People might not want to hear this, but there is no clear solution to what this administration has brought to us in Iraq. A sudden pullout would in fact leave many Iraqi civilians in harm’s way in an all out carnage of sectarian violence. This is unavoidable; we are seeing this while our troops are still there. Nothing except committing more troops, which at this point is impossible will stop this carnage.
Iran on the other hand, will have an unparalleled opportunity to become the dominant power in the Middle East by exploiting the weakness of the Iraqi central government. This is a fact friend, not fiction. As a student of history I can just about guarantee that Iran will be the de facto ruler of Iraq. They had a six year war with Iraq and had over a million casualties. The United States backed that war and Iran will not forget. This poses a serious problem for The United States.
To let Iran have hegemony over the Middle East would be anathema to The United States. They would in fact, now threaten Saudi Arabia and America’s oil supplies. If we were to go to war to defend Saudi Arabia, that would indeed be a war for oil. Whether or not we would defend Saudi Arabia with the current feelings in the US would be hard to predict. Would we go to war with Iran over Saudi Arabia? Could we if we pulled all our troops from the Middle East?
This is a conundrum. Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. This brings us to a modest proposal on the Middle East that could ensure Iran would never complete its hegemony over Iraq. It would guarantee a safe haven in the west for Sunni Muslims and guarantee a free state for the Kurds in the north of Iraq that are for the most part, operating as an independent state now.
My proposal is to re-align our forces. We must cut the number of troops in Iraq by half. Move our bases into Northern Iraq (Kurdistan), take the city of Kirkut and concentrate on that city and bring it under control and realign it with Kurdistan. Kurdistan would at this time elect to stay a part of Iraq as an autonomous state, or it could declare its independence. With a strong American presence in Kurdestan, Turkey would not have to worry about Kurds using Kurdistan as a base to launch attacks against Turkey. This would give the Kurds their homeland, while also keeping a large US presence in the area.
Keeping a large military presence in a friendly country that would actually welcome us is a large strategic advantage. Basing troops in Kuwait, with their ports on the Gulf would also give us added military strength in the area and give the US the capability to keep the Gulf open.
I see this a win-win situation. This proposal would give America a steadfast friend in the region, one that has enormous oil reserves. It would also guarantee a Kurdish homeland, and give America a great strategic base to operate from. It would also be a place that should we need to strike anywhere in Iraq, we could launch military operations from if Kurdistan if it was necessary to protect human life in Iraq. It would also give Iran pause in the event they wanted to attack Saudi Arabia. This is the way I see it.
http://liberalpro.blogspot.com
Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.
Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.
Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.
Why does the US have any right whatsoever to try to control
the region by military force? What is the historical evidence that Iran would in fact "threaten Saudi Arabia"? (Offhand, I don't think they've invaded or threatened ANYONE for the last few centuries, or even longer.) // And, if it's OK for the US to try to control the region by force (simply re-configuring where bases are put, & altering the number of troops), we remain stuck in the endless cycle of insane levels of military spending, & all the hellish effects that flow from that. For instance, we still have the military-industrial complex dominating US society & shaping the use (ie, misuse) of vast quantities of society's resources.
The US has no right whatever, in my opinion, to have troops in this area. It violates the UN Charter & the Nuremberg Principles. We would never allow another great power, such as China, Russia, Germany, etc, to move their troops into the region to dominate it by military force; why is it OK if we do it? Isn't it better to aim at putting a permanent stop to the game of trying to dominate the world by military force?
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1162 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 9:31:53 AM
The Kurds have never had a nation of their own. We are there already. We are going to pull out. Rich, if you believe that for one minute that Iran won't move in and threaten Saudia Arabia, you really don't understand Iran. The Iranian people are good people. The Iranian Govermrent Sucks. They WILL do what I said as sure as I know anything about anyrthing. Since we caused this mess, we have an OBLIGATION not to let Iran take the whole Middle East. That's THE WHY. In a perfect weorld we could just go home and forget the whole thing. THIS IS NOT A PERFECT WORLD. I'm sorry if I have offended anyone but this is the reality of the situation. We gave Iran this opportunity by invading Iraq. Hold BUSH accountable but this is now where we are.
If we could negotiate with NATO or the other States in the area and put a peacekeeping force in Iraq that would be OK. Still even with that Iran is going to infiltrate Iraq and dominate it. That is the reality. That is NOT in our countries best interests. Unless you want to see a much larger war later.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 10:44:43 AM
But the whole model of the US unilaterally trying to control
the Middle East by military force -- this is an unjustifiable & unworkable model for managing world affairs. The US doesn't own the world, & has no right to impose its will everywhere. If Iran tried to invade & take control of Saudi Arabia, that's a horse of another color. That would constitute "military aggression" -- the same thing we're already guilty of. They would be wrong to do that for the same reason we're already wrong. (Or, put differently, they have as much right to embark on that course as we do.)
Responding to Iranian aggression, should it come to pass, is very different than trying to rationalize continued US aggression -- which is already a reality. But such a problem should be dealt with inside the framework of the UN & international law -- ie, by international cooperation, not by unilateral might.
Re: the argument that we have an "obligation" to fix the mess we caused -- no doubt this is true in some moral sense (like reparations). But it is NOT true in the sense that it justifies keeping US troops there. It's not possible that keeping US troops there can make the situation better. They are the CAUSE of most of the trouble; there's no reason to think they could fix the nightmare they've unleashed -- especially since they're directed by the US government, which is itself a bunch of gangsters with no interest whatever in improving living conditions in the Middle East.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1162 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 12:56:23 PM
"Nothing except committing more troops, which at this point is impossible will stop this carnage."
