003 invasion of iraq by te US,,,,
2.. Buttt,,, americans wont leave iraq so easily!!!,, for people like ,george bush, john bolton,, paul wolfitz,,ms rice,etc are the people who are at te reall helm of affairs in the US govt... these are the people who depend upon the propaganda campaign being run for them by the world's most powerful ,Zionist electronic n print media . Wether these r he republicans or the democrats, they will always do whatever the gigantic corporate n media empires, owned by the the Zionists would like them 2 do.

America is facing a number of problems since her invasion cum usurpation in Iraq to have firm comprehension of these problems and to draw a strategy for her exit it is favorable to browse back some ground realities:

Why did America attack Iraq and then did invasion?
On plea of:
-WMD
-Terrorism/fundamentalism/fear of Islamic radicals

Aforementioned are two arguments which America even presented in UN through Powell yet after distorting them, USA –the sole super power of existing world knew that ratio of intimidation of terrorism from Iraq is far lower than from Syria and Iran! One of the survey teams under the American has unequivocally and categorically has allayed American apprehensions concerning treats of terror in Iraq and the head of that survey team resigned after American invasion as he said that American decision was based on distorted evidences and he scrupled. But America deemed it fit to invade Iraq because of following:

-“Mug an Arab country war high oil prices!” (Lectures delivered around about in 1999 on American foreign policy).
-Iraq natural “ill luck” being the possessor of huge oil treasure.
-Sada’m’s plan to endorse Euro based trade; he was in full swing to pay in Euro instead of dollar; world economy is based on dollar it could be a huge setback for America because it could moderate the American hegemony by tampering her sway on world economy and it could be a quandary for America when she is the no 1 debtor of this world.

Iraq today is another replica of Vietnam. Let see what Washington post says:

“First it was predicted that Iraq wont be Vietnam because of lack of long standing nationlist movement and charismatic leader Ho Chi Minh and insurgents had not havens. Bush despite September 11 commission, which said that there was no link between 9/11 and al Queda Bush keeps on showing that nonexistent link. In Iraq terrorist in Vietnam there was threat of communism. Statistics in Vietnam and of Iraq are identical same line of progress-heath sector, education etc i.e. trivial or petty issues. Same political rhetoric...
There is a bold rhetorical shift. The president, who took his country to war in Iraq on account of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, and then recast the invasion as a pro-democracy move, is now arguing that Iraq is ground zero for World War III, the battle against terror that began on 9/11”

We can easily see how Bush administration shifted from one excuse of war to other because of:
-She fails to bolster her excuse based on threats of terror and WMD.
-Casualties of American soldiers and these casualties are not tapering off.
-Inefficient control on war and growing insurgency.
-Anyone who has gone through Bush rhetoric can easily estimate that despite knowing truth Bush has to give false evidence to support his misadventure in Iraq otherwise his notoriety is getting momentum in America as recent poll shows in America.

Now question arises what America should do but before what America does let see what could be different strategies of exit:

Strategy number 1:
America runs away and leaving Iraq in status quo- in lurch; an immediate rush!

Merits:
-Support to her economy;
-No further casualties;

Demerits:
-A huge setback to American influence.
- A slap on face of American power and her claims being the guardian of “democracy”, “liberty” and “freedom” of every entity of this world.
-Eventually a clear illustration that American war was personal war on war based on her national interests instead of vindicating other’s fundamental rights be it a nation or a person!
-A clear signal to “terrorists” (pseudo) and terrorists (real) to spread violence and perpetrate terrorism as per their choice!

This strategy is actually a hell strategy and to pursue this strategy is juts destroy American influence; USA can’t leave America instantly on the aforementioned bases.

Strategy number 2:
If America prefers to stay there in Iraq to the time when she will be fully able to harvest what she wants!

Merits:
Demerits of strategy 1; for instance it will strengthen the American influence and would realize the “American Dream”.

Demerits:
Reverse of merits of strategy 1 for instance America must be ready to bury huge number of her soldiers.

Strategy 3: (I would prefer this strategy)
America must leave Iraq after announcing a clear road map or exit strategy a schedule of her exit yet after strengthening Iraqi administration.

Merits:
-American influence wont get magnitude of that setback which is mentioned in strategy no 1.
-Iraq wont be convert in Afghanistan as if America leaves Iraq immediately Iraq has high probabilities to indulged in civil war as after USSR disintegration Afghanistan did.
-America could be able to maintain her very status of “chief justice” of this very existing world because even as after Iraqi election she enunciated that American invasion had escape dictatorship in Iraq and emancipated Iraqis form their plights! – Parameter to bolster American invasion in Iraq though her ground to originate war in Iraq has been shake off!
-Iraq won’t be construed in term of Vietnam replica!

