Iraq: Avoiding The Killing Fields II
As the calls for US withdrawal from Iraq grow ever louder, both boosters and opponents of American disengagement are kept up at night by a common fear: that the departure of American troops will eliminate the one thing standing in the way of Iraq's descent into chaos and slaughter of a magnitude that could make the last few years look calm by comparison.
Some Iraqi politicians argue passionately that as bad as things are in their country, they would be far worse without the Americans on patrol.
Even those who want the US military out acknowledge grave risks to the human rights, security and welfare of the Iraqi population after withdrawal. Presidential candidate John Edwards is among the most outspoken in the 2008 race about the need for pullback on a tight timetable, but he too calls for a "plan" to prevent genocide after the US goes.
The prospect of even wider ethnic killings, terrorist attacks, and abuses of civilians by militias and insurgents is of grave concern no matter where you sit. For the Bush Administration and other proponents of the war, the idea that the Iraq adventure could end in mass slaughter is the ultimate indictment of their flawed policies. For opponents of the war who decry the bloodshed and disruption that it has caused, a stance that culminates in untrammeled civilian killings and human rights abuses is unconscionable.
For those mindful of international norms, a deterioration in conditions in Iraq would implicate the UN's newly-minted "responsibility to protect" a global doctrine that mandates that the world not stand by in the face of genocide or mass atrocities that a national government is unwilling or unable to stop. For Arab opinion-leaders and publics who protested the invasion and occupation of Iraq, concerns for both the wellbeing of the Iraqi people and the stability of the wider region are implicated. Given the growing inevitability of US (and UK) withdrawal, what are the realistic prospects for preventing an onslaught on civilians? At least six possibilities are on the table, none of them close to satisfactory:
- First is the notion, seeming to become more far-fetched by the day, that the Iraqi armed forces will take control of their country, protect the public, and tamp down the militias. But Iraq's security forces are infiltrated with sectarian partisans and still heavily dependent on the US. If the Administration thought they could forestall chaos without US involvement, withdrawal would have happened already.
- A second avenue is the proposal of a negotiated partition of Iraq to provide for a peaceful divide along sectarian lines, preempting more violent ethnic cleansing. But the mechanics of partition are complex and contested, and a majority of Iraqis polled say they oppose the concept. The Iraqi population is residentially integrated in many areas, meaning that partition would require mass dislocations and loss of livelihoods and property. The idea that political momentum will materialize to shepherd through detailed agreements and large scale population transfers necessary to effectuate partition is far-fetched. So is the notion that the US will somehow effectuate partition without the negotiated participation of Iraq's population groups.
- A third scenario is that sufficient residual US troops (numbering in the low tens of thousands) remain in Iraq to forestall large-scale abuses of civilians. But, depending on the size and mandate of the presence, this could flys in the face of the idea that one factor fueling the insurgency is the very presence of US troops. It also seems implausible given the inability of a much larger force to get Iraq under control.
- A fourth possibility is that so-called safe havens and civilian corridors can be created such that even if out-and-out civil war erupts, the innocent can be temporarily protected and humanitarian aid provided. It is true that large swaths of Iraqi territory remain peaceful and that some civilians might willingly go to such areas. But it is unclear how so-called safe areas would actually be protected if they came under attack and, even if they were safe, such corridors could represent a path toward ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Shiite areas.
- A fifth scenario is that US troops withdraw "over the horizon" either to Kuwait or to offshore vessels so that they are poised to reenter in the event that conditions sharply deteriorate. This is frankly absurd: once American troops exit Iraq, they aren't coming back, particularly if the terrible conditions and hopelessness that prompted their withdrawal have gotten even worse. Their ability to stop ethnic cleansing from afar is almost certainly nil.
- A sixth scenario is that an international presence in some way takes over where the US leaves off, assuming responsibility for protecting the civilian population and trying to curb the violence. US Ambassador to the UN (and former envoy to Baghdad) Zalmay Khalilzad is pushing for greater UN involvement, and Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has said the organization won't shy away from this role. But the idea that the UN, with its limited resources, finite mandates, comparatively miniscule firepower, and cobbled together troops can succeed where the US has failed seems remote.
While none of these measures, in itself, averts the potential for genocide, elements of several could be combined into a strategy to at least lessen the likelihood that US withdrawal leads to catastrophe. The training of Iraqi troops should place primary emphasize civilian protection and upholding of human rights irrespective of sectarian and ethnic lines. While wholesale partition of Iraq is probably infeasible, the potential should be explored to support the peaceful voluntary separation of populations already underway in some areas to foster stability and lessen the danger of violence.
