I only have two issues with this.

Firstly, there is nothing to indicate that the US wouldn't withdraw if asked to by the Iraqi Government.

Secondly, the Iraqi Government wouldn't ask the US until the US has told them to.

Before, Leigh, OLO's resident crapondaauthor poster gets in with the usual slag off can I just point out a concern of mine.

With the invasion over, most of the military work in Iraq is supposedly "transporting cargo, policing, rebuilding infrastructure, translating and conducting government affairs" which is pretty well nation building and the stuff of occupation.

My concern is this. When the USA "cut and ran" from Vietnam two million refugees were driven out of the country (or preferred to cut and run themselves rather than live under communist rule), 65,000 more were reportedly executed, and 250,000 were supposedly sent to "reeducation camps."

Now in January 2005, the Iraqi people are said to have showed up to vote - even with the real threat of being gunned down. If that was the case, that, for me, was a vote for democracy and a clear rejection of Hussien-type authoritarianism and cruelty. No, I don't think it was signaling an acceptance of USA forces or control. The immediate escalation of terrorism did suggest to me that the insurgents loathe the idea of democracy - of ordinary Iraqis being in control of their own destiny.

No one wants another Serb/Croat, IRA/UDF sectarian kind of situation. So, with all this in mind and claims that most of the insurgents are from outside Iraq, I think regardless of a USA pull out there will still be more terrorists coming through. Let's hope the Iraqi Government can somehow muster the feelings of community, mateship, democracy, acceptance of others cultures and nationhood that were once Australia's greatest assets until our own warmongering malcontents starting causing trouble.

Redneck I promised you a peace song. Here is a favourite of mine.

WAR
(by Sinead O'Connor)

Until the philosophy,
which holds one race superior
and another inferior,
is finally and permanently
discredited and abandoned,
everywhere is war.

Until there is no longer first class
or second class citizens of any nation.
Until the color of a man's skin,
is of no more significance than
the color of his eyes,
I've got to say "war".

That until the basic human rights,
are equally guaranteed to all,
without regard to race,
I'll say "war"

Until that day the dream of lasting peace,
world-citizenship and the rule of
international morality will remain
just a fleeting illusion to be pursued,
but never obtained.
And everywhere is war.

Until the ignoble and unhappy regime
which holds all of us through,
child-abuse, yeah, child-abuse yeah,
sub-human bondage has been toppled,
utterly destroyed,
everywhere is war.

war in the east,
war in the west,
war up north,
war down south,
there is war,
and the rumors of war.

Until that day,
there is no continent,
which will know peace.

children, children.

Fight!

We find it necessary.
we know we will win.
we have confidence in the victory
of good over evil

FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY !

Gotta love the Irish.

I agree that the US & Australia must leave the moment that the going is good.

The refreshing meat of this article rests upon the acceptance that the anti-baathist government in existence now, and into the foreseeable future, is being attacked by those with anti-shiite tendencies and agenda's. Therefore, the only reason the Government(s) (both existing & future) would fear anti-shia agenda's, is of course if they are predominantly shia themselves.

I note that in the latest Arab league meeting that Saudi Arabia does not appear to be all that happy with Syria. It is interesting to look at this reaction, in light of the dual fact of Syria's ongoing support for Iran, and the shia hizbollah, and the fact that Saudi Arabia is very soon, upon the US leaving in fact, going to be neighboured by a Shiite nation, which will obviously be allied closely to both Syria and Iran.

The difficulty for the Saudi's will be that the Shia nations, Iraq & Iran, will together be just as important to Global security, controlling as they do, an equally substantial amount of the worlds oil. This may well see an end to Saudi's most preferred status and crucially see for the first time, Saudi with their intractable enemies on their own doorstep. The current problem is nothing to what is coming.

Inshallah

2bob

QUOTE
"Maliki should now put forward a more aggressive policy to purge the army from militias loyal to various Shi‘i organisations, especially the SCIRI and the Sadrist factions, and put together a military establishment which is made up of various sectarian groups who are loyal only to the central state in Baghdad."

Yep, I have to agree 100%.

But....finding 'sectarian' groups who are "loyal to Baghdad"... in a fundamentally tribal country, seems a very big ask to me.

Quite refreshing to see a good analysis of the issues, and from one who clearly understands the tribal nuances in the region.

All the best in that endevour.

The Americans ? Hmmm.. now that will be interesting. Up till the present outbreak of hostilities I might have swung toward 'They will leave' but now ? I think Iran is too much of a wild card.

On the subject of tribalism and loyalties.
I feel we in Australia should look more closely at it.

There is an implied "Treaty" between Australia and its citizens as follows:

To be a citizen you must be

-loyal to Australia
-Support Australia's policies and our allies policies against enemies.
-Never support our enemies or their Allies.
-Never do anything which could be seen to be an attack on us or our allies or their policies.

The reason I raise this, is that this is exactly the kind of 'tribal treaty' which the West is up against in Iraq. The breaking of such a treaty (Hudabaya) by allies of the Meccans, in attacking some obscure allies of Mohamed, give him the justification in his mind to break his treaty with the Meccans and attack them.

