<p>Under the surface, not so well. The Kurds understand that they were gassed by Saddam Hussein under the auspices of the Rumsfeld Handshake. They were promised a trial of Saddam Hussein for this crime, and U.S. conveniently managed to have him executed before this could take place. The U.S. has systematically opposed a separate Kurdish state because of fear of Turkish response. And so their best friends in the area, those with a diplomatic mission there for over a decade, those with the largest trade association, are the Iranians. </p>
<p>Kurds are experts at realpolitik. They’ve had to be in order to survive. For a short period of time, that has meant getting into bed with the U.S. But they understand that their future lies to the east.</p>
<p>Also, I’m not sure that we can really say the US occupation has produced any great strides in the Kurdish region. By and large, the Kurdish north was relatively unaffected by the invasion and not really destabilized in the same way that Baghdad and the south were.</p>
<p>The Kurds have enjoyed a net plus. Sadaam is gone. They’ve maintained their autonomy. And, gotten a place in the Green Zone government.</p>
<p>Having said that, the Kurds play a role in the inability to come up with a national oil law to distribute petroleum revenues to the Iraqi people and/or reconstruction and economic growth.</p>
<p>Fundmentally, the problem in Iraq is that you have three groups, each jockying for their own interests. The only way to find concensus would be the promise of a “whole” that offers more than the sum of the parts. Right now, there is no such promise, so each of the three groups sees more value in strengthening their own interests and undermining the interests of the others.</p>
<p>If you could magically eliminate the Sunni population, the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south might be able to form a stable partnership, largely because they are so geographically separated and because they both have oil reserves. The Sunni are the “odd-man out” in this equation. They have gone from having total dictatorial power to no power and no oil reserves beyond that that is shared. That’s why the Sunni insurgents have been willing to resort to extreme violence, which in turn triggers ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods by Shia militias.</p>
<p>The crazy thing about the US role is that the Sunni insurgents have been the most aggressive in attacking the US forces, yet the US has essentially sided with the Sunni interests throughout the occupation (at the behest of the Sunni House of Saud).</p>
<p>Fundamentally, the problem in Iraq is the occupation, and virtually every Iraqi knows it.</p>
<p>A deal could have been cut four years ago to hand Sistani power, provide some modicum of protection for the Sunnis (before Al-Qaeda and the former Baathists regrouped), and some measure of autonomy for the Kurds. Sistani would have cleaned up the small insurgent cells. </p>
<p>But the occupiers wanted more, and treated the occupied population with such brutal disregard that the percentage of the population that thinks it is a good thing to kill Americans soared from under 20%, to an overwhelming majority today.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, they are still serving pork three meals a day in the Green Zone.</p>
<p>If we were to pull out of Iraq, you would remove the common enemy (the great Satan) and see a conventional civil war between the Sunnis and the Shia.</p>
<p>Iran would aggressively back the Shia. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria would aggressively back the Sunni. The resources pouring into the fighting would probably result in a very long, very protracted engagement that would occupy significant attention and resources from every Islamic country in the region.</p>
<p>The risk is that the conflict would spill over across the borders into surrounding countries and the potential for disrupting oil supplies. However, ALL of the countries in the region would have a serious motivation to keep the conflict bottled up in Iraq. They are all facing major refugee problems already and none of them could survive long with disruptions to their oil revenues.</p>
<p>This outcome would be devastating for Iraq (although realistically, we are already seeing this civil war and the neighboring countries are already engaged). A prolonged Muslim versus Muslim war in Iraq might not be all that bad from a US perspective (if you have a Kissingeresque stomach for that degree of realpolitik). </p>
