OpinionJournal - Featured Article

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

Here's an article that disagrees with me. But here's my quick critique.

First, I am not suggesting simple partition. I am suggesting that we threaten to partition the current boundaries of Iraq among three neighbors. None of these neighbors are known for tolerating dissent within their borders.

Second, the goal should be to bring all Iraqi groups to the bargaining table. The Iraqis do not see themselves as Iraqis first but as Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. My suggestion is to use the threat of partition to have them understand the situation rationally. Currently, each group has mutually exclusive goals. The Kurds just want to be left alone with their oil wealth. The Sunnis want to re-assert the dominance that they have had in the country for centuries. The Shiites with their numerical superiority see a chance to dominate the whole country. Each of these groups need to realize that they will not reach their goals through force.

Third, the whole point is to turn over the job of keeping the peace to the local nations who do not have the same qualms about using force that we do. I realize that to simply withdraw U.S. troops will leave a vacuum that will be filled by someone. My suggestion is that if the Iraqis will not work together then we should leave behind an Iranian, Saudi, Turkish force that will keep the peace.

Nation building

Nation building is the use of military force to establish a representative government. I am against nation building for two reasons.

The first reason comes from my reading of history. Armies and navies perform at their best when their job is well-defined. It should be obvious that the most important measure of performance for any military should be its ability to kill the enemy and destroy his armaments. The ability to police a country, build schools, establish relationships with local residents - all of these are noble, but they are hardly good measures of an effective army or navy. However, it is for these things that the brave men of the United States military are being praised.

My second reason to oppose the use of military force to establish a representative government stems from my reading of the Bible. Current theory on nation building insists that if you provide the proper environment - schools, jobs, security - that people will naturally want a representative government. This is a fallacy. The Bible teaches us that men and women are naturally and desperately wicked. There is no sense in trying to establish a truly representative government without the moral foundation that the Bible provides. The Father of our nation wisely said, "It is impossible to rightly govern ... without God and the Bible." But that is exactly what we are expecting people to do in such countries as Afghanistan and Iraq. We provide the soldiers who will provide security, provide the resources to rebuild the infrastructure, provide the guidance to set up a government elected by the people, and then expect that the nationals will want and support a democratically-elected government that governs in a way that Americans approve of.

When George Bush ran for president, it was my understanding that he too did not believe in nation building either. In his debate with Al Gore, he said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building." I thought to myself, "This man has my vote." Since that time it has become apparent that either he has changed his mind or that we have drastically different definitions of nation building.

It's a fallacy to think that if our troops just stay in Iraq long enough, the Iraqis themselves will "see the light" and decide to act responsibly. As long as Iraqis are without God and without respect for His word, there is little chance that they will change.

Government on brink of collapse as Gaza moves closer to civil war-News-World-Middle East-TimesOnline

Government on brink of collapse as Gaza moves closer to civil war-News-World-Middle East-TimesOnline

I cannot understand how people can insist that the Israelis negotiate with the Palestinians. First of all, the current political group in power in the PA government Hamas will not even recognize the agreements made so far. Secondly, two of the groups Fatah and Hamas are now killing each other. How are the Israelis supposed to negotiate with that? I just don't understand.

Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory - New York Times

The trouble in Iraq.

Our problem in Iraq is that two different cultures are colliding: an American culture that values life, individuality, and freedom; and a Iraqi culture that respects victory over life, sectarianism, and fear. The article below illustrates to me the difference clearly.

Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory - New York Times

Unfortunately, it seems to me as if America is prosecuting the war as if Iraqis are Americans and that as soon as the Iraqis realize that we Americans have their best interests in mind, they will shape up, form a federal, representative government, and agree to get along. But Iraqis have no history and no preparation for a federal, representative government. They only know autocratic governments that control the people by fear or are overthrown. Since we are not willing (nor would it be appropriate for us) to rule by fear, torture, and sahel, it will be generations before the Iraqis begin to absorb the American mindset.

Now, I have been against the Iraq War from the beginning for three reasons.

1. I am always against the invasion of a sovereign country that has not attacked us first. As an American expatriate residing in a small country surrounded by two massive neighbors, I am especially aware of the precarious position of such nations. Just because a country is small and vulnerable does not mean that its larger and more powerful neighbors have a right to tell the smaller country what to do. There several common arguments for the invasion of Iraq that are often used by conservatives. (I consider myself a conservative). I will try to deal with those in another post.
2. I do not believe that nation building - that is, the invasion and occupation of a country with a goal of establishing a representative government - works. There may have been a few successful examples in history, but American diplomacy is littered with unsuccessful attempts to establish representative governments by force. Besides, isn't establishing a representative government by force a mutual contradiction. If the will of the people is for a representative government than force is not necessary. If force is necessary (as implied by foreign military forces remaining in a country) doesn't that indicate coercion. Coercion is unnecessary if the will of the people demands a representative government. The posted article points out that the Iraqis know nothing of a representative government. There is no history and very little desire for a true republic. What most Iraqis want is a dictator that represents their interests: Sunnis want a Sunni dictator, the Kurds want a Kurdish dictator, and the Shiites want a Shiite dictator.
3. I have always believed that this war has no good objective. In the end, a new dictator will take over the country.

So now that we've knocked Humpty Dumpty off the wall, how do we put him back together again? Our troops could stay in Iraq for a generation and only begin the process of establishing a representative government.

So what are our options. I think as long as we are at it, we should offer/threaten to destabilize the whole region and let the local players sort out the mess we made in Iraq. Here's the plan.

The country of Iraq should be partitioned into three zones: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish zones. Iran would be offered the chance to "police" the Shiite section with the implicit understanding that they could eventually annex the entire section and incorporate it into the Islamic Republic of Iran. Some might argue that we are trying to prevent exactly that: we are trying to save the vast oil reserves and population of southern Iraq from falling into the hands of one of the members of the axis of evil. Perhaps, but giving the Iranians the southern half is better than letting the whole country fall under their control.

The Saudis would be given the opportunity to control the Sunni section, again with the understanding that they are welcome to incorporate their region into Saudi Arabia in the future if they so desire. Sharing a similar religion and not wanting this region to fall under Shiite Iran's control, they would be in little position to protest.

Third, I think we should turn the northern, predominantly Kurdish section of the country back over to its previous overlords: the Turks. The Turks, of all three groups, have the least incentive to accept our offer. However, the region's vast oil reserves (Turkey has little oil) and the chance to disrupt bases for Kurdish rebellion in Anatolia would be difficult for the Turks to pass up.

Instead of a fractious Iraq, there would be an enlarged Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. We could give everyone plenty of notice of our intentions and allow the "Iraqis" one last chance to establish their own government and suppress the terrorists within their midst. Personally, as much as the Iraqi Shiites look to Iran for help, I do not think that they really want to be ruled be Iran. The Kurds have the greatest incentive for working to find a solution to a unified Iraqi government. They absolutely detest the Turks who would certainly repress them as they do the Kurds within Turkey today.

Most likely, all three countries are smarter than we are and will refuse to set foot in a country where sahel is the standard of victory.