Demerits:
-It would anyhow show American inefficient and incapability to handle war (every where on earth) so a setback to American “entitlement” but severity of this setback won’t be in that magnitude as mentioned in strategy 1. as Bush, too, categorically ruled out any chance to yield any exist strategy because he interpret it as American surrender to insurgency and terrorism.

But if America has to promote her interests to have hegemonic control on this world she has to follow strategy 2 though this strategy has quite a high price! (Neocons’ perspective). Otherwise my personal choice is strategy 3.

Salaam,

Thanks a lot for promoting the discussion. Let me continue!

nhpaki: Your assertions are all agreed upon. Now we've to see whether America serves the pleasure of the NeoCons and the Zionist Media or no. Experts in America opine that America isn't going to leave the country for the next 5-6 years. Till now the war has nearly cost America some $280 Billion. If persues the same path for the next 5-6 years the amount will rise to $1 Trillion. This is a very harsh strike at the American economy when several other powers are rising to compete with America. America is surely going to lose its title of honour. Well... lets see what happens next. What do you think would be the order of the Zionist Media?

Candidate: Thanks for presenting a detailed analysis.

Since your strategy # 1 doesn't need any debate i'll concentrate my arguments over strategy # 2 and 3.

Strategy #2: This strategy may be the most favourite of the neocons and the media and Bush too. But this option seems really very costly. I have already stated the estimated economic expenditures. And as you yourself agree that America should get ready for more burials then. This will make the Bush Administration very unpopular. I don't know whats going to happen to MR. Bush if he proceeds with this idea.

Strategy # 3: This somewhat pleases the senses. But it in itself is flawed. You stated that America should announce the departure time and leave as the country gets stability.

Well, the achievement of stability seems hard. I think that even if the withdrawal date is announced.. the insurgency won't die. Their sole motive is to expel the Americans out of the country to mark them as failures in the mission. The insurgents will try their best to serve the purpose.

Candidate.. I want you reply back! I've to settle my scores with you :P

I am waiting for a response in this regard. My ideas are limited to myself... they are not being enforced on anyone. Criticism is allowed!


Regards,
Adil Memon

Adil you said that you had to settle your scores with me, you r most welcome, but how it could be possible in your writing you did not raise any new points rather there is iteration of aforementioned points. Let’s have a view:
Adil says:
” Strategy #2: This strategy may be the most favourite of the neocons and the media and Bush too. But this option seems really very costly. I have already stated the estimated economic expenditures. “
I wonder what you have said I think I have already mentioned as in merits of strategy 1 in just one single sentence i.e. Support to her economy; (so what’s new to reply?) and I too at the end of my post mentioned that this strategy is endorsed by neocons!

Adil says:
”And as you yourself agree that America should get ready for more burials “
Yes I am agree and I raised this issue but you did not give any food for thought on this point rather you just reiterated it so what must I respond?

Adil says: “This will make the Bush Administration very unpopular.”
Again I wonder that yes that is right as I said poll has shown unpopularity of Bush admin. ..but you just paste this sentence again so what should I say?

Adil says: I don't know whats going to happen to MR. Bush if he proceeds with this idea.”
Indeed none of us knows save almighty Allah! We are just supplying our poor strategies here!

Adil says: ” Strategy # 3: This somewhat pleases the senses. But it in itself is flawed. You stated that America should announce the departure time and leave as the country gets stability. Well, the achievement of stability seems hard. I think that even if the withdrawal date is announced. The insurgency won't die. Their sole motive is to expel the Americans out of the country to mark them as failures in the mission. The insurgents will try their best to serve the purpose.
”
Only point that worth to be responded; well I think you have missed something Bush himself in all his speeches whether to address common messes or to his soldiers has ruled out any chance of drawing any schedule for exit. The demand from a clear exits schedule has not raised by American but people of Iraq which indeed comprising insurgent portion too. People of Iraq demand clear exit roadmap because they deem it only fit and feasible weapon to quell the insurgency as once the insurgents know when USA has to exit they will wait to a time till USA exit (as in Vietnam); at international platform to discuss different strategies to quash the insurgency two options were presented one other than a clear road map for exit (which Iraqi people demands too) was the direct negotiation to insurgents (proposed by Khaleej-Times ) but this option has been turned down because as it is said that there is no such charismatic leader as Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam i.e. lack of leadership, secondly (yet again) it will denude the weakness of American power!
An exit strategy by any definition is a way to “to expel the Americans out of country” whether American out of country through exit strategy or without any such strategy it clearly mark the failure of American dream as evident and illustrated by fake control of America on Iraq!