As many proponents of withdrawal acknowledge, some residual force remaining in Iraq to continue to train troops, root out terrorists and hopefully deter violence might be in both American and Iraqi interests. The tiny UN presence in Iraq, if expanded under the right conditions, may be able to draw on the organization's humanitarian and human rights expertise to monitor and deter violations, as well as aid needy victims.
This kind of multifaceted approach needs to be formalized into a clear strategy laying out the role that the Iraqi military and the US will play in protecting Iraqi's population in a withdrawal scenario. If that doesn't happen, the after-effects of the US's exit from Iraq could wind up being even worse than the consequences of its entry.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
http://www
The Lucifer Effect, a scientific study.
Science has the answer, but the administration
does not believe in science. It believes in Christianity, so we must repeat the horrors of the crusades and the inquisition.
Next, the book is unique in systematically applying the lessons learned from the SPE and social science research to a new understanding of the abuses at Abu Ghraib (chapter 14). I do this by integrating my psychological expertise with my special expertise gained by being an expert witness for one of the accused Military Policemen involved in the abuses, Sgt Ivan "Chip" Frederick. I have gotten to know him well and switched my roles into that of investigative reporter as I tracked down his performance evaluations as prison guard in the states, the basis of his 9 medals and awards, corresponding with his wife, Martha and sister, Mimi, and engaging psychologists to provide personality and pathology assessments. I have also been able to get special insights into the nature of that horrid prison from military officers who have worked there. As an expert witness, I also had access to many of the independent investigations into these abuses and all of the digitally documented images of depravity that took place on Tier 1A Night Shift. So in putting Chip Frederick on trial, I give a detailed depiction of what it was like to walk in his boots for 12-hour night shifts without a day off for 40 straight nights.
Chip got sentenced to an 8-year hard time in military prison, dishonorably discharged, disgraced and deprived on his 22 years of retirement savings, divorced by his wife and is now nearly broken. We see his transformation from good guard to bad guard to prisoner as one instance of the Lucifer Effect. But now in Chapter 15, it is my turn to again shift roles and become the prosecutor who puts the System on trial, the Military Command and the Bush Administration for their complicity in being part of the System that created and maintained this and other torture-in
I am stunned that any thinking person could blame what Pol Pot did on the US invasion of Vietnam, or the US pullout of Vietnam. We were propping up a dictator, are you saying Seek-a-nuke( can't bother to spell it right) would not commit genocide because he was our tyrant? Or What? Is this at all rational?
Human beings commit genocide. Dr. Zimbardo
http://www
has written a book called The Lucifer Effect to expalin why. It is not because we refrain from invading other countries and assimilating them.
If you read his book you will realize it can even happen in the USA.
Nobody cared how many people were killed in the invasion. Nobody cares how many people are killed in the occupation. Am I supposed to believe that all of a sudden Americans give a shit about dead Iraqis. OH NO WE CANT WITHDRAW SOMEBODY MIGHT GET HURT. This is pure bullshit.
We failed Cambodia. We failed Rwanda. We failed Bosnia. We failed Timor and Irian Jaya. We are failing Tibet. We are failing Darfur and we are failing Iraq.
Genocide is a human trait that we share with chimpanzees but oddly enough not with bonobos who use sex of all kinds to diffuse tensions. Not that sex is always an answer, but let's try that instead.
Happily gay in San Francisco.
facta non verba.
I disagree with the use of the term 'killing fields' in your article. You are unwittingly validating Bush's use of the phrase, which was false, inaccurate, and a lie. The 'killing fields' did not happen in Vietnam, nor did it result from the US withdrawal from Vietnam. The 'killing fields' happened in Cambodia after the rise of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime. It was the communist government in Vietnam that ended the 'killing fields' by invading Cambodia and overthrowing Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime.
The Vietnam experience tells us that withdrawal saves lives. There was violence afterwards as the North completed its full takeover of the country, but power was consolidated and far fewer Vietnamese died after the US withdrawal as compared with the term of the US occupation.
If you are going to use Vietnam as a touchstone to start a discussion on the possible consequences of a withdrawal from Iraq, you should cite history accurately.
There is every reason to believe, with the experience of US troops withdrawing large numbers of forces from Al-Anbar province, that removal of US forces will contribute to a lessening of violence. There is also every reason to believe that if the US were to withdraw, no one group in Iraq would be able to overpower the other, and the situation would result in a standoff. Shiites could not rely on the US military to fight their battles with Sunnis. Sunnis could not overwhelm the Shiites because of the Shiites inferior numbers, and the Kurds have proven that they can defend themselves.
A strategic deployment
What we really have here, Ms Nossel, is an enormous case of Humpty Dumpty.
