Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Time for Plan B; Friedman's column
Topic Started: Aug 5 2006, 10:59 AM (291 Views)
Nina
Senior Carp
As most of you know, Friedman has been very supportive of the war in Iraq, although he's questioned some of the tactics. For this reason, I found this article to be pretty interesting.



Time for Plan B
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

It is now obvious that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are baby-sitting a civil war.

When our top commander in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid, tells a Senate Committee, as he did yesterday, that “the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it,” it means that three years of efforts to democratize Iraq are not working. That means “staying the course” is pointless, and it’s time to start thinking about Plan B — how we might disengage with the least damage possible.

It seemed to me over the last three years that, even with all the Bush team’s missteps, we had to give our Iraqi partners a chance to produce a transitional government, then write a constitution, then hold an election and then, finally, put together their first elected cabinet. But now they have done all of that — and the situation has only worsened.

The Sunni jihadists and Baathists are as dedicated as ever to making this U.S.-Iraqi democracy initiative fail. That, and the runaway sectarian violence resulting from having too few U.S. troops and allowing a militia culture to become embedded, have made Iraq a lawless mess.

Yes, I believe it was and remains hugely important to try to partner with Iraqis to create one good example in the heart of the Arab world of a decent, progressive state, where the politics of fear and tribalism do not reign — the politics that has produced all the pathologies of unemployment, religious intolerance and repression that make the Middle East so dangerous to itself and others.

But the administration now has to admit what anyone — including myself — who believed in the importance of getting Iraq right has to admit: Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, it is not happening, and we can’t throw more good lives after good lives.

Since the Bush team never gave us a Plan A for Iraq, it at least owes us a Plan B. It’s not easy. Here are my first thoughts about a Plan B and some of the implications.

I think we need to try a last-ditch Bosnia-like peace conference that would bring together all of Iraq’s factions and neighbors. Just as Bosnia could be solved only by an international peace force and the Dayton conference — involving Russia, Europe and the U.S., the powers most affected by Bosnia’s implosion — the civil war in Iraq can be quelled only by a coalition of those most affected by Iraq’s implosion: the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan, India, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria and Jordan. As in Bosnia, any solution will have to be some form of federalism, a division of oil wealth and policing by an international force, where needed.

For such a conference to come about, though, the U.S. would probably need to declare its intention to leave. Iraqis, other Arabs, Europeans and Chinese will get serious about helping to salvage Iraq only if they believe we are leaving and it will damage their interests.

What would be the consequences of leaving without such a last-ditch peace effort, or if it just fails? Iraq could erupt into a much wider civil war, drawing in its neighbors. Or, Iraqis might stare into this abyss and actually come to terms with each other on their own. Our presence may be part of the problem. It’s hard to know.

If Iraq opts for all-out civil war, its two million barrels a day will be off the market and oil could go above $100 a barrel. (That would, however, spur more investment in alternative fuels that could one day make us independent of this volatile region.)

Some fear that Iran will be the winner. But will it? Once we are out of Iraq, Iran will have to manage the boiling pot next door. That will be a huge problem for Iran. The historical enmity toward Iran by Iraqi Arabs — enmity temporarily focused on us — will re-emerge. And Iran will also have to compete with its ally Syria for influence in Iraq.

Yes, the best way to contain Iran would have been to produce a real Shiite-led democracy in Iraq, exposing the phony one in Tehran. But second best is leaving Iraq. Because the worst option — the one Iran loves — is for us to stay in Iraq, bleeding, and in easy range to be hit by Iran if we strike its nukes.

Finally, the war in Iraq has so divided us at home and abroad that leaving, while bringing other problems, might also make it easier to build coalitions to deal with post-U.S. Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. All these problems are connected. We need to deal with Iran and Syria, but from a position of strength — and that requires a broad coalition.

The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq, the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the stronger the enemies of freedom will become.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
It is good to see serious thought being given as to how we disengage; even if it is from outside the Admininstration. No doubt, Friedman is read by those who make decisions. Hopefully, they will read this one carefully and realize the question is no longer if, but when and how.

Friedman's proposal calling for us to announce that we are leaving and then sponsor an international conference with all the major parties to decide what to do once we are gone is a good one. Well worth considering.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
i used to clean Friedman's house.. they're quite elderly now.

i agree with him his assessment and proposal..
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Why is this plan B?

Quote:
 
That means “staying the course” is pointless, and it’s time to start thinking about Plan B — how we might disengage with the least damage possible.


Isn't that what we are doing now?

It's just that some people want it to happen quicker than others.

We are slowly leaving, but leaving with the goal of as little damage as possible. Cutting and running now would in fact give us the MAXIMUM damage possible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
apple
Aug 5 2006, 12:42 PM
i used to clean Friedman's house.. they're quite elderly now.

i agree with him his assessment and proposal..

apple, I assume you're talking about his parents. Friedman is in his mid-50s, I believe.

By that yardstick, you and I are teetering on our last legs, too! :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
duh... i'm sorry, i just assumed it was Milton.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
The 89th Key
Aug 5 2006, 01:10 PM

We are slowly leaving, but leaving with the goal of as little damage as possible. Cutting and running now would in fact give us the MAXIMUM damage possible.

I don't think the original goal was to do "as little damage as possible."

To me the unique thing about this article is Friedman's acceptance that we stand a very good chance of NOT achieving our goal of a democratic Iraq if we stay. This is a big change.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I hate to say it, but I always thought this is what would happen. Early on there's lots of happy crap spoken about freeing Iraqis from dictatorship, and how isn't America great and isn't Bush such a fantastic patriot and champion of freedom, and then most of the troops pull about around election time and there's a bloodbath, and everybody says 'how sad, I guess they just aren't mature enough for democracy yet, ah well, better luck next time we think they might be making nukes'.