I would be happy and deal it as an exclusive entitlement if I would be urged to discuss my absurd perspectives in some more depth!

Salaam,

Actually I just wanted another post from your side in this thread so I asked you to respond back. Strategy #1 and 2 didn't really demand any comments. However #3 needed some elaboration. Thanks for it!

Your points were not absurd. I don't have any scores to settle with you (just wrote it to give you some kinda tension :P).

Regards,
Adil Memon

(I am waiting for a revelation regarding the Exit Strategy from a friend. I will update this field soon)

adeel,and everyone else, do u honestly think that US can exit from Iraq and also save its face, without dismembering it?

Salaam,

Brother, its a really good question. The possibilities seem less. Though its not impossible!

US invaded Iraq on the pretext of WMDs and Links of Saddam Hussein with Terrorists.

But when both these excuses have proved to be hollow, Bush changed his propaganda and now he's in Iraq to "flourish democracy".

Though if he (Bush) leaves at the moment... America's image is destined to be cherry-blossomed. But if he succeeds to flourish democracy while his stay and leaves the country afterwards, Bush will shout "mission accomplished". The media will help him here and he will be able to save his face to a major extent.

If your query is regarding saving America's face without performing the divine task of spreading democracy, I guess there is no way she can save her image.

(These are my personal views, people can disagree. Criticism and suggestions are allowed from now onwards)

Regards,
Adil Memon

I agree with Mr Adil ,America using media as a tool to spread her Terminologies and Agendas.We can see her cunning and dual nature from the History.After Russian Disintegration she used the Term"New world order".Bef 9/11 "WMD"After 9/11 "War on Terror" and now for Legitimising her encroachment and seizure of Iraq now Bush propagting "flourish democracy".

Iraq was "carved out" of the Ottoman Empire by the British. Iraqi wasn't a nationality before. Iraqi isn't an ethnicity. It is a mixed bag of Kurds and Shia and Sunni Arabs. If Iraq is to be governed peacefully, then democracy is not the solution. The late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia once said that since Saudi Arab was a constellation of different tribes, monarchy is necessary for successful government.

Saddam was a tyrant, biased and self-centered dictator. Whatever he was, he was ONE person running the country. In the countries with hetrogenious ethnicities, groups and loyalities, the only possible way to successful governance is monarch or dictator etc but never democracy. Matternich, the famous Austrian aristocrat of early 19th century said that democracy can "turn bright daylight into midnight". At that time Austria-Hungary was also a such a hetrogenious mixture of various groups of people.

For democracy to succeed, in principle, Iraq will have to be dismembered.

Salaam,

Thanks to you guys for promoting the discussion to a higher level.

@ Amoeba:

I agree to your points here. You're totally right.

@ Tropican:

I agree with you on the point of the creation of Iraq. But, the point that democracy can not flourish among a mixed bag of sects, seems somewhat confusing. You are right to say that Democracy is difficult to be flourished in a land of different sects. But do you really think Iraq can get dismembered if America prolongs her stay over there? If yes, then please explain. If no, it can be stated that a democracy, no matter however weak, will flourish.

I should say that you raised a very good point. I would like to request you to put your explanation here.

OUT OF THE BOX:
Tropican: Do you think Democracy, which we've been trying to persue since the last 58 years, is a healthy system for Pakistan?


Regards,
Adil Memon

I will put forth that dismemberment of Iraq is not a weak possibility. In countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, something like autocracy will fare much better than democracy. History has shown at many places that democracy has resulted in division of peoples and creation of new countries. Afterall, the differences among Kurd, Sunni and Shia never were so much pronounced as they are now, after the talk of democracy.

Moreover, a divided Iraq, as I mentioned earlier too, with a sovereign Kurdistan, otherwise dependent upon the US, would be in the interest of the US. With that the US can very effectivle exploit the Kurd minorities in Iran and Turkey.

Also, after such heated debates among the legislators of Iraq, the idea of a truly united Iraq, with no regard to any differenciation as to Sunni Shia or Kurd is very far-fetched. A loose federation as put in the recent constitution is a tenuous hope. If that is rejected, anarchy will ensue and then the worst dreams of Muslim umma may come true ( God prevent that!).

Regarding the out of box question, debate would sound out of context here. May be on a separate thread, we can discuss that. Then I would love to hear your and other people's views on this.

Salaam,

Thanks for your beautiful explanation. I will soon prepare some other thread for discussion!

Regards,
Adil Memon