However, he added that
the USA should not withdraw precipitously from Iraq because that
would lead to complete chaos.
Lately, Henry Kissinger
has been advising President Bush. In addition he lately testified
at length in the Senate. In his illustrious career Kissinger became
well known as the master of "Real Politic."
He was one of Richard
Nixon's influential advisors on foreign policy, specifically during
the War in Vietnam. Henry Kissinger received the Noble Peace Prize
for his contributions to end hostilities in Vietnam. Henry Kissinger's
past is useful to us in the two following ways:
He managed to lose
a war and withdraw from Vietnam as a loser while at the same time
making it look like almost like a victory.
He brokered a piece
agreement between Israel and its foes ending the destabilizing
1973 Yom Kippur war and created an environment for peace in the
region.
However, the Iraq crisis
looks a lot more like Vietnam than like the Israeli - Egyptian
conflict of the sixties
His most recent statement
on the War in Iraq is formidable because it is probably the first
time he has been sincere with the American people, and it will
cost him the favor of the Prince. Kissinger's statement is extremely
pessimistic.
These are other solutions
that could help the USA.
We will try to advocate
these solutions as fairly as possible and to show them in their
best light without any criticism. This gives you, the reader,
the potential to evaluate and choose what could be the best solution
to improve the solution in Iraq.
-
Phased
Withdrawal of American Troops from Iraq.
The phased withdrawal is meant to give a strong signal to the
Iraqi government by showing them that we are committed to leave
and it is their job, not the USA to bring stability and order
to their country. In addition it progressively lowers the number
of Americans troops in combat thus theoretically lowering the
number of casualties until there are none. A solution advocated
by Democratic Senator Carl Levine.
-
Redeployment
of US Troops Around Iraq and in Neighboring Countries
Kuwait is a possibility. Once US troops are no longer in contact
with Iraqi civilians they will not stir up as much anger. Now
American troops are viewed as occupiers not liberators anymore.
Removing US troops from the battlefield should also theoretically
diminish the number of casualties until there are none. This
solution is advocated by Congressman Murtha and House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi
-
A
Combination of parts of the Two Previous Plans.
This plan minimizes contact with the enemy by taking the troops
away from the battle field and at the same time diminishes the
number of troops in Iraq which should lower the number of casualties
all the way to zero. Many Democratic leaders favor this option,
some part of it or a similar configuration.
-
Increasing
the Number of Troops Significantly by 100,000 or More.
For the last 16 months some US Generals and Senator John McCain
have strongly advocated an increase in troops. Arguing against
the notion that it could be too late to pursue this strategy
and the overwhelming rejection of this idea by the American
people in recent polls, (only 16% of Americans are in favor
of sending more US troops) Senator McCain continues to vehemently
push for this solution.
He advocates that not winning the war and stabilizing Iraq could
enormously destabilize the whole region and create even more
enemies with greater capabilities who are bent on attacking
the USA.
-
Cut
and Run.
Although shocking in its wording it is a viable solution, a
little bit like a cancer treatment. Surgically cut out the tumor
and/or the organ but follow up with aggressive chemotherapy.
This solution means that all American troops would evacuate
Iraq and the region simultaneously. Chaos will follow, but good
diplomacy that includes pressure and incentives could help stabilize
the region again after a period when the dominos will be reshuffled
and then reorganized. The important part of cut and run is the
timing. Within the next six months it is too soon. In addition
the Bush Administration is firmly opposed to this option.
-
6.
Divide and Separate Iraq into Three Almost Independent Countries.
Only splitting Iraq into three independent entities under a
loose umbrella could provide a less damaging solution. As soon
as this step is taken, but not before, getting out of Iraq will
benefit the USA and Iraq. A reasonable time table to set for
achieving this partition of Iraq should be two years. However
the reality is that the Bush administration is not moving in
this direction and timing is almost everything during a war.
It is important to remember that in a war a solution advocated
today and not implemented or acted upon could be irrelevant
after two more years of the Bush Administration.