<p>This outcome would put Al Queda in a bit of bind. If they continue their partnership of convenience with the Baathist Sunnis, it would make them allies of the House of Saud (who they despite) and enemies of Iran (a major enabler of anti-US terrorism). Neither of those scenarios would be easy for Al Queda to embrace. They would be under blistering attack from Iran and the Shia militias.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the sense of the folk on the ground today is that the US policies have had the effect of undermining Sistani’s authority. He is perceived as having less influence today than in the immediate post-invasion period. There isn’t much principled vision in Iraq today. The situation has deteriorated to the point where armed defense of the neighborhood so you don’t get killed walking down the street is pretty much the primary motivation. At this point, people will take armed defense wherever they can get it – Shia death squads, Sunni insurgents, private mercenary security firms, etc.</p>
<p>The US effectively reduced Sistani’s influence and increased the influence of Al Sadr and his militias.</p>
<p>Sistani is reportedly unwilling take a stand against the Shia death squads. His primary objective at this point is to keep the Shia united, no matter what.</p>
<p>What happened is that the occupiers got greedy, had too much hubris, and had to justify their lies to the world (which had already been found out, and so easily) and to themselves. Mission Accomplished!</p>
<p>Virtually regardless of what the occupiers do now, a pro-Iranian government will take shape. The Shia Arabs in the south and the Sunni Kurds in the north are both pro-Iranian under the skin, and they look to the example of Iran as a success story in resisting U.S. and U.S.-backed aggression. They will also be independent of Iran, as Iraq always has been. The secularists are leaving Iraq at the rate of close to 100,000 a month, and will end up as the real casualties of U.S. aggression, precisely those the U.S. thought they would be serving. </p>
<p>I still think the most important thing my country can do is live up to our responsibility and take them in.</p>
<p>Whatever the ethical and moral obligation, that’s not going to happen. #1. The right is stirring up too much hatred against anyone of Arab or Muslim background and calling for less immigration of them, not more. #2 It would mean admitting that Iraq is worse off than when we came.</p>
<p>We’ve taken in fewer than 500 this year. The Iraqis who most need asylum are those who have worked with the United States. They can’t get to the Green Zone because they will get killed, so their only hope for arranging asylum is to get to a country where there is US embassy support.</p>
<p>One of the main reasons that many experts (including the Baker-Hamilton commission) have advocated a dialog with Iran and Syria is to seek ways of dealing with the Iraqi refugees – a problem that is now so massive (1.7 million Iraqis displaced from their homes) that it requires international humanitarian efforts. </p>
<p>These are the kind of shared, relatively non-political interests that get derailed by heightened levels of Axis of Evil sabre-rattling.</p>
<p>By 1968, America had already started to look back in horror at the McCarthy era, and the refugee process was supposed to screen out Vietnamese who are Communists. </p>
<p>We are going to have a hard time arguing that the Iraq refugees aren’t Muslim and aren’t Arab. And the “Christian nation” movement is still in full swing.</p>
<p>mini: The fact that you don’t take on statements like #371 causes you to loose credibility with me (perhaps others?) in these discussions. You are willing give blather a pass here in order to justify your ends. Not nice.</p>
<p>“Why do we have to give up now? Why at this time?”</p>
<p>Maybe because even people who support the war can’t tell us what victory we’re fighting for. What is it that you want to give the ‘surge’ a chance to accomplish?</p>
<p>re: condoning of other posters here: hh, it isn’t any of our jobs to police other posters who happen to be on our side in a given argument. I’m not holding you accountable for anything ff says, and the anti-war folk are not responsible for “taking on” fellow anti-war posters who may have a different perspective on some philosophical detail.</p>
<p>This from the person who admitted to posting nasty things (like “weak-kneed and spineless”) about Obama out of sheer prejudice (against his party) and partisan spite? No real knowledge of the man or his policies?</p>
<p>Hardly the person to rule on another’s credibility or integrity.</p>
<p>As to the credibility of my contention that the right isn’t going to accept any large number of Iraqi refugees, I can point to real facts. #1 They haven’t so far, despite the 1.7 million who are homeless. #2 Right wingers like Virgil Goode have specifically spoken out against it. (Though I guess since you don’t follow current events, both of these have escaped your notice).</p>
<p>If you can find evidence to suggest that Right wingers do support taking in large numbers of refugees in Iraq (despite their mysterious failure to do so thus far), let’s hear it, instead of pointless character assassination.</p>
<p>Otherwise, take care of the plank in your own eye before trying to point out specks in others’.</p>
<p>Maybe you can cite us some facts about how many “left-wingers” in the “atheist/agnostic nation” movement are willing to accept “a large number of Iraqi refugees.” Thank you.</p>