|
There was a short-lived discussion on this site last week that should be revived IMO. Hope that you don't mind a compilation of the previous discussion as a "new" diary. It starts thusly:
I don't get it - there is a diary from yesterday that is disappearing off the bottom of the list by J-Ro, entitled: We Need A Progressive Plan For Iraq. There are 4 comments - two by me, one reply by the author. The gist of J-Ro's diary is that progressives should state their policy - our plan for action in Iraq on the part of the U.S. government in the event that people like us win power in 2008. That's our goal, right? Just in case we succeed, do we not need a plan?
My point was directed at the audience and authors on this blog - why isn't a question like "how to leave Iraq" a magnet for comments? There were many comments arguing about the purity of Mark Warner's senatorial campaign. Why don't progressives want to propose policy? program? concrete actions? We analyze, we criticize, we criticize each others' criticisms. How come so little attempt to plan policy? It's just very strange to me.
So - in the spirit of let's-get-out-of-Mom's-basement-apartment, here is a draft outline of a plan:
1) All U.S. troops redeploy to the 5 main bases in Iraq and enhance the security arrangements around these bases;
1a) all native Iraqis who request asylum are moved to these bases;
1b) all troops not necessary to support those 5 bases begin departure sequence from al Asad air base;
2) All U.S. "contractors" redeploy to temporary camp in Saudi Arabia;
2a) all non-U.S. citizens in "contractors" role argiven commercial airplane tickets to their home country;
2b) all U.S. citizens in these roles are ferried back to the U.S. via chartered flights, paid for by "contractor" companies;
3) All non-essential and low-security-listed material is left in place for local Iraqis to expropriate;
3a) all weaponry and ammunition are collected and warehoused in one, remote but secure, corner of al Asad air base for transport to U.S.;
3b) all mine-detection devices, tools, construction equipment and material, and medical equipment are left for local Iraqis to expropriate;
4) Organize council including Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraqi Sunni, and Iraqi Shi'a to discuss/negotiate political arrangement for southern provinces;
5) Organize council including Turkey, Turkomen, Iran, and Iraqi Kurds to discuss/negotiate political arrangement for northern provinces;
6) Ask U.N. to hold advisory conference on Iraq situation to obtain viewpoints of all interested parties;
7) When treaties or constitutions or arrangements acceptable to the 3 main ethnic/sectarian divisions in Iraq are formalized, begin the full withdrawal of all U.S. military personnel back to the U.S.
7a) native Iraqis who request asylum are processed for immigration to the U.S. on an expedited basis;
7b) all stored weapons and ammunition are transported to the U.S.;
7c) the U.S. bases are turned over to the authorities for the region in which they are located;
7d) the U.S. budgets for grants/reparations to the Iraq entity or entities that emerge from the agreements.
J-Ro's response:
Halfway there - I agree with your military plans, but the political ones are vague, I feel. For example, what exactly are the countries going to talk about in these conferences? What is the U.S. prepared to offer for their cooperation? Are we going to ask these countries for a troop commitment? If so, who will finance? How many troops? Will they be mostly Arab?
And point #7 seems a bit too much like "when they stand up, we'll stand down." Certainly not the same, but what if these constitutions never come about? What if the sects just won't compromise? We need to totally remove ourselves from that conflict, both militarily and politically, so we can operate on a wider basis.
My reply to J-Ro:
1) My comment was a draft, which means to me that it is subject to review and revision;
2) The council suggestions must, I think, be vague. Although the U.S. position - assuming an "honest broker" role for a new administration - may be defined, it seems to me that the discussions/negotiations will center on the needs of the regional players more than the wants of the U.S. In other words I think that there will be a fair amount of horse-trading. (If you want my opinion, I think partition is logical, whether federalized or fully separated.)
3) I agree that, lacking progress toward agreement, the U.S. troops will be removed unilaterally by some date certain. The only exception is that, if the regional councils decide that a multi-national force might be needed for some specific mission(s), then U.S. troops should participate at some level.
Well, folks, What is To Be Done?
|
