Disarming Bush - A plan for the future?

So far I really have not seen any plans from the Democrats on how to deal with Iraq. They are putting forward a lot of domestic bills and forcing them through Congress, I support most of them, but Iraq is still the number one issue. It feels like a distraction.

What is the plan? What are Democrats going to do about Iraq? It has to be more complex than simply leaving the country to its own devices. That could cause an all out war in the entire region. Furthermore, what about Iran? We have to disarm all of Bush's power. I was listening to an interview by Wesley Clark and I had an interesting idea.

What if Congressional Democrats and Republicans who are ready to jump ship work together to completely undermine Bush and his Administration. Using the advise provided by Clark they could form a commission that would meet with Ambassadors from Iran to try and negotiate some type of deal. In the process they would completely side step the administration and shut them out of the negotiation process - a political bitch slap, as if to denote his total irrelevance and to cement his lame duck status both in America and abroad.

If the Congress could negotiate peacefully (and successfully) with Iran and some of the other neighboring countries to Iraq, it could bring about a semi-peaceful end to the conflict allowing us to withdraw, disarm any power Bush has left, and prevent any strikes against Iran by the Bush Administration. Any actions taken by Bush would be seen as undermining the negotiations.

It is crazy, and I am not sure it would work. Is it even possible?

...on negotiating with Iran, but I think at this point the American people have proven to be gullible and willing to believe almost any line of bullshit you feed them. If they are told that Iran will help us get out of Iraq then I think most people will support that, and increasing our ties to Iran will benefit us in the future. Our best hope is also utilizing other nations in the region to blunt Iran's advances, and there is little doubt that Iran is basically going to take over Iraq once we leave. We've lost the war in Iraq, there is no point in denying it, and Iran already runs the country.

However, in the long term we would negotiate with Iran to help it to once again become a member of the world community. In doing this it would effectively be the kiss of death for the Iranian regime and democracy might actually start to take root within the country. I think the Iranian's are ready for democracy, but if we bomb the hell out of them or provoke a war we effectively kill that. Opening the country up will allow outside forces to infiltrate it and as they say... knowledge is power. Democracy comes from within a country. It can't be forced upon people.

Such information as one can gather from hearing interviews with Iranians and from authors writing articles about their experience or analysis of Iran, it seems that--like it seems to be in many places, at least a significant number of the citizens of Iran are reasonable, rational people; limited only by their access to information/colored by the government and religious institution's (which are one and the same) propaganda. That is, they're very much like us.

Alas, like us, their government is not to be trusted and can't be expected to negotiate fairly--and even if they did, what's perceived as (or is actually) fair to them probably wouldn't resemble anything we'd like to see. I doubt we'd ever get their help except in those ways it's to our disadvantage (but our "leaders" wouldn't realize it until too late).

The American people are just tired of the "war", appalled by the violence, grieved by our losses and disturbed at the enormous financial (and other) costs. We aren't even "at war", we're just stuck in the middle between what seems to be two fanatical groups motivated by religious differences and revenge, and who have been for time immemorial. There's no way to "win" or "succeed". All options involve failure and even greater costs. Stay and bleed while being ineffective or pull out and leave them to their fates. What we really want is the violence to stop, but what we want doesn't matter. Which course involves the least harm and causes the least damage to our future? It seems no one can agree.

Seems the conservatives have a real point when they worry about the future of the region, especially when considering the vast reserves of oil in both Iraq and Iran, and while it's not popular to point out how important oil really is and considering that it's a limited resource into the future, leaving it in the hands of those who aren't friendly towards us is scary. On the other hand, it would be hard to say that we are making any friends whatever we do (which to a neocon means we should simply ensure a submissive puppet government). Alas, I actually doubt that our values and society are consistent enough with those of the people in the region that we'll ever make great friends there (ie. we're screwed as far as the oil goes anyway; unless we're seriously comfortable actually being an imperial power--which entails being ruthless and accepting of the costs--fortunately, we, the people, aren't).