This is the 'mindset' of Arabs in the Iraq region and must be taken into account in seeking solutions

DB, no-one in Australia is forced to obey our policies, in fact many millions of Australian's just plain don't - we don't support locking up children, deporting Australian citizens, invading Iraq, the IR laws and so on. What tripe you talk.

Now to Iraq - Paul McGeough of the Herald seems to be on a tour of the area looking for some democracy as spread by the US over the last five years.

In 2001 it was said that we had defeated the wretched Taliban by slaughtering thousands of ordinary Afghan people and reducing the areas to rubble. A photo essay on Saturday is instructive.

Little girls having go to school in tents because the NGO's and warlords have conspired to steal the best land. Little boys playing outside Kabul on a burnt out bus, street vendors in dire poverty while the NGO"s and warlords drive past in their new cars and a shiny new Parliament house with a former Taliban warlord in front, a new member of parliament.

The death of Al Zarqarwi was never going to be useful to anyone and has not stopped the horror- or the revolting behaviour of murdering GI's who rape and slaughter little girls.

B_D, I suggest you worry about your own mindset before generalising about the mindset of Iraqis.

This is an excellent article that states things as they are and offers clear choices and possibilities of what lies ahead.

The DB's of this world won't be able to recognise or accept the
complexities for they cannot face blatant facts. David's solution to the 'Iraqi Problem' would be to deport and re-settle all the minorities or, at least, those without power or powerful support.
That'd be right wouldn't it David?

Now David which groups do you see as being a problem in Australi? ie the ones to which you would apply 'David-Boaz's final solution'?

Marilyn, thanx for the kind words as usual.
As long as we remain democratic, and able to elect or throw out a government we disagree with, I maintain my position re 'loyalty' and "implied treaty".

I should be more specific there. The Vietnam protests were a good example of legitimate protest. But protest should be limited to 'opposition to bad policy' rather than 'support for our enemies', and thats the difference.

Irf. My mindset is clearly at odds with many here. Democracy is wonderful :)

Keith.
No, my solution to Iraq is to deport all minorities. The problem in Iraq is related to some specific identifiable issues.
1/ Sunni minority seeking to re-take oppressive power.
2/ Shia majority (+Kurd) seeking to prevent this.
3/ External parties seeking to control the place by Proxy
a) Amercians...oil and strategic interests.
b) Iran... similar but add the 'Relgious' aspedt to them.
c) 'Islamists/Jihadists' just the religious aspect.
d) Probably other countries with purely economic interests.

My approach to the Palestinian and Hezbollah issue is not something I'd seek to apply everywhere. It depends on the circumstances.
There is no need to send our Aboriginal people to some remote Island off the coast because they are not car bombing us or running a terror campaign. BUT....if they DID, and it became unmanagable, then exile for the main protagonists is probably the kindest option for all.

Returning to the topic, I again underline the noticable absence of bias in the authors handling of the issue, and appreciate his thoughts.

David, it was the US, UK and us who supported Saddam Hussein for all the years he was being a butcher in Baghdad and did nothing to help the suffering people in Iraq. I have said many times before we have no high moral ground because we starved them, stole from them and then bombed them to bits in Iraq.

How on earth does that translate to helping the enemy on my part? Really if you want to accuse me of such things you better have some bloody evidence.

In Afghanistan life is as bad as or worse than ever, because I support and want to help the Afghan people does that mean I support the enemy?

Who is the enemy this week anyway? Are we under attack from someone? Have we been bombed that I should have an enemy somewhere?

DB, I think all religious fundamentalists are nuts and you are not much different are you?

No Marilyn, I'm not accusing you specifically of 'helping our enemies' I was making the point about the ethics of protest generally.

If you are helping our enemies I think it is due to political naivity and subsequent misplaced compassion if anything. Quite a volatile mix.
You're a worry sometimes.

KEITH... my last post was meant to say "No Keith my policy is NOT to..... then it will make the right sense.

As I get a better handle on the region, I'm looking at new solution possibilities.

Its worth noting in respect of my 'Deport/disperse' proposal, that Lebanon's population is 4% Armenian. Why ? Because they were displaced by the Turkish genocide. They are doing fine in Lebanon.

SOLUTION (adapted)

1/ Hezbollah Defeated and disarmed.
2/ South Lebanon divided into regions. (South Western Syria may also hold promise for re-settlement)
a) Buffer zone to Border. Lebanese Army deployed to prevent Hezbollah re-grouping.
b) New settler regions for displaced Palestinians from all camps in Israel/Westbank. Christian Arabs to Damour, Muslims to other places.
c) Low cost housing set up... international aid for approximately 5 yrs while industrial and infrastructure measures are implemented.

3/ International community including Israel makes efforts to encourage industrial/economic expansion of Tyre, Ez Zahrani, and Sidon regions, to support the new population.

4/ Most importantly, All Palestinians to have special citizenship conditions and limitations, preventing their ability to dominate Lebanese politics. Possibly a vote only for local representatives in implementation of government policy. They cannot have any democratic pathway to Islamic dominance of Lebanon, as this would further marginalize the already struggling Maronite Christians.

Lebanese constitution to be changed to enshrine a secular state approach.