Federal Government Policy Issues
Discussion and information on selected policy issues concerning tax, foreign relations, energy and other significant policies. The intent is to provide data and analysis that will assist in determining the appropriateness of the policy. Any posts containing rants, personal attacks on officials or other posters or which do not concisely present a point of information will not be published.Saturday, June 10, 2006
Iraq - What Can the US Do Now?
Whether the invasion of Iraq was or was not warranted, we still have the problem of what the US should do now. Staying in Iraq for many years or withdrawing immediately or in the near future are both options but there must be better options. What other options are there?
Comments:
<< Home
First, I need to say that I have always believed that the US invasion of Iraq was not warranted and unjustified. Since Iraq, in terms of power use and distribution in national institutions and government structure, has more in common with African nations than advanced nations, it always seemed clear to me that democratization of Iraq would lead to sectarian violence and civil war.
As far as whether the US invasion was legal, I'd just like to point out that the use of UN resolutions to justify the invasion is inappropriate. The US typically points to the UN resolutions, particularly UN Resolution 1441, as providing justification for the war. However, the text of UN resolution 1441 includes a section that states "reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait and the neighboring states". Resolution 1441 does note UN Resolution 678 that was issued in 1990 which "authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement" the UN directives but clearly the UN imposed limits to these "all necessary means".
In any case, the 'Pottery Barn Rule' put forward by former secretary of State Colin Powell now applies. Simply stated it says that if you broke it then you buy it. The US can not withdraw now as this would leave Iraq worse off than before the US invaded. The US can only withdraw after measures have been implemented that would provide a structure that offers the Iraqi citizens the prospect of at least as good a life as they had before.
What options are there?
As far as whether the US invasion was legal, I'd just like to point out that the use of UN resolutions to justify the invasion is inappropriate. The US typically points to the UN resolutions, particularly UN Resolution 1441, as providing justification for the war. However, the text of UN resolution 1441 includes a section that states "reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait and the neighboring states". Resolution 1441 does note UN Resolution 678 that was issued in 1990 which "authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement" the UN directives but clearly the UN imposed limits to these "all necessary means".
In any case, the 'Pottery Barn Rule' put forward by former secretary of State Colin Powell now applies. Simply stated it says that if you broke it then you buy it. The US can not withdraw now as this would leave Iraq worse off than before the US invaded. The US can only withdraw after measures have been implemented that would provide a structure that offers the Iraqi citizens the prospect of at least as good a life as they had before.
What options are there?
Recall that Iraq is a nation created by the British by combining several different regions which had different traditions, religions and affiliations. Iraq was never a nation of people who had a common identify. With this in mind, there is an opportunity to quickly improve the lot of Iraqis and to resolve some other significant issues that threaten the peace in the area. Following is a brief outline of a possible resolution that would generally involve dissolving Iraq as a nation.
1) Give the Shia area of Iraq to Iran but only if Iran fully submits to the IAEA nuclear safeguards. It may be appropriate to add other terms such as recognizing Israel's right to exist or reducing the size of the Iranian military.
2) Give the Sunni areas of Iraq to Saudi Arabia. In doing this, the issue of Kirkuk going to the Kurds would not be a big issue because the Iraqi Sunnis would not have to be concerned about not having access to oil revenue. I'm not sure what the terms would be for Saudi Arabia but the terms might include opening up their oil industry to western investment or stopping their funding of militant Palestinian groups. In any case, the application of Saudi Arabia's investment and knowledge to Iraq's oil fields would increase Iraqi oil production and, all other things being equal, reduce global oil prices.
3) The Kurdish area poses the most difficult challenge. The 2 options are to give the Iraqi Kurdish area to Turkey in exchange for a significant measure of autonomy for the Kurds, both those currently in Turkey and the Iraqi Kurdish area or to make the Kurdish part of Iraqi a separate state. If needed, the EU could fast track the Turkish application for entry into the EU to increase the probability of Turkish acceptance to the change.
1) Give the Shia area of Iraq to Iran but only if Iran fully submits to the IAEA nuclear safeguards. It may be appropriate to add other terms such as recognizing Israel's right to exist or reducing the size of the Iranian military.
2) Give the Sunni areas of Iraq to Saudi Arabia. In doing this, the issue of Kirkuk going to the Kurds would not be a big issue because the Iraqi Sunnis would not have to be concerned about not having access to oil revenue. I'm not sure what the terms would be for Saudi Arabia but the terms might include opening up their oil industry to western investment or stopping their funding of militant Palestinian groups. In any case, the application of Saudi Arabia's investment and knowledge to Iraq's oil fields would increase Iraqi oil production and, all other things being equal, reduce global oil prices.
3) The Kurdish area poses the most difficult challenge. The 2 options are to give the Iraqi Kurdish area to Turkey in exchange for a significant measure of autonomy for the Kurds, both those currently in Turkey and the Iraqi Kurdish area or to make the Kurdish part of Iraqi a separate state. If needed, the EU could fast track the Turkish application for entry into the EU to increase the probability of Turkish acceptance to the change.
Cost of Iraq War
The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) at the request of Congressman Pratt who is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, delivered an estimate of the cost of the Iraq War on 7/13/06. The CBO estimates; that the total cost through the year 2016 will be either $697b or $493b depending on the assumptions.
However, Nobel laureate Paul Stiglizt of Columbia University economist and states that the CBO estimate does not capture all of the costs such as equipment replacement and long term health care of vets. Mr Stiglizt's detailed study ; estimates that the true long term cost with US troops remaining in Iraq through 2010 will be $1.2 to $2.0 trillion.
The cost of the policy decision on Iraq is massive and will impact the US taxpayer for many years. The actual cost will be significantly more that the cost projections previously made by the Bush Administration which were not credible even at the time the estimates were made. The Bush Administration has actively worked to minimize the advertised cost (Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, claimed that Iraqi oil could pay for the war, Larry Lindsey, the Administration's Economics adviser, claimed that the total cost would be less than $200b and would be good for the economy.
The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) at the request of Congressman Pratt who is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, delivered an estimate of the cost of the Iraq War on 7/13/06. The CBO estimates; that the total cost through the year 2016 will be either $697b or $493b depending on the assumptions.
However, Nobel laureate Paul Stiglizt of Columbia University economist and states that the CBO estimate does not capture all of the costs such as equipment replacement and long term health care of vets. Mr Stiglizt's detailed study ; estimates that the true long term cost with US troops remaining in Iraq through 2010 will be $1.2 to $2.0 trillion.
The cost of the policy decision on Iraq is massive and will impact the US taxpayer for many years. The actual cost will be significantly more that the cost projections previously made by the Bush Administration which were not credible even at the time the estimates were made. The Bush Administration has actively worked to minimize the advertised cost (Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, claimed that Iraqi oil could pay for the war, Larry Lindsey, the Administration's Economics adviser, claimed that the total cost would be less than $200b and would be good for the economy.
Why Invade Iraq?
There are some who speculate that the US invaded Iraq to secure oil supplies for the US Economy. However, there are other ways to provide a greater degree of energy independence such as investing in alternative energy sources or more efficient recovery methods that would have cost less than the war.
The US has historically not viewed favorably the attempts of various leaders in the region to create a Pan Arab coalition and this may have been the most significant motivation to the US Action. Consider Nasser in Egypt. Iraq was ruled by the Baathist Party which promotes a Pan Arab, secular nationalism with elements of socialism.
Actually, the US has a long history of supporting authoritarian rulers around the world and development of a secular government in the region's countries would probably have been the best development for the US.
There are some who speculate that the US invaded Iraq to secure oil supplies for the US Economy. However, there are other ways to provide a greater degree of energy independence such as investing in alternative energy sources or more efficient recovery methods that would have cost less than the war.
The US has historically not viewed favorably the attempts of various leaders in the region to create a Pan Arab coalition and this may have been the most significant motivation to the US Action. Consider Nasser in Egypt. Iraq was ruled by the Baathist Party which promotes a Pan Arab, secular nationalism with elements of socialism.
Actually, the US has a long history of supporting authoritarian rulers around the world and development of a secular government in the region's countries would probably have been the best development for the US.
Now the Kurdish Problem
The Kurdish controlled area in Iraq has been the only area of Iraq not marred by violence since the US invasion. However, the PKK, a militant Kurdish group fighting for an Independent Kurdistan which is classified as a terrorist group by the US State Department, has taken advantage of the situation and has been launching raids and attacks on Turkish troops across the boarder in Turkey. Additionally, the PKK has been supporting an Iranian Kurdish organization fighting in Iran for an independent Kurdistan.
The Turks have said that they will send troops into the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq, probably after the Spring thaw, if the PKK continues their attacks into Turkey. It is possible although Unlikely that Iran will participate. In recent, previous showdows, Turkey has stationed more than 200K troops on the border but so far has restrained from any significant incursions.
The US essentially has 2 choices which are to allow the incursion and lose the support of the Kurds in Iraq or to prevent the incursion and likely lose the support of Turkey.
What is likely is that the US will allow the incursion, Iran will stay on the sidelines, the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq will declare independence and occupy the oil rich area of Mosul and the Shia dominated Iraqi government may then invade the Kurdish area of Iraq in an attempt to keep this area part of Iraq.
The Kurdish controlled area in Iraq has been the only area of Iraq not marred by violence since the US invasion. However, the PKK, a militant Kurdish group fighting for an Independent Kurdistan which is classified as a terrorist group by the US State Department, has taken advantage of the situation and has been launching raids and attacks on Turkish troops across the boarder in Turkey. Additionally, the PKK has been supporting an Iranian Kurdish organization fighting in Iran for an independent Kurdistan.
The Turks have said that they will send troops into the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq, probably after the Spring thaw, if the PKK continues their attacks into Turkey. It is possible although Unlikely that Iran will participate. In recent, previous showdows, Turkey has stationed more than 200K troops on the border but so far has restrained from any significant incursions.
The US essentially has 2 choices which are to allow the incursion and lose the support of the Kurds in Iraq or to prevent the incursion and likely lose the support of Turkey.
What is likely is that the US will allow the incursion, Iran will stay on the sidelines, the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq will declare independence and occupy the oil rich area of Mosul and the Shia dominated Iraqi government may then invade the Kurdish area of Iraq in an attempt to keep this area part of Iraq.
President's Troop Increase
The President announced a troop increase in Iraq on 1/10/07 and a focus on securing Baghdad. It appears that the tactics in Iraq have changed and the President has now adopted a strategy similar to what was done in Afganistan. In Afgahnistan, the US concentrated the troops in Kabul with the result that Kabul is relative safe and prosperous and the government is operating. However, neither the US nor the Afganistani government has any significant presence or influence outside of Kabul. If the most that the US can achieve is to secure Baghdad and not the rest of the country, is the current effort really worth the cost?
The President announced a troop increase in Iraq on 1/10/07 and a focus on securing Baghdad. It appears that the tactics in Iraq have changed and the President has now adopted a strategy similar to what was done in Afganistan. In Afgahnistan, the US concentrated the troops in Kabul with the result that Kabul is relative safe and prosperous and the government is operating. However, neither the US nor the Afganistani government has any significant presence or influence outside of Kabul. If the most that the US can achieve is to secure Baghdad and not the rest of the country, is the current effort really worth the cost?
US a Pawn
There is reason to believe that Iran benefited significantly from the US invasion of Iraq and may have been involved in manipulating the US to invade Iraq. Apart from the benefit of revenge for the Iran/Iraq war, there is the distinct possibility that Iraq will develop into a Shia led theocracy aligned with Iran.
I just read the book HUBRIS which suggests the possible involvement of a foreign intelligence service in feeding fabricated information that was used to justify the US invasion of Iraq.
As far as Iraq’s chemical weapons program, the CIA relied upon an Iraqi defector who previously had been a chemist for critical information to support this claim. This defector failed a lie detector test regarding the chemical weapons information in 2/2003. The CIA found out that this person was an information peddler and determined that this “chemist” was a fraud. The CIA received a report from a foreign intelligence service advising the CIA that this chemist “had possibly been directed by a hostile intelligence service”.
Aras Habib, senior aide to Chalabi, had been meeting in Northern Iraq with agents of Iranian intelligence. According to McGuire (CIA), Habib was receiving orders from Iran secret intelligence and the CIA concluded that Habib might be an agent of the Iranians. Chalabi was a key source of information alleging that Iraq possessed significant quantities of biological and chemical weapons.
There is reason to believe that Iran benefited significantly from the US invasion of Iraq and may have been involved in manipulating the US to invade Iraq. Apart from the benefit of revenge for the Iran/Iraq war, there is the distinct possibility that Iraq will develop into a Shia led theocracy aligned with Iran.
I just read the book HUBRIS which suggests the possible involvement of a foreign intelligence service in feeding fabricated information that was used to justify the US invasion of Iraq.
As far as Iraq’s chemical weapons program, the CIA relied upon an Iraqi defector who previously had been a chemist for critical information to support this claim. This defector failed a lie detector test regarding the chemical weapons information in 2/2003. The CIA found out that this person was an information peddler and determined that this “chemist” was a fraud. The CIA received a report from a foreign intelligence service advising the CIA that this chemist “had possibly been directed by a hostile intelligence service”.
Aras Habib, senior aide to Chalabi, had been meeting in Northern Iraq with agents of Iranian intelligence. According to McGuire (CIA), Habib was receiving orders from Iran secret intelligence and the CIA concluded that Habib might be an agent of the Iranians. Chalabi was a key source of information alleging that Iraq possessed significant quantities of biological and chemical weapons.
longchamp outlet, longchamp pas cher, polo outlet, longchamp outlet, nike air max, replica watches, kate spade outlet, replica watches, ugg boots, tory burch outlet, louis vuitton, christian louboutin, tiffany and co, oakley sunglasses, louboutin pas cher, polo ralph lauren, jordan shoes, longchamp outlet, christian louboutin outlet, nike outlet, chanel handbags, ray ban sunglasses, nike free, air max, polo ralph lauren outlet online, louis vuitton outlet, burberry pas cher, oakley sunglasses, cheap oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, ugg boots, nike air max, oakley sunglasses, prada outlet, jordan pas cher, louis vuitton, uggs on sale, tiffany jewelry, prada handbags, gucci handbags, sac longchamp pas cher, louis vuitton outlet, oakley sunglasses wholesale, nike roshe, louis vuitton outlet, michael kors pas cher, christian louboutin shoes, nike free run, ray ban sunglasses
kate spade, polo lacoste, nike air max, guess pas cher, ralph lauren uk, michael kors outlet online, nike tn, mulberry uk, coach outlet, hogan outlet, timberland pas cher, true religion outlet, hollister uk, michael kors outlet, uggs outlet, coach purses, true religion outlet, michael kors outlet online, new balance, vans pas cher, nike free uk, michael kors outlet, coach outlet store online, ray ban uk, nike air max uk, burberry outlet, nike roshe run uk, sac hermes, north face, true religion outlet, oakley pas cher, michael kors outlet online, michael kors, nike blazer pas cher, true religion jeans, sac vanessa bruno, michael kors outlet online, abercrombie and fitch uk, north face uk, uggs outlet, michael kors outlet, nike air force, nike air max uk, hollister pas cher, lululemon canada, michael kors, ray ban pas cher, replica handbags, converse pas cher
www0622
kate spade outlet
longchamp handbags
kevin durant shoes
kobe shoes
chloe outlet
oakley sunglasses
visvim shoes
moncler outlet
polo ralph lauren
canada goose jackets
kate spade outlet
longchamp handbags
kevin durant shoes
kobe shoes
chloe outlet
oakley sunglasses
visvim shoes
moncler outlet
polo ralph lauren
canada goose jackets
GST Admission Result 2021 of General, Science and Technology University by authority from their official website- gstadmission.ac.bd as well our website easily to get your result.
Government Job Circular in Bangladesh 2021 provides All types of Government Job Circular 2021 our website- jobnewsbd24.com. Recent govt jobs circular 2021 published here. We posted bd government job circular 2021, Update gov job circular and today govt jobs circular
Teletalk Job Admit Card and Exam Result Download in Bangladesh from Job News BD 24. All Types Admit Card Download Online from jobnewsbd24.com available.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Archives
