Tuesday, November 14, 2006

A Solution for Iraq

I know we’re on the other side of the world to Iraq, but I still wonder why it isn’t more of an issue to everyday Australians considering our soldiers are in harms way. So many questions go unasked, even when we manage to corner the PM long enough to get the chance. During a recent interview on the ABC, Howard managed to cover off on the entire problem of Iraq, by saying in effect, we are determined to stay, we’ll change tactics if necessary (to what, we wonder), but we’re staying.

Stay the course. It’s short, pithy and well, it doesn’t really mean anything. It shows how steely our resolve is and avoids coming up with solutions to the nasty problems that are now present on the ground in Baghdad. The stay the course mantra was initiated by Bush, but since it’s recently cost him the congress, he’s all open-minded all of a sudden. He and the American people eagerly await the findings of the Iraq Study Group, to give the situation some fresh perspective – but wouldn’t it be great if our leaders thought independently about Iraq and had solutions of our own.

For perspective, the war in Iraq has deteriorated to such a level that there are indeed few remaining options. Which is to say that there are more than the two championed by our current leadership. Howard wants to stay, Beazley wants to leave. The only thing most agree on at the moment is that it is a significantly more difficult problem to solve than those choices indicate. The current options being tossed around are: 1) Keep doing what we’re doing, but ask the Iraqi’s to ‘step up’ and take care of law and order themselves 2) Withdraw to a nearby friendly base and wait and see, or more radically 3) Divide Iraq into three regions (that were there before Churchill drew new borders after WWII).

Option 1 has been tried for 6 months and setting milestones (or threatening) the new Iraqi government is no solution. The withdrawal proposed in option 2 is favoured and probably the most likely course we’ll see taken in the near future. It is argued that insurgency will die with the last of the American troops, and we can easily intervene if/when terrorism takes seed. Just like the invasion though, it is an overly simplistic idea that depends too heavily on our expectations on how the people of Iraq will respond. Ultimately, the guerilla war will continue, but over a greater distance.

As radical as it may seem, dividing the country along ethnic lines, into a Kurdish north, Shia South and Sunni West, may prove to be an effective way to quell the sectarian fighting that is gripping the country. This would be best achieved while coalition forces are on the ground, to minimize the ethnic cleansing that has been associated with redrawing ethnic borders in the past. In effect, the Kurdish people are already self-governed and the Shia’s in the south are beholden to Iran. The Sunni’s cling to the hope of returning to power in Iraq, after so many years in that position – but care more deeply about their access to oil reserves. A successful oil sharing agreement between the three factions could be sufficient to keep everyone happy.

This Administration knows there isn’t a solution that doesn’t involve more bloodshed, nor is there a lasting solution that involves a quick withdrawal of troops. It would be nice though to expand the conversation here in Australia beyond stay or leave.

No comments: