For one, it has prevented the Shiites from launching a full scale assault against the Sunnis. …Given the level of violence, mass executions of Sunnis by Shiites, I think it is clear that had they a completely free hand, Shiites (specifically the radical militias) would try to cleanse mixed areas of Sunnis. See here and here. My point with this is not to argue that we were not at fault for allowing the militias to infiltrate the security forces, rather I do this to point out that Sunnis indeed fear what I described above.

In fact, despite Abu Ghraib, Iraqi Sunnis prefer to be captured by American forces, and held in American run facilities because they know that their treatment at the hand of the Shiites would be far worst. In this article, a Sunni insurgent commander is described as follows: “Abu Sarhan’s views illustrate the deep animosity toward Shiites that fuels so much of the sectarian violence in Iraq. His comments also suggested a more restrained view of the United States, which he considers an occupier but one that should not leave immediately.”

Note that this article is from mid 2007. He also said this: “Still, he did not advocate an immediate U.S. withdrawal, but rather a gradual drawdown of troops to coincide with a reconciliation with Sunni insurgents.”Lift the barriers. Move the checkpoints. Build a hospital. And release the detainees from the area. And you will witness very quickly a tangible difference. The hatred and the strikes against the Americans will be wiped out or greatly reduced,” he said. “The solution is political, not military. And then the American soldiers will be able to walk down the streets without their protective vests. But when the Americans do eventually leave, he said, “the future will be dim.”

“There will be a fierce civil war, a grinding civil war, because Iran will always be there,” he said. “But the Sunnis are ready for such a day.”

Additionally, every time there has been an attack that was intended to stoke ethnic/religious conflict, it has been American troops at the forefront of reestablishing order, and enforcing curfews (passed by the Iraqi government) for the purpose of preventing the additional bloodshed that would ensue due to revenge attacks. Security forces have sealed off the area and imposed a curfew, in an effort to prevent revenge attacks.… Iraq is also going through more than just one conflict, …. which ironically, though our actions caused it, our forces have prevented from escalating into something far worse.

We’re fighting at least three different wars.An an example, it has been the US military presence in Iraq that has moderated Turkey’s response, and made them reticent to invade northern Iraq with a full scale attack to destroy the PKK. Same thing goes for Iran and Syria, who worry about the prospect of an independent Kurdistan more than anything else. There is no question that the US presence has moderated Turkey’s response. That said, it isn’t the only thing, Turkey’s own internal battles between the moderate Islamists and the secular military have also contributed, as well as Turkey’s desire to join the EU.They may have done it to make the administration’s plan more difficult, but the conflicts they started have taken on a life of their own. If anything, they are a bigger threat to Iraqis than even our occupation of the country has been.See some of the articles linked above, where Sunnis talk specifically about their readiness and willingness to fight the Iranian/Shiite threat. Abu Musab az Zarqawi, before his death, through the specific targeting of Shiite civilians and Shiite religious symbols ensured that the moderates within each side were drowned out by the the radicals that believed in Zarqawi’s vision. This is beyond dispute, particularly following the bombing of the al Askiriya mosque.Once we leave, these two groups will likely drive their respective groups into an all out war for control of the state.

Given the trends identified by some of the articles above, this is what is going on now. It’s not that I am arguing for Biden’s plan, so much as recognizing the trends and trying to find a plan that sees them as well, to see if we can ameliorate them to prevent a worst outcome.

I think you have no basis for concluding that our presence has kept any sort of lid on vs. what our departure would do.

Actually, as you can see from what even some Sunni commanders have said, despite everything they view the US occupation (even while calling for its end) as a means of preventing something even more calamitous.

See, I’m not arguing that the US hasn’t F-d-up royally, of course we have, that is why we are in the position we are in. My argument, is that having F-d-up so badly, it would be even worst to withdraw without a thought to the aftermath of our withdrawal. In short, two mistakes don’t make a right.

How do you know what Sunnis prefer? Again, see articles cited above.

That’s the thing about occupations: they tend to supplant internal hatreds.)

Yet, they haven’t. Sunnis and Shiites, in large part because of our inability to fill the security vacuum left by the demise of Hussein, has allowed for the rise for the most radical, violent elements of their societies to take over. Given that the violence between the groups is so intense even as they should all be coalescing against us, says something about a future Iraq without us, at least without trying to ameliorate any possible bad effects.

I’m just curious: In some of your comments like this one, you sound a bit like Biden’s press secretary :-) … Are you?

You caught me. Yes I am. Okay, no, I’m kidding. Actually, I was watching a video of Sen., Obama in the last debate where he said that and I used it in my response. 

and ohhh how our asserted presumptions (the Bush/Cheney forté) have gotten us into morasses. (And some of your presumptions are even the same ones that Bush depends on)

The only thing I can say to that is, just because this administration has been almost criminal in using the reality on the ground, or threats we face as political tools to advance their political position, it doesn’t mean that some of what they have said is necessarily wrong. In fact, that has been one of my main problems with the administration, that in using the threats we face as a means of gaining political advantage, they have not only belittled those threats, but have made it possible for people to question whether those very real threats actually exist (i.e. all those conspiracy theories that say the US government/parts thereof planned 9/11).

As to main point regarding the likely outcome of a US withdrawal and ethnic cleansing spilling over Iraq’s borders

See above, for Iraqi Sunni-Shiite hatred, proxy war between Iran v Saudi Arabia and Sunni v Shiite Islam generally. Regarding With equitable representation, the likelihood of Sunnis accepting it increases. Also see articles linked above.

Also, so long as Kirkuk is kept as a federal city, Sadr is less likely to cause trouble in the north.

His aim is to prevent Kirkuk from becoming a city inside a future Kurdistan. Making it a federal (i.e. shared city) makes it more likely that he would acquiesce to such a plan, particularly given the threats he would face from the Badr brigade and Fadillah.

If anything, prevent the onset of a full fledged civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, same as it has been doing for some time. It’s either that, or withdraw and watch Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq tear each other apart from the sidelines, while Iran and Saudi become more involved in a proxy war in Iraq potentially engulfing the entire region.

Again, see above.

It’s either that, or you let the war burn, in which case everything Weldon is arguing (and using agaisnt Biden’s plan) will happen, but on a more horrific scale, and rather than be directly engaged the US would just watch from the sidelines. In short, the very genocide that Weldon says he wants to avoid.

Again, see above, and read other articles/reports that address the impact of an American withdrawal. To clarify, I’m not arguing against withdrawing, in fact I think we need to do so. However, I am worried about the aftermath of such an event. I see Biden’s plan (not the only one, but one of the few I think may work with modifications) as one that seeks to address this, something many of the other withdrawal plans do not. It’s simple, a power vacuum creates instability, instability allows for the rise of more radical elements. Given the situation in Iraq, that is almost a given. If I’m going to back a plan, I want it to address this eventuality as much as possible.

We cannot predict what the extraction of a “foreign other” — in this case ourselves — will do to the degrees of internal violence Iraqis are now doing to each other. Each nation is unique and so each occupation will have a slightly different (albeit always deleterious) effect and the occupation’s aftermath will also always be unique, in some unpredictable way(s).

Agreed. But in this case we are also responsible, so we have a responsibility (when we withdraw) to ensure that we address or try to prevent the worst possible outcomes that may ensue as a result. Otherwise, not only will we have invaded a country wrongly, but we would have left irresponsibly, further compounding our initial mistakes.

no matter where “things” seem to be pointing as long as we’re still in the mix

We have to identify trends. It isn’t hard to see where the situation in Iraq is headed, or will be heading. Just look at the British withdrawal from Southern Iraq. They are facing many problems, which we would also have to address when we begin to draw down our forces. That is what analysis is ultimately about. To say that all the killing/violence will stop with an American withdrawal, is more of an assertion than my own, because at least mine has trends and facts on the ground to point to as evidence.

Suggesting it will inherently be worse without us ultimately does seem (ironically?) self-serving and too much an echo of Bush’s own self-righteous assertiveness that got us in this unholy mess. I’m not saying you’re wrong but rather than you cannot be certain you are right, and therefore arguments predicated on your “likely scenario” (and you do state it as sounding more than just ‘likely’ in your view) strike me as being founded in sand at least as much as the alternates being argued here.

Again, this has been one of the worst crimes of this administration. In using real threats, realisitic scenarios not to explain or understand the problem, but solely for political points has created an atmosphere where it is hard for people to get past the experience under Bush and accept arguments about real threats at face value. I mean, I’m not arguing that my scenario is the only possible outcome out there. If it sounds like that, it is because I’m advocating it here so obviously I’m pointing to the evidence that supports it. That said, I am open to other scenarios so long as they have the evidence to back them up.

For example, Thomas P.M. Barnett, falls somewhere near Biden, but thinks that the way to go is to move our forces north to protect the Kurds, South to protect Kuwait, and allow the Sunnis and Shiites to go at each other, while also speeding up the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. He argues for this not because he wants to see the violence or the dead, but rather, because in the absence of any diplomacy, or engagement with Iran and an attempt to deal with the many problems we face, he sees this as the only solution to get everyone to the negotiating table. In other words, tire them or war, let it threaten them directly and only then push them to the negotiating table. He sees trends pointing that way, and backs it up. I see where he gets it, I think we can do better. I’ve read other plans which call for quarantining Iraq, and the violence inside it, but these usually fall along the lines of the mistaken belief that Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq have been fighting each other since the Battle of Karbala centuries ago. In short, a very occidental view of the Middle East and completely wrong.

Just how many cities do you see as becoming so administered?

Only those that are the source of a large amount of violence, Baghdad, Kirkuk, for example. I can’t name them all without researching this further…but given the ethnic/religious mix, we would be looking at cities in at least six of Iraq’s 18 governorates.

Weldon, there are two main reasons I make such a big deal about the number of peacekeepers, the first being that shorting the force would be fatal, the second that raising so many would be extremely difficult under the best of circumstances, which this can’t be construed to be.

I don’t think I’ve questioned your focus on the number of peacekeepers that would be needed. As I mentioned above, I’ve also raised the issue with regard to his plan. When I addressed your point about making a big deal of it, I meant solely with regard to the alternative. That said, I think you are overestimating the amount of troops that would be required under a Biden plan. You are right on mixed cities such as Baghdad, but remember, once the partition that is already happening is guarded by US troops (troops positioned at the division of ethnic/religious regions), that would primarily be in 6 of Iraq’s 18 governorates which have mixed populations, and along the borders dividing the three groups. The internal security of each semi-autonomous region would fall largely to local elements not US or international forces.

200,000 peacekeeepers would be grossly inadequate by historical peacekeeping guidelines, but it would also be double the total number of UN peacekeepers now deployed throughout the world and nearly ten times the size of the largest UN peacekeeping force in history (the post-Dayton Bosnian peacekeeping force, less than a third as large, was primarily NATO, not UN).

I agree. However, I would note, that Turkey has traditionally made the bulk of NATO’s troops. Imagine what China’s million man army, and India’s army could contribute. We don’t need them to fight as much as be seen, (i.e. boots on the ground). How do we legitimize it, give China something for it. The US opens the way for Chinese investment in Iraq, while also moving to negotiate with Iran; thereby addressing another Chinese and Indian concerns. Yes, this isn’t happening under this administration, but here we are assuming that either Biden’s plan gets enough support, or a new president has come into office.

Does anyone really want 50,000 Chinese troops there even if it could be arranged?

Yes, because a lot of it, is their oil (or will be). It’s time we engage China as part of the security mechanism of the global order and not as an opponent (otherwise it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, something this administration has come close to doing). China usually uses its peacekeeping missions as a means to open markets for its products, and to acquire access to resources. As part of the deal, they usually throw in infrastructure aid, construction or FDI; exactly what we need in Iraq.

My objection to the plan is that it is fantasy. It’s a more rational fantasy than The Surge, but it’s still fantasy, and it’s getting in the way of facing up to the horrors of reality.

If a fantasy, perhaps more realistic that pushing for withdrawal hoping such a move will address all the problems we face and which threaten to engulf the whole region. This is not really an argument on your part, just your personal point of view. An assertion, as defined by others above.

That said, I do agree we have to face the horrors of all that has gone wrong. That, however, does not mean that ignoring any potential dangers that lurk behind the mirage of a “withdrawal fixes everything” view.

Will terrible things happen if we withdraw? More than likely, but we are ultimately going to withdraw and there will not be a magical UN force coming in behind us, so we really, really need to focus on mitigating the disaster to whatever extent possible, which ultimately may not be much.

Agreed, but that does not mean that we just allow them to happen. We try to find ways to not only contain the violence, but also of preventing the worst possible outcomes of a withdrawal.

If the international community is to act as the coercive mediator who locks all the factions in a room, one has to wonder when that community will be created. We have the UN but the prospects of it acting effectively seem slim.

JackD, Please refer to Biden’s description of the Contact Group, I was using international community as short-hand for what I described in a previous comment.

I don’t see this administration being proactive on it.

Agreed. However, one of the problems in addressing a plan that is not being implemented is that it is easy to fall into two types of argument. The first says it can never work because such and such…(more valid), the second falls under “it cannot happen because the administration is not implementing it, hence it won’t happen.” (which is less of a valid argument because to an extent allowance must be given to the “if it could be implemented” side.) The main criticism in that instance, which would be valid, and which Weldon raised above is “how do we implement it, impose it on the administration?”

As to Maliki’s friends, he is talking about Iran I am sure. If the point of the “Biden plan” is to avoid a shia dominated and Iranian influenced Iraq, I think that, like the English king who demanded the tide stop, the plan seeks to overcome the inevitable.

It is not that. Iran’s influence will be very strong in the Shiite south in Iraq, that’s inevitable. Here I also point to Biden’s argument that the internal security of homogenous regions falls on the local (native) security forces. This means, he accepts that Iran will have a role to play, but through negotiations with Iran hopes it will be more productive than it currently is.

Okay guys, I’m leaving town in about 3 hrs. so I will not be able to respond to comments until at least Tuesday afternoon. Hence, if you post, please forgive me if I take a while to reply back. Also, thanks for the discussion. It is something that all Americans should be looking at. There are various plans out there, some more feasible, some less so, only by looking at each, their strengths and weaknesses will we be able to arrive at a consensus on how to proceed going forward.

[comment edited by WB for formatting ...]

As to Maliki’s friends, he is talking about Iran I am sure. If the point of the “Biden plan” is to avoid a shia dominated and Iranian influenced Iraq, I think that, like the English king who demanded the tide stop, the plan seeks to overcome the inevitable.