Iraq was artifically delininated as a Nation during the the post Ottoman Empire, British Mandate of Mespotamia. As the ruler, the British selected the deposed Syrian Hashemite King, Faisal, installed the Sunni Arab Elites as the Government and Ministry Leaders. Uprisings by the Kurds and Arabs were supressed by British forces.
When the French and British divided the Middle East amongst themselves during WWI the borders they established, as in the case in the Colonization of Africa, cut right through the natural family, cultural, religious, tribal and political alignments of the region.
Iraq was never anything but a figment of Western Colonial Imagination.
In order to maintain the artifical country of Iraq it required repressive means and strongmen, like Saddam. What President Bush, and the NeoCons, have done by deposing Saddam is open the Pandora's Box in the Middle East that will realign the Middle East into the preWWI natural configurations for the region. There exists a concern this mayhem in Iraq will bleed out across the whole region ... I think that reality is mandated at this point.
The Irony I see is that the US Government, heavily influenced by the Oil Lobby, intervened in Iraq to restore the NeoColonial Control that was felt to be lost with a "loose cannon" Saddam in charge, and as an unexpected consequence has, in fact, FREED the people of the region to reestablish their nations in a way they see fit. Bush may have very well murdered the notion of Iraq along with the despot Saddam.
As for what WE can do to prevent a "killing field' in the region as it realigns? ... I say, nothing. We are in the same position as the people of Minnesota who watched the bridge collapse. The best we can hope for is to lend some assistance once the smoke clears.
Your post succinctly summarized the historical origins of Iraq's borders.
Efforts to maintain the current borders of Iraq oppose the grain of a world wide movement for cultures to congregate and live in their homeland.
The Kurds, Palestinians, Basque, etc. want nothing more than what was provided to the Israelis. Unfortunately bloody costly wars are the means for attaining that homeland.
Putting the term "killing fields" into the title is very misleading. The "killing fields" were in Cambodia and had nothing to do with our leaving Viet Nam although Bush is trying to confuse people by merging this with our leaving Viet Nam. As I remember, other than people trying to leave by boat in fear of our troops leaving, there was no actual killing and massacre of the Vietnamese at all. There certainly was less killing than when we were THERE!
I really resent first Bush twisting history and then Democrats twisting history.
A strategy to end the occupation in Iraq and shape a regional security dialogue would require four steps.
(1) The U.S. should reaffirm its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time;
(2) The U.S. should announce that it is undertaking talks with Iraqi leaders to set a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed;
(3) The U.S. should encourage Iraqi leaders to invite all neighbors of Iraq to and other Muslim countries to discuss how to best enhance stability in Iraq and the region; and,
(4) The U.S. should activate a credible effort to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Bush is driven by a Manchean impulse with imperial hubris. A small circle of individuals surround him who have been involved in the decision-making and the false justifications for going to war, except Robert M.Gates.
If Iraq fails to meet benchmarks, especially signing the PSAs, the U.S. will blame Iran and attack that country under some pretext such as terrorist activity or non-existent WMDs. We will then be in a head on conflict with much of the Islamic world. This conflict could spread across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
The U.S. will be plunged into twenty years of war. Get out now and forget the oil. The consequences are too great to stay the course for political reasons in the U.S. or in Iraq.
I would like to ammend your fourth step to read:
"(4) The U.S. should activate a credible effort to reach an equitable Israeli-Pa
Without justice there can be no real or lasting peace. And, in any case, aren't we all tired of the kinds of injustice practiced now?
US Troops staying in Iraq = Bloodshed
US Troops leaving Iraq = Bloodshed
Your column is an important one - This is the
discussion America needs to be holding everyday - It shouldn't be the one we are having now which is -
We Must Stay!
We Must Leave!
It should be how does America pull out
its troops with the least disatrous results to the country of Iraq - There are no good options but all options have to be put on the table -
Every Democratic candidate needs to have what they consider to be some of the better options on their websites -
The Republican candidates need to?
Sorry but I drew a blank while I was writing the previous sentence -
The Iraq War = The Emperor Has No Clothes
It's been a terrible time for America since the Iraq War - I mean this in the sense that we have watched our country be hijacked
by a bunch of idiots and we as a country let them do it because of our lack of courage but
also because we lacked the vision it took to take on these people - As Iraq tailspins into
a bloody nightmare America is slowly losing its
very soul -
The Iraq War = The Emperor Has No Clothes
America Stays = Bloodshed
America Leaves = Bloodshed
There are no good options
Put all options on the table
Take a deep breath America
Take a good look at yourself in the bloody mirror
As long as people like our present rulers insist on staying we will keep haaving those two bad options. But when some different thinking leader comes along and looks he will see that the second option (leaving) puts an end to part of it, while the first option (staying) only prolongs the agony.
Curses upon our present rulers. When can we have a new leader? The sooner the better.
Let's try something really radical. Let's ask the Iraqis what they want to do and what they want us to do. Currently they have a totally non-functioning government which controls about six buildings in the Green Zone. Sunni are not participating in the government because they feel that it is heavily favoring the Shi'a. Shi'a don't want to give up any power. Kurds want to be left alone, which is unlikely to happen, as the Turks are waiting to wipe them out at the first opportunity.
Their is no oil, no electricity, no sewage treatment, no schools, few jobs. The idea that the USA can dictate what form of government Iraq will have is ridiculous. This is not a democracy, nor will it ever be.
Send out the word to the Sunni's, the Shi'a, the Kurds, the displaced people of Iraq, the clerics, the Baathists, former members of the military. Get people from all regions of the country and convene (in a safe place)under the auspices of the U.N. (no army needed). Ask questions. Listen to their answers. If they want electricity, hire Iraqis and pay for the power plants. If they want oil flowing, hire Iraqis, make sure they get more than their fair share of the oil revenues. Make them maintain the oil lines, or there won't be any oil.
The major impediment to this scenario is that the Bush cabal will never go for it. They don't want the Iraqis to build up their own infrastructure, because the Halliburton's and KBR are getting rich on government contracts. Note the insistence on an oil law, which always seems to come up in any discussion about "benchmarks".
The Iraqis are the only people who can prevent a bloodbath. It must be worth their while to cooperate to achieve their goals. Again, find out what they want, listen, and give it to them.
Then, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, "it's your country, see if you can keep it".
rwgate, this is the very best post of the day here and I commend you for your thinking.
WHERE is the machinery for diplomacy now in the entire world? Where are there any statesmen among the Iraqi people too? Their clergy? Each faction HAS to have some level of appeal to self interest other than death and ruin? The SILENCE is deafening.
If people in Iraq are now voting with their feet, START with that. Start with ANY indication of movement toward life in the situation ANYWHERE.
Get support going for the refugees. Ask them what would get them back into the country? Start using U.S. military force to build up and protect safe areas if it means a defacto partitioning of the country. Anything is better and more positive than kicking in doors "police work" that is a total misuse of military force.
Where, oh where, are the voices of leadership from the various factions. Find out what each sectarian faction wants and then try to negotiate a working peace. Use for for protection of communities in safe areas/ let people vote with their feet. Every moment of silence and inaction NOW may truly result in insane genocide a year or two from now.
Where is the leadership on all sides?
do not withdrawal at any human price just put all of the terrorists in jail and then I can have my cheap oil and gas.
Cheap gas will stimulate our economy and we can even buy more from china at Wal-Mart.
The likes of the Iraqis trying to throw out a foreign invader by force. Idiots we just wanted to trade oil for democracy as long as we can control the government like we did in Vietnam and you have the audacity to kill and harm our soldiers.
Who they do think they are we are the greatest superpower on earth. We have the ability to shock and awe you Iraqis.
Besides they are not even Christian. Who cares about them? Everybody knows only Christians go to heaven. Look it up. Jesus was a capitalist and an imperialist. Check it out at your local evangelical church.
Signed
Evangelical neo con and yes we love George bush he is one of us.
As a Christian I was so happy to see we are building an oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel. How nice of the Iraqis to share their oil with Israel. Love your enemies. There is hope for them yet to be loving and compassionate Christians like us.
We will not be removing our troops until the oil question is settled. The slow death of Iraq has proven so profitable that we will be taking it on the road to Iran soon. Based on the reports that the number of displaced persons has skyrocketed under the current, "surge" we seem to have little ability to improve the lives of the people on the ground no matter what we do.
The answer is partition.
The Sunni get their piece of Iraq, Shi'a get theirs and the Kurds get Kurdistan. Turkey's arm is twisted into going along as a condition of admission into the European Union. The UN helps divvy up oil wealth--if Shi'a forego Shi'aland to join with Iran, they don't get any oil beyond what lies within their borders.
We use our army and with world support keep Sunni focused on Sunniland, Shi'a focused on Shi'aland or union with Iran and Kurds on building their regained land.
Simple. ;) Right?
So! Another supporter of the war, which was to do for "our friend" what she had done for herself in weaker Lebanon. And the idea of breaking Iraq into (at least three) pieces was the second part of that wonderful plan, whose goal was hegemony over the region by "our friend." You had to have the war in order to break it. The rest should be easy. If people believed the lies leading up to war, they should berlieve ... just about anything, even the goodness of intentions of B. & G. and others of that ilk.
I think that's the problem, too much worrying about what these people do to each other after we leave. Free will baby, free will, they have a democracy, if they want to kill each other too bad. Just too damn bad.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