More troops would stop carnage, but increase it that much more: the US is the cause of the problem. Staying anywhere there, with any troops, (both illegal and immoral) also increases the death and destruction.
"To let Iran have hegemony over the Middle East would be anathema to The United States. They would in fact, now threaten Saudi Arabia and America’s oil supplies."
The first thing to understand is that it NOT the U.S.'s oil! If we want oil we have to buy it, and it WILL be for sale, because, as had been said, they don't drink the stuff. The whole point of anyone in the Middle East having oil is to sell it.
As for Iran, the U.S. has already strengthened their position -- it's a done deal. The ones who will prevent Iran from completely taking over Iraq would be the Iraqis -- what's left of them. If we tried to take over the Kurdish area and establish a Kurdistan it would piss off the Turks, the Kurds, and the Iranians. The Turks will not go along with an independent Kurdistan becasue of it's own Kurdish region, which it wants to keep rtaher than seeing it break off and join a Kurdistan. The U.S. would hardly be in a friendly country; it would be that much deeper in quagmire. Kirkuk is already a bone of contention between the Turks and Kurds, and if the U.S. tried to take over there the troops would be under constant attack.
Iran is not about to attack the Saudis -- it didn't before, so why should it now? You think Iran wants another war? What would it gain? Iran can't take over Saudi and steal the oil even it might want to. Already the Saudi royals have enough problem controlling it's population -- you think that Iranian, Shiites, would fare any better, and do you think the Iranians don't understand this?
Forget this colony and empire stuff -- that time is past. The only thing the U.S. is capable of now is destruction, including destroying itself.
Trying to keep a military footprint in the Middle East is exactly what caused Bin Laden and gang to become our enemy to start with, and the world is fed up with the US empire. It's wrong, it's illegal, it's dumb and it's beyond U.S. military capacity -- the U.S. military is already in shambles.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 11:37:37 AM
I really don't want us there either. I threw this out as an alternative. You are both absolutly right. We have no justification for ever starting this war or ever stationing troops there. If I were President, I would call the troop home, pay Jordan,UAR,Kuwait and Morocco to police Iran. I would also keep a really close eye on Iran. I would also sell the Saudis just about anythig they wanted except nuclear weapons.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 2:09:33 PM
You would sell them anything besides nukes. let us remember what 15 of the 19 highjackers where saudis. also birthplace of wahabisms. the most millittan form of islam. also not democratic does not let women have equal rights ( wait a minute weren't these all reasons to invade iraq ) ????
by
mike (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 4:10:54 PM
We can become isolationist. Maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing. Our standard of living would drop certainly, but we don't really need all of this "stuff". If we could have people in the CIA and the NSA that really knew what they were doing, we could stop WWIII from coming out of the Middle East. I don't think we could do it with the intelligence assets we have now. If it's not us, it will be the Russians, or the Chinese, either way we Will become involved there again. I wish this weren't so, but mark my words.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 9:23:43 PM
Unfortuntely, the Iraqi civilians are hosed in any case
If we remain, we'll kill more civilians. If we leave, the civil war will kill more civilians.
I've been wondering: In the event of a U.S. pullout, could the United Nations send forces to achieve and maintain order? What are the UN's options and limitations in this kind of situation?
by
rapfinance (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 4:45:28 AM
This article begins with a premise of Iranian maleavolence that does not, in my opinion, exist. Amadhinajad has little support within Iraq, the nation itself is European one might understand, not Arab.
The President of Iran campaigned on a progressive platform of economic modernisation before the ill conceived and ludicrous Bushistas screwed the pooch in the Middle East. That he has played the extremist card belies the nature of the Iranians and he is being shot down within his own nation for doing so. The city of Teheran is modern in extreme, the coffee houses are filled with political discourse and western music blares everywhere.
That Iran and Iraq are chiefly Shi'ite and thus natural allies is true enough, but to posit some enmity between Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran based upon such is unsupportable without further facts. It behooves us to avoid the trap of Bush propaganda, this nonstop diatribe against a nation undeserving of such that may convince us of absurdities to coerce us into atrocities.....Thanks Voltaire. The truth is that most of the violence in Iraq comes from the Sunni insurgents and not the Shia, thus perhaps we might focus upon Saudi Arabia's arming of those who kill us with much greater frequency than do those armed by Teheran.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 7:03:09 AM
Yes the people of Iran are modern and very cosmopolitian. The people do not want war, I know that and that's why I've always taken the stand that we should NOT attack Iran. If they want to get rid of their Fundementalist, blackboot secret police force anf their gestapo army, the worst thing we could do is attack them, they will rally around their government. The reality of the situation is that Iran REALLY REALLY HAS A BASTARD GOVERNMENT. Just like us, but people in Iran dissapear all the time. The reality of the situation is that they WILL take advantage. Its their nature. Persia ruled that area for more time that that area was free. That's the reality, today. In my humble opinion.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 10:45:15 AM
"The reality of the situation is that Iran REALLY REALLY HAS A BASTARD GOVERNMENT. Just like us, but people in Iran dissapear all the time. The reality of the situation is that they WILL take advantage. Its their nature. Persia ruled that area for more time that that area was free. That's the reality, today. In my humble opinion."
I bet you would object to any foreign intervention in our bastard government. The reality of the situation is that Iraq had a bastard government and look at the mess we created after overthrowing it! I do not know or care to conjecture as to the "nature" of any people or culture though I doubt that calling any "evil by nature" is a rationale worthy of support.
The only real way to aide in the democratisation of a nation is by example, not by sanction, force or threat of force.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, September 2, 2007 at 2:20:22 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