Saudi Arabia, a key oil supplier and supposed ally (at least their "government" has been willing to wheel and deal with us), will be bent out of shape if we just leave and the Iraqi Sunnis begin to be massacred wholesale--and will intercede on their own; not a good sign for stability in the world's oil markets. China has mammoth oil deals with Iran, and Russia has plenty of oil, so they're either all set when it comes to future oil needs or actually going to come down on the side of Iran (and what may become the other half of Iran, Iraq).

If only we really could be "Energy Independent". That's alot harder said than done, and even if we did cut back a great deal, we ourselves have little oil to speak of compared to our needs. I sure would be nice if Democracy, Religious Freedom or better yet, Freedom from Religion--as in Secular Government could break out in the region. Alas, their religion is very demanding and fundamentalists abound. The people are relatively helpless to change their culture--even if they wanted to. It seems most of us think that if they could just experience ours or "the modern world" or whatever, they'd want change. Some would, but how many would be the question.

These tribal, religious/theocratic kinds of governing arrangements have lasted thousands of years with little change. There really does exist a strong movement among some of them that actually does want to spread their Islamic theocracy across the world. The leadership of Iran is especially keen on this--and Iraq is "a natural" for immediate inclusion considering the large number of Shia. If we get out of the way, it won't be long before the government of Iraq is joined with Iran. Then again, our presence--trying to make Iraq a Democracy is like trying to make a river flow in reverse. I think it might be accomplished but the cost would be very high indeed and it would take a generation (and a great deal of effort to educate Iraqis, especially the younger generations as to the value of such a government). It's a sure bet we don't have the patience and determination to suffer such a costly intervention for that long... so why bother wasting more time, money and lives now? A good question without good answers.

In any case, there is no sympathy for our hopes for Iraq in the region. Whether the American people are gullible enough to think Iran or Syria would help us--even if we think it's in their interest to keep Iraq secure, it's just wishful thinking. Besides, they are or will make the necessary efforts to ensure Iraq's security by simply enabling the overthrow of the U.S. puppet government and the rise of the Islamic theocracy that's trying to surface. The Kurds won't go along, so there will be continued violence for a time, no matter how the Sunni/Shia matter is concluded--and I doubt that that will be a peaceful matter either, but there aren't that many Sunnis (even if Saudi did seek to equip them; they'd probably do better to offer assylum, but that'd be costly and represent another potential threat to the sovereignty of the Saudi royals, so it seems to me unlikely).

Well, no answers here and... enough of my opinions, blah, blah, blah.

I really enjoyed reading your post. It's much better than reading some of the one or two line posts around here. I have another idea, this one perhaps heartless but underlying the reality of the situation.

No matter what we do the Sunni and Shia are going to continue killing each other. I say - we withdraw to remoter regions of Iraq and let them do it. We find a way to dispose of the current Iraqi government to block Iran's advances and just let the whole country collapse into chaos. Let them kill each other as we withdraw into more remote regions and setup military bases. Our primary goal would be to keep Iran from advancing into the region and to keep both sides of the conflict from seeing any major victory.

We would set ourselves up as a third choice. The Iraqi's can either continue to engage in killing each other. They can live as they currently do, or they can join with us and rebuild their country. Instead of trying to win an entire country over we focus on winning over individuals one by one. We assist Iraqi's who want to be safe, to have electricity and a decent and good life to locate near our bases. Our bases would provide security for these Iraqi's so that they can live in peace.

Eventually, those who want to battle each other will either kill one another off or just get tired of fighting. Our goal would no longer be to focus on rebuilding a nation, but creating safe communities for Iraqi's who want to live in peace. All we have to do is wait them out. It may take ten to fifteen years, but we really won't have many casualties because we won't constantly be putting our soldiers lives in danger. Iran won't get jack because every time someone rises to power that looks like they could get the green light from Iran, we capture or kill them, ensuring never-ending chaos for the Iraqi's - making the third option (us) the only viable option.

In the end the fundamentalists kill each other off while the moderates, who just want to live their lives and keep their families safe, will side with us for the stability and safety that we can provide. Towns and cities will develop around the military bases, and we can begin training loyal Iraqi's to our cause. One by one.

:kick: