March 25, 2005
TED KENNEDY WAS AS RIGHT AS HE GETS:
Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy' (Steve Negus, March 25 2005, Financial Times)
Many of Iraq's predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politician.Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.
“Firstly, they want to ensure their own security,” says Sharif Ali, who last week hosted a pan-Sunni conference attended by tribal sheikhs and other local leaders speaking on behalf of the insurgents.
Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.
The Left was ahead of the curve on it being time for an exit strategy, they were just wrong about which side was winning. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 25, 2005 5:20 PM
I think our still strong presence in Iraq emboldens those in neighboring countries to rise up against their dictators. Our exit strategy should be one that keeps our forces in play in the region.
Posted by: Pat H at March 25, 2005 7:05 PMLeave by way of Damascus...
Posted by: oj at March 25, 2005 7:20 PMoj: Some might say go the other way, through Tehran.
Posted by: jd watson at March 25, 2005 8:39 PMOr keep in mind the old Budweiser (Bushweiser?) commercial: "Why not both?"
Posted by: Matt Murphy at March 25, 2005 9:46 PMI think we could bitch slap Syria in a couple of weeks and then work on Iran.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 26, 2005 2:17 AMIf Syria falls that quickly, there would be a million marchers in Tehran the next weekend, demanding freedom. Then the crisis will come - will the mullahs strike their own people or not?
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 26, 2005 9:12 AMAs to the question:"Will the mullahs strike(which I am guessing means "shoot")their own people if provoked by large scale street protests, I think there is a great, even overwelming body of evidence to suggest they will do exactly that.
Careful going up against Iran. The United States wants internal reform in Persia-NOT to invade and subdue that huge country. We need to act here, but quietly, with wisdom, often covertly, by empowering the large and multi-faceted opposition. We need to make the mullahs look as silly as possible. Lucky for us, they will be a big help in all this, if the recent past teaches us anything.
If force does indeed become necessary, 2 things come to mind that might, if properly handled, that can reduce the power and prestige of the current leadership. First, small but hopefully well organized strikes against nuclear related production sites and, if worse comes to worse, perhaps a plan might be taken out of Saddam's playbook: grab the oil rich province of Arabastan along the Shatt-el-Arab, where so much of the oil comes from. That will serve to deprive a huge percent of the Iranian oil production that is bankrolling all the problems they are causing to the United States. I hope it will not come to either of these options but the mullahs must think we may do it-and must have the ability to do so if all else comes to naught.
During the Iran/Iraq war, the "War of Shame" between 1980 and 1988, it was not the massive casualties the Persian WW1 style "human-wave" attacks endured for years that finally forced them to the table. It was in fact the "War of the Cities", the Scud War, which saw Saddam throw his Soviet Era SS-1's against heavily populated urban regions of Iran. This the mullahs could not abide-the political fallout was just too high-and caused them to make peace.
The Iranians are isolated, they are surrounded by American allies to an extent never thought possible before 9/11. Bases in all the nations on their borders, even in the former Soviet Asain States that now contain US Special Forces and USAF bases must keep the mullahs up at night. They have killed a lot of people in their own country over the last 25 years and have a lot of enemies. They have every reason to fear change as it might well result, like it did in Romania, in justice at the end of a firing squad.
There is some irony here not lost on all who are, in both Europe and the United States, involved in playing the shell game with the Iranian government so hell-bent on joining the nuclear club. They are under the illusion that by bankrupting their 3rd world economy to build these weapons that they will be "safe". However, this is a case of "The March of Folly" perhaps even more at odds with present realities than even the late Barbara Tuchman had ever considered when she wrote a generation ago so clearly about the prediliction of governments to engage in actions so obviously at odds with their own self-interest.
These weapons of mass destruction-the old fashioned Hiroshima kind mind you-will make it certain that the Iranians will never be allowed to aquire and maintain this change in the regional status quo in peace. What they see as walls protecting their very survival are in fact just the opposite. If they succeed in building and employing them, they will never be left alone.
The resulting instability will leave the United States with even fewer option than with Iraq and, given the experience of the last 2 years, the Iranians need to take a long, hard look at their present realities and what they expect to gain versus what they are sure to lose if their present policy continues.