Emerson College’s only independent, student-run newspaper since 1947

The Berkeley Beacon

Emerson College’s only independent, student-run newspaper since 1947

The Berkeley Beacon

Emerson College’s only independent, student-run newspaper since 1947

The Berkeley Beacon

Changing course in Iraq

Meanwhile, here in the U.,Early last month, Bessam Ali, my Iraqi penpal, wrote me a letter, which said that his Baghdad home had become collateral damage due to an attack by the Medhi Militia. His family escaped unharmed, but their livelihood had been decimated.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S. the talk of the nation has centered on whether to define the staggering bloodshed in Iraq as civil war or merely sectarian violence.

Does it matter? While pundits and politicians are squabbling over semantics, the death toll for American troops will soon surpass the number murdered on Sept. 11, and Iraqi civilians are being killed at a rate Saddam Hussein could only dream about.

The noise generated from debating the trivial is drowning out a much more valuable discussion about what to do next. There are no good options remaining for this regrettable invasion, but there are ones that are less bad than others.

First, we need to play a grown-up version of Opposite Day. The Bush administration has been wrong at every turn in the last three-plus years. Therefore, it is a safe bet that doing the exact opposite of whatever the administration advocates will be preferable than towing their sinking line.

American officials sound silly when claiming a political solution exists to end the chaos, and such comments underscore their lack of understanding of that region’s history and motivations. What we see as modern-day political entities violently jockeying for power, many Sunni and Shia hardliners see as a rematch of the sixth-century Battle of Karbala.

Intercultural coexistence is something to support, but the increasingly gruesome reality in Iraq makes clear that the sources of instability within the Sunni and Shia communities are currently too great to contain within a single, centralized state. Sunni, Shia and Kurdish populations must each feel a sense of ownership over their piece of Iraq, which is why the country must be divided into autonomous, but not fully independent, regions.

The international community should convene an all-inclusive conference to begin the federation process.

Conference participants must determine where on the map to draw the lines dividing the newly established regions. Second, they would have to reach a mutual understanding regarding territorial integrity and the preservation of human rights for those who may not relocate to their own sect’s area of dominance. Third, all groups must work toward regional stability and cooperation.

Only Iraq’s army and oil would remain centralized. The former organized to reflect the country’s divisions. The profits from the latter maintained in an Iraqi controlled, but internationally monitored, account, dispersed proportionally amongst the three regions.

As for the United States and its dwindling coalition, decentralizing Iraq would allow not for immediate withdrawal, but at least for a consolidation of forces. U.S. troops, smaller in number than their current presence, would have to remain between the three regions, as well as scattered throughout Iraq’s security apparatus.

The international community would need to handle the mass migration that would result from formally dividing Iraq. And all countries, both inside and outside the region, must commit to a true reconstruction of Iraq, one that not only rebuilds the army and police but also rebuilds a broken economy and education system using local assets supported, not dominated, by foreign companies.

This plan is not utopia, of course.

Translating it to reality would prove difficult, and certain aspects of it may be entirely unattainable. But other strategies are even worse. “Stay the course” is as meaningless as it is ignorant. A precipitous withdrawal is both logistically and strategically unfeasable.

But regional autonomy would yield three key benefits. First, eliminating Baghdad as the one and only center of power also eliminates the violent contest for that power among Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

Second, separating Sunni, Shia and Kurdish dominated regions would scare Iraq’s neighbors enough to want to contribute to its stability and security. Iran would not want the Sunni population to challenge its interests, and the same for Turkey with the Kurds, and Jordan and Syria with the Shiites. The end result: a balance of power that allows Iraq’s three groups only enough strength to govern themselves.

Finally, federation allows for a diminished U.S. presence, thereby giving the next president a chance to refocus on the long-term health of American foreign policy. And that begins with a massive diplomacy effort aimed at redefining our global footprint, and an equally intensive push for energy independence.

But so long as we continue an inane deconstruction of “civil war” we risk not only defeat, but worse, irrelevancy to a region that remains potently relevant to us.

Leave a Comment

Comments (0)

The Berkeley Beacon intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. We welcome strong opinions and criticism that are respectful and constructive. Comments are only posted once approved by a moderator and you have verified your email. All users are expected to adhere to our comment section policy. READ THE FULL POLICY HERE: https://berkeleybeacon.com/comments/
All Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *