The following piece was produced as part of the Huffington Post's OffTheBus project.
OffTheBus caught up with Ambassador Peter Galbraith in Vermont and discussed Iraq, Iran, and what the Democrats face, should they regain Congress and the White House in 2008. Here's what Galbraith had to say:
OffTheBus: In terms of a partition of Iraq, do you feel like it's caught on since 2003, especially with the latest Senate resolution vote? Will it happen?
Galbraith: It isn't will it happen. It has happened. So now the question is, at what point do we acknowledge the reality of what has already taken place on the ground? The clearest case is Kurdistan. It is an every regard an independent country.
OffTheBus: Presuming that there's going to be a Democratic administration in 2008, what do you think are going to be the most pressing issues this administration will face regarding Iraq and Iran? How can the United States stabilize the region and what would you like to see happen?
Galbraith: I think we cannot undue the kind of damage that's been done to America's prestige in the world and it will be impossible get us back to the point where we were in 2000. But if we're going to rebuild America's standing in the world, the first step to doing that is getting out (of most) of Iraq. I would want to see a withdraw, except for a residual force in Kurdistan, and would like to see that occur quite quickly and it can occur quickly. Second, I'd like to see an effort to negotiate with Iran. We need to give up on regime change and expressions of hostility toward Iran. We cannot accomplish regime change ourselves and our help is not wanted by true Iranian democrats. In exchange Iran would have to suspend its nuclear program and then perhaps over time, some relationship between the U.S. and the Iranians might develop. After all, these are countries that we've actually had a significant shared community of interests in getting rid of the Taliban, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, and fighting Al Qaeda. There are a lot of places where we've had similar interests.
OffTheBus: You mentioned that the Bush Administration went into Iraq based an "ideological crusade." If there is a Democratic administration how do they reverse those intentions, when they were there in the first place?
Galbraith: That's the easiest thing to change. You simply put people into key positions that are professionals and strategists that don't operate on dreams and fantasies, but operate on a realistic appraisal of the situation and propose a course of action. They take account of the possible gains, the costs and the risks of any particular course of action, and you put in place people who think it's important to understand a situation before you act. It's always a good idea to know something about a country before you invade it.
OffTheBus: Do you feel that there are any limitations the Democrats may bring to the table or do you see any things that they struggle with that they'll need to get through?
Galbraith: I think the Democrats often have been afraid of appearing weak and I think it's important to understand the people who have made us weak have been the Bush Administration through incompetence and mismanagement. Negotiation is not weakness and negotiation is simply measuring up what might be achieved as opposed to an alternative course of action. So I don't think we should rule out military force but I think it should definitely be the last resort.
OffTheBus: What would you say is the most important advice for the next administration in order achieve stability in Iraq and Iran?
Galbraith: With the case of Iraq, they should withdraw and keep a residual force in Kurdistan. In the case of Iran, it would be to lower the tensions and embark on a process of negotiation on the nuclear program and on the whole range of issues on U.S./Iranian relations and more generally to think strategically and to be realistic.
OffTheBus: What about withdrawing American troops from Shi'a dominated areas of Iraq and move them to Kurdistan and keep tabs on Al Qaeda?
Galbraith: What I would say is most of the troops should be withdrawn. I can't quite do the numbers but I'm thinking a residual force of around 20,000. Maybe it would be more, maybe it would be less. But the purpose of the force would be to provide some security to people who fought on our side and are therefore at risk once we withdraw. It would be to deter Iran, Turkey, and the rest of Iraq. It would be to provide a base where we could strike at Al Qaeda if in fact the Sunnis are unable or unwilling to handle that themselves. And then you fine there is some Al Qaeda operation, you have good intelligence and then you would go strike at that and it would be a way of limiting Iran's influence to half of Iraq as opposed to the Bush strategy which is to make all of Iraq a gift to Iran.
OffTheBus: With regards to the partition of Iraq, which you say has already occurred, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution supporting the idea 75 to 23. Is there another step that Congress needs to take to see it through?
Galbraith: The Senate passed a non-binding resolution, so it was just an expression of sentiment. The U.S. should not be in the business of partitioning Iraq. The Iraqis have already partitioned the country. The constitution's a road map for partition. Kurdistan is independent. Southern Iraq functions independently. So we can help the process by helping where we could mediate some of the territorial issues between the Kurds and the Arabs, we should do that. But we shouldn't be in the business of partitioning. All we should do is face up to reality and what I'm saying is we should get out of the business of trying to put back together a country which is broken up and not desired by a significant segment of the population. Why should we be committed to the unity of a country who's people do not want that unity?
Follow Christian Avard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChristianAvard
Loading comments… 