Retaining the name Iraq would be possible as in, "The United
States of Iraq," At the same time the USA or the UN would
have to help the Iraqi people in making the inevitable displacement
of populations, which has already begun, less traumatic and
then let them sort out their own futures and eradicate terrorism
in their own territory under a UN resolution. This solution
is advocated by Senator Joseph Biden and Historian Eric Lafayette.
-
Go
big, Go long or Go Home
These are the solutions offered to President Bush by a panel
of high level Colonels from the battle-field. Their recommendations
are: go a little big bigger, 10,000 to 20,000 more US troops
for six months in order to stabilize Baghdad then when Baghdad
is stabilized, push and push again the training of Iraqi troops.
In the meantime embed some Americans soldiers within Iraqi military
units.
Go big is actually not very big and is also called a surge but
is, in fact, an escalation in troop number for an indefinite
period of time.
Most observer believe that this option decided in January 2007
will show success or failure within six months.
The '"go home" solution will be rejected by president
Bush.
-
Bomb
Iran back to the stone age.
A limited bombing campaign will only inflame Iranians into a
frenzy without rendering them harmless to the USA.
If Americans should remember a lesson from their past wars it
is the fact that only when the USA has bombed their enemies
into utter crippling weakness; such was the case for Germany
and Japan, America has dominated then helped rebuild devastated
countries into peaceful nations.
This solution has an incredible number of advantages:
- No more Nuclear
threat,
- No more support
of Lebanese Hezbollah,
- No more support
of Iraqi Shiites,
- No more support
of terrorism world wide,
- Moderate regimes
such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia will gain breathing room.
- All rogue regimes
such as North Korea will all of a sudden become open to
American interests.
This solutions has a couple of major disadvantages:
-
Inflame
to the point of fury all Muslims in the world.
-
That
will almost guarantee a terrorist attack on US soil.
-
All
countries in the world will openly strongly disapprove of
the US attack while approving it in private.
Do not
be mislead by the fact that this option is rarely mentioned, it
is at the top of the Agenda by President Bush and Vice President
Cheney.
-
More
and more Diplomacy.
Although
hardly a solution by itself, the Baker Commission, as well as
many others, are recommending engagement in diplomatic talks with
Iran and Iraq and bringing in more local rulers of the Arab world.
The eventual goal would be to organize a regional peace conference.
It will
be probably an important element of the Baker commission plan.
It is however a double edged sword. In one hand it is a very efficient
tools to get to know your friends and ennemy better and form alliances
but on the other hand your ennemies could be the one forging the
best alliances.
As President
Bush has shunned anything that is not bullying foes and friends
alike there is a lot to repair and do in the Diplomatic field.
As all
great diplomats will tell you:
The military
option is a necessary tool inside the diplomacy multiple tools
but it is only a tool.
An overall
solution could be 30% military and 70 % diplomatic involvement
in opposition to President Bush's overall policy of 99% military
and 1% diplomacy.
Henry
Kissinger and James Baker are trying to reinsert diplomacy in
the Equation but their problem as advisors to President Bush is
that President Bush is not even remotely close to understand them.
The distressing
side is that President Bush has brought the USA to such a low
with no strong position to start a discussion with other countries
that it could seem hopeless. Diplomacy, however, is anything but
hopeless.
US Diplomacy
will have to dismount their high horse that never went anywhere
anyway and begin to till the soil by hand in order to plant the
seeds of Diplomacy here, there and everywhere, in the hope that
within five years other people and countries will begin to respect
support and help the USA again.
After
all the master of diplomacy: the French ambassador Talleyrand
was able, when Napoleon was crushed and France invaded, to restore
France in its territorial integrity.
The situation
of the USA is not as dire but a lot of long term diplomatic work
is necessary.
-
Containment
Containing
the forceful push by Iran and the Shiites to create an Iraq dominated
by Shiites where Teheran will rule and establish a base for terrorists
hostile to the USA.
Containing
Iran by staying in Iraq a very long time (5 to 10 years), as well
as creating good economical conditions based on security, implies
that the USA will be successful at what it has been extremely
unsuccessful in the last four years.