I think this sucks.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
I do, too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Thomas Friedman says, "Run up the bed sheet" and everyone does a knee jerk genuflect. And what is he is basing this on? General Abizaid says the level of violence is as high as it has ever been. I am not impressed and I am especially not impressed by his so-called solution.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
JBryan
Aug 5 2006, 08:56 PM
Thomas Friedman says, "Run up the bed sheet" and everyone does a knee jerk genuflect. And what is he is basing this on? General Abizaid says the level of violence is as high as it has ever been. I am not impressed and I am especially not impressed by his so-called solution.

I hope you're right and this doesn't happen.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
The 89th Key
Aug 5 2006, 03:10 PM
Why is this plan B?

Quote:
 
That means “staying the course” is pointless, and it’s time to start thinking about Plan B — how we might disengage with the least damage possible.


Isn't that what we are doing now?

It's just that some people want it to happen quicker than others.

We are slowly leaving, but leaving with the goal of as little damage as possible. Cutting and running now would in fact give us the MAXIMUM damage possible.

Is that why the number of troops is actually going up?

I haven't heard anyone in the Administration saying that we're admitting defeat and trying to find a graceful exit.

Please don't get me wrong, I still disagree with Friedman and with the Dems on this one. I'm still with Colin Powell ... you break it, you bought it. We decided to take responsibility for Iraq by stepping in and gutting the previous regime. Right decision, wrong decision, it doesn't matter, we can't cut and run. We created this mess, we have a responsibility to fix it.

It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Friedman is hardly advocating "cut and run" tactics. Jeez, people. All you need to do is see a byline and any independent thought goes right out the window. :ph43r:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Nina
Aug 5 2006, 10:11 PM
Friedman is hardly advocating "cut and run" tactics. Jeez, people. All you need to do is see a byline and any independent thought goes right out the window. :ph43r:

Actually, Nina, I think you're wrong. He's advocating a version of cut and run, the Pontius Pilate version ... I wash my hands of all of you. The fact that he wants to do some preliminary face-saving first doesn't make it any less cut and run, because he seems to acknowledge that his approach won't be any more successful than anything else we've done so far.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Nina
Aug 5 2006, 06:42 PM
The 89th Key
Aug 5 2006, 01:10 PM

We are slowly leaving, but leaving with the goal of as little damage as possible. Cutting and running now would in fact give us the MAXIMUM damage possible.

I don't think the original goal was to do "as little damage as possible."

Nor is this plan B.

This plan B calls for "leaving" with as little damage as possible.

As is our goal now, anyway.

Again, the only difference is some people want it to happen now, and some people want it to happen when the situation is more optimal.

I agree with you that this article identifies that our ORIGINAL GOAL might not be as possible or as pretty as was originally planned, but that has nothing to do with our current situation, anyway. Our current situation is this: We have set up an Iraqi army, government; they have drafted a constitution and held multiple successful elections, and now...WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS "PLAN B"...is to leave with as little damage as possible.

Note: The caps don't indicate yelling, just emphasis.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

QuirtEvans
Aug 5 2006, 09:23 PM
The 89th Key
Aug 5 2006, 03:10 PM
Why is this plan B?

Quote:
 
That means “staying the course” is pointless, and it’s time to start thinking about Plan B — how we might disengage with the least damage possible.


Isn't that what we are doing now?

It's just that some people want it to happen quicker than others.

We are slowly leaving, but leaving with the goal of as little damage as possible. Cutting and running now would in fact give us the MAXIMUM damage possible.

Is that why the number of troops is actually going up?

I haven't heard anyone in the Administration saying that we're admitting defeat and trying to find a graceful exit.

Please don't get me wrong, I still disagree with Friedman and with the Dems on this one. I'm still with Colin Powell ... you break it, you bought it. We decided to take responsibility for Iraq by stepping in and gutting the previous regime. Right decision, wrong decision, it doesn't matter, we can't cut and run. We created this mess, we have a responsibility to fix it.

Well if I'm mistaken, I apologize. I thought we were cutting the number of troops (as minimal a cut as it might be) by the end of the year, but if the actual troop level is going up, then that part of my post is inaccurate.

Either way, personally...I would triple the number of troops there right now. Well maybe. But one part of me thinks that a larger, much larger, troop force might stabilize the country even more.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nobody's Sock
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Yeah, but putting more people and armor there is needed and not just for being referees for the Hatfields and McCoys. This Iraq **** is just the begininning. It's our staging ground for the biggest war since Nam.


I'm just wondering how we can get the general Iranian populace to be on our side when we start dropping bombs on their country.

It hasn't worked in Iraq nor in Lebanon for the Israelis.

Yet I and others feel that the average Iranian wants a major change in their way of life that unfortunately, only we can provide.

"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Nina
Aug 5 2006, 11:11 PM
Friedman is hardly advocating "cut and run" tactics. Jeez, people. All you need to do is see a byline and any independent thought goes right out the window. :ph43r:

Isn't he effectively saying 'America can't do this, let's let everyone else try to fix it. Sure, we ignored anybody who disagreed with us before, but it really is in their interests to have this work, so I'm sure they'll help.' ?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Nobody's Sock
Aug 5 2006, 11:57 PM
Yeah, but putting more people and armor there is needed and not just for being referees for the Hatfields and McCoys.  This Iraq **** is just the begininning.  It's our staging ground for the biggest war since Nam. 


I'm just wondering how we can get the general Iranian populace to be on our side when we start dropping bombs on their country.

It hasn't worked in Iraq nor in Lebanon for the Israelis.

Yet I and others feel that the average Iranian wants a major change in their way of life that unfortunately,  only we can provide.


:?:



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply