It May Just be Time to Dust off the “Biden Plan” to End the War in Iraq
Having Another Look at A Way Forward
Some time ago, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., (D-DE) proposed a high-level strategy to bring and end to the war in Iraq called Iraq: A Way Forward. In the proposal, he essentially advocated that a lighter overall hand in Iraq might be the key to keeping the country stable and unified. Considering that the heavy-handed tactics of the Bush Administration have produced little progress, perhaps it is time to take another look at Senator Biden’s five-part proposal in light of the current political situation.
Part 1 - One Iraq, Three Regions
The first proposal is to establish (that is maintain) the single nation of Iraq, but with three relatively autonomous and ethnically based regions or states. Each region would have its own government and the departments it needs to meet the local needs of its constituents. A central government would remain in Baghdad and retain responsibility for national needs that transcend the regions, i.e., border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues, etc.
This proposal is workable, but the ethnic and religious based hostility have not been reduced during the US occupation. Given the results of recent intelligence estimates and Iraqi opinion polls, the US presence has likely exacerbated these tensions. Separating the belligerents and establishing a police or military mechanism to keep them from attacking each other may be a lot harder today than earlier in the war, but it is not impossible. The key would be to position US forces in such a way that they stand as a deterrent and a quick reaction force to inter-factional conflict without standing in the way of everyday Iraqi life.
A smaller more nimble force of US unconventional warfare assets could work in a more local, but low key manner to help local security forces deal with the insurgents. The sooner the US reduces the “presence” of its troops—whether on not it actually reduces the numbers—the sooner the average Iraqi can focus attention on other issues.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi central government could recruit more ethnically diverse security forces and provide professional training to its army and police. Having a national police academy with mixed classes of Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish trainees would be one-step in teaching ethnic and religious tolerance, as well as promote law enforcement consistency and quality across the country. The same is true for the military and local militias. As Iraqi safety and security forces effectively stand up, the US can draw down the number of its troops.
Part 2 - Shared Oil Reserves
Senator Biden correctly proposes that oil reserves are the key to prosperity in Iraq and that all of the Iraqi regions—especially the minority Sunni’s should be guaranteed their fair share of the wealth. The central government would be responsible for distributing and managing oil revenues, which the regions would use to finance their governments and public works projects. This would also give them incentive to support a central government and interact with the other regions.
Since some of the key drivers of insurgency are government oppression and neglect, corruption, and lack of security and safety, these first two parts of Senator Biden’s proposal make a great deal of sense. They promote consistently trained safety and security forces, local political representation for each of the main interest groups, sources of revenue to run the governments and provide basic services, and incentives for working together and accepting a central government in Baghdad.
However, it also implies that there are civilian administrative, political, and financial advisors available to help establish corruption free governments in Iraq that cooperate at all levels. US troops can keep the peace and train the Iraqi military and police, but they are not able to build whole governments. Most importantly, we must have the political will, diplomacy, and international support to convince and support the current Iraqi government to implement such a plan.
Part 3 – Increase Reconstruction Assistance
Senator Biden proposes more reconstruction assistance be provided to Iraq and that it be conditioned upon the protection of minority and women’s rights. He recognizes the value that other countries can add in terms of reconstruction assistance as well.
Since the high unemployment rate in Iraq and the limited opportunities for economic prosperity are surely generating sympathy and support for the anti-American jihadists, we should take this concept even further. The US and other countries should be pooling their resources to fund and help the central and regional Iraqi governments implement large-scale reconstruction efforts aimed specifically at reducing unemployment and kick starting the Iraqi economy. Even though the US and other contributors should retain some form of oversight, the Iraqi central government, working through the regional governments, must be seen by the Iraqi’s as the source of that economic opportunity and its management.
Nonetheless, funding should come as a condition of the regional government’s cooperation and adherence to a national strategy—but not a centralized plan—for reconstruction. It should require diversity and anti-corruption clauses, and auditing mechanisms for progress, workmanship, and fiscal responsibility. Any agency, official, company, or individual who does not live up to expectations should be held accountable as appropriate.
This part of the plan would offer opportunities for meaningful employment, better standards of living, economic prosperity, and could help replace the humiliation of foreign occupation with personal, regional, and national pride for having rebuilt local communities and the nation in a way that meets the desires of the Iraqi people.
Of course this would be very expensive, but most people would much rather the US used its wealth in the form of a positive economic investment in the region as opposed to a non-recoverable military expenditure.
Part 4 – Maintain Iraq’s Territorial Integrity
Senator Biden proposes that the United Nations, supported by influential member states and some of Iraq’s key neighbors, could help the new government establish national and regional stability. It is actually in the best interest of Iraq’s neighbors to support this initiative.
Iran
Iran does not gain anything from Iraqi instability and probably prefers a relatively moderate Iraqi national government. Otherwise a Shiite dominated government or theocracy in Iraq simply creates competition for Iranian Shiite political-religious preeminence in the region. Furthermore, the Shiites of Iraq are not as closely linked to the Shiites of Iran as is commonly believed. They will work together against a common enemy, but there is still lingering mistrust from the Iran-Iraq war and differences of ideology that matter. Furthermore, the Iranians are predominantly ethnic Persians and not Arabs as in Iraq.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has a significant interest in a stable Iraq because of its ties to the Sunni minority in Iraq and because the stable production of oil is the basis for the Saudi economy and government stability. Increased competition from oil production in Iraq is not a threat to the Saudi’s since overall global demand for oil remains high. A larger civil conflict in Iraq could easily pull in Sunni’s from Saudi Arabia and embroil that country in a conflict that destabilizes the Saudi economy and government.
Turkey
Turkey benefits from a territorially stable Iraq as long as the northern Iraqi Kurds remain a legitimate and stable regional government within the country. More severe civil conflict in Iraq could tempt the Iraqi Kurds to establish their own independent nation, which could stir up the aspirations for independence for Kurdish populations living in Turkey and Iran.
Of course, all the nations in the region would eventually benefit from a more robust Iraqi economy and stable government in terms of trade and security, especially a government that no longer invades or embroils its neighbors in major wars.
Part 5 – Drawdown US Troops
Senator Biden proposes that the President set an objective for US troops to be out of Iraq by 2008 or sooner, and that the US maintain a smaller force of some 20,000 US troops in or near Iraq as a quick reaction force.
This proposal is fine as long as realistic and manageable conditions for troop withdrawal are established ahead of time. However, more than one set of conditions must be set. One set must assume that we will leave after accomplishing some clearly defined Iraqi stabilization and security objectives. The other must be based upon some set of failure criteria—in other words, if we do not see the progress we require by a certain point we would cut our immediate losses and withdraw.
Once the withdrawal conditions are set, US commanders can establish a realistic operational plan with meaningful milestones for exiting the country. Contrary to the Bush Administration’s claims, a publicized plan for withdrawal and active reporting and management to that plan does not work to enemy’s advantage. For example, the US plan could call for the creation of a certain number of operational infantry brigades by a certain date in order for a specified number of US troops to withdraw. Public knowledge of progress and any adjustments to the plan does not provide the insurgents with any information they could not already get. Furthermore, reportable progress is exactly what every stakeholder—from Iraqi citizens to foreign aid organizations—require to continue to support that plan. Reportable and meaningful progress is exactly what it takes to erode the popular sympathy and support for the enemy.
In conclusion, it is clearly time to consider alternatives like Senator Biden’s because staying the course of the Bush Administration continues to work against our victory and Iraq’s future. Sadly, even if the Biden plan was to work perfectly and we were to leave Iraq completely it will require many years and even more precious lives.
Sadder still, “victory” in Iraq will not bring us victory in the broader global war on terror, but it might bring us a step closer. Oppression and injustice will continue to thrive throughout the Islamic world and radical organizations like Al-Qaeda will continue to garner just enough popular support to maintain their anti-American and anti-democracy ideals. Al-Qaeda and its supporters desire an Islamic Theocratic Region with no outside influence from the West. Nonetheless, even after a victory in Iraq, the US and the West will continue to have political and economic interests in the region, so the root cause of the conflict with Al-Qaeda remains. As long as any popular support for Al-Qaeda is in place, the threat of continued terrorist attacks on the US and the West remain very real.
Some time ago, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., (D-DE) proposed a high-level strategy to bring and end to the war in Iraq called Iraq: A Way Forward. In the proposal, he essentially advocated that a lighter overall hand in Iraq might be the key to keeping the country stable and unified. Considering that the heavy-handed tactics of the Bush Administration have produced little progress, perhaps it is time to take another look at Senator Biden’s five-part proposal in light of the current political situation.
Part 1 - One Iraq, Three Regions
The first proposal is to establish (that is maintain) the single nation of Iraq, but with three relatively autonomous and ethnically based regions or states. Each region would have its own government and the departments it needs to meet the local needs of its constituents. A central government would remain in Baghdad and retain responsibility for national needs that transcend the regions, i.e., border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues, etc.
This proposal is workable, but the ethnic and religious based hostility have not been reduced during the US occupation. Given the results of recent intelligence estimates and Iraqi opinion polls, the US presence has likely exacerbated these tensions. Separating the belligerents and establishing a police or military mechanism to keep them from attacking each other may be a lot harder today than earlier in the war, but it is not impossible. The key would be to position US forces in such a way that they stand as a deterrent and a quick reaction force to inter-factional conflict without standing in the way of everyday Iraqi life.
A smaller more nimble force of US unconventional warfare assets could work in a more local, but low key manner to help local security forces deal with the insurgents. The sooner the US reduces the “presence” of its troops—whether on not it actually reduces the numbers—the sooner the average Iraqi can focus attention on other issues.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi central government could recruit more ethnically diverse security forces and provide professional training to its army and police. Having a national police academy with mixed classes of Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish trainees would be one-step in teaching ethnic and religious tolerance, as well as promote law enforcement consistency and quality across the country. The same is true for the military and local militias. As Iraqi safety and security forces effectively stand up, the US can draw down the number of its troops.
Part 2 - Shared Oil Reserves
Senator Biden correctly proposes that oil reserves are the key to prosperity in Iraq and that all of the Iraqi regions—especially the minority Sunni’s should be guaranteed their fair share of the wealth. The central government would be responsible for distributing and managing oil revenues, which the regions would use to finance their governments and public works projects. This would also give them incentive to support a central government and interact with the other regions.
Since some of the key drivers of insurgency are government oppression and neglect, corruption, and lack of security and safety, these first two parts of Senator Biden’s proposal make a great deal of sense. They promote consistently trained safety and security forces, local political representation for each of the main interest groups, sources of revenue to run the governments and provide basic services, and incentives for working together and accepting a central government in Baghdad.
However, it also implies that there are civilian administrative, political, and financial advisors available to help establish corruption free governments in Iraq that cooperate at all levels. US troops can keep the peace and train the Iraqi military and police, but they are not able to build whole governments. Most importantly, we must have the political will, diplomacy, and international support to convince and support the current Iraqi government to implement such a plan.
Part 3 – Increase Reconstruction Assistance
Senator Biden proposes more reconstruction assistance be provided to Iraq and that it be conditioned upon the protection of minority and women’s rights. He recognizes the value that other countries can add in terms of reconstruction assistance as well.
Since the high unemployment rate in Iraq and the limited opportunities for economic prosperity are surely generating sympathy and support for the anti-American jihadists, we should take this concept even further. The US and other countries should be pooling their resources to fund and help the central and regional Iraqi governments implement large-scale reconstruction efforts aimed specifically at reducing unemployment and kick starting the Iraqi economy. Even though the US and other contributors should retain some form of oversight, the Iraqi central government, working through the regional governments, must be seen by the Iraqi’s as the source of that economic opportunity and its management.
Nonetheless, funding should come as a condition of the regional government’s cooperation and adherence to a national strategy—but not a centralized plan—for reconstruction. It should require diversity and anti-corruption clauses, and auditing mechanisms for progress, workmanship, and fiscal responsibility. Any agency, official, company, or individual who does not live up to expectations should be held accountable as appropriate.
This part of the plan would offer opportunities for meaningful employment, better standards of living, economic prosperity, and could help replace the humiliation of foreign occupation with personal, regional, and national pride for having rebuilt local communities and the nation in a way that meets the desires of the Iraqi people.
Of course this would be very expensive, but most people would much rather the US used its wealth in the form of a positive economic investment in the region as opposed to a non-recoverable military expenditure.
Part 4 – Maintain Iraq’s Territorial Integrity
Senator Biden proposes that the United Nations, supported by influential member states and some of Iraq’s key neighbors, could help the new government establish national and regional stability. It is actually in the best interest of Iraq’s neighbors to support this initiative.
Iran
Iran does not gain anything from Iraqi instability and probably prefers a relatively moderate Iraqi national government. Otherwise a Shiite dominated government or theocracy in Iraq simply creates competition for Iranian Shiite political-religious preeminence in the region. Furthermore, the Shiites of Iraq are not as closely linked to the Shiites of Iran as is commonly believed. They will work together against a common enemy, but there is still lingering mistrust from the Iran-Iraq war and differences of ideology that matter. Furthermore, the Iranians are predominantly ethnic Persians and not Arabs as in Iraq.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has a significant interest in a stable Iraq because of its ties to the Sunni minority in Iraq and because the stable production of oil is the basis for the Saudi economy and government stability. Increased competition from oil production in Iraq is not a threat to the Saudi’s since overall global demand for oil remains high. A larger civil conflict in Iraq could easily pull in Sunni’s from Saudi Arabia and embroil that country in a conflict that destabilizes the Saudi economy and government.
Turkey
Turkey benefits from a territorially stable Iraq as long as the northern Iraqi Kurds remain a legitimate and stable regional government within the country. More severe civil conflict in Iraq could tempt the Iraqi Kurds to establish their own independent nation, which could stir up the aspirations for independence for Kurdish populations living in Turkey and Iran.
Of course, all the nations in the region would eventually benefit from a more robust Iraqi economy and stable government in terms of trade and security, especially a government that no longer invades or embroils its neighbors in major wars.
Part 5 – Drawdown US Troops
Senator Biden proposes that the President set an objective for US troops to be out of Iraq by 2008 or sooner, and that the US maintain a smaller force of some 20,000 US troops in or near Iraq as a quick reaction force.
This proposal is fine as long as realistic and manageable conditions for troop withdrawal are established ahead of time. However, more than one set of conditions must be set. One set must assume that we will leave after accomplishing some clearly defined Iraqi stabilization and security objectives. The other must be based upon some set of failure criteria—in other words, if we do not see the progress we require by a certain point we would cut our immediate losses and withdraw.
Once the withdrawal conditions are set, US commanders can establish a realistic operational plan with meaningful milestones for exiting the country. Contrary to the Bush Administration’s claims, a publicized plan for withdrawal and active reporting and management to that plan does not work to enemy’s advantage. For example, the US plan could call for the creation of a certain number of operational infantry brigades by a certain date in order for a specified number of US troops to withdraw. Public knowledge of progress and any adjustments to the plan does not provide the insurgents with any information they could not already get. Furthermore, reportable progress is exactly what every stakeholder—from Iraqi citizens to foreign aid organizations—require to continue to support that plan. Reportable and meaningful progress is exactly what it takes to erode the popular sympathy and support for the enemy.
In conclusion, it is clearly time to consider alternatives like Senator Biden’s because staying the course of the Bush Administration continues to work against our victory and Iraq’s future. Sadly, even if the Biden plan was to work perfectly and we were to leave Iraq completely it will require many years and even more precious lives.
Sadder still, “victory” in Iraq will not bring us victory in the broader global war on terror, but it might bring us a step closer. Oppression and injustice will continue to thrive throughout the Islamic world and radical organizations like Al-Qaeda will continue to garner just enough popular support to maintain their anti-American and anti-democracy ideals. Al-Qaeda and its supporters desire an Islamic Theocratic Region with no outside influence from the West. Nonetheless, even after a victory in Iraq, the US and the West will continue to have political and economic interests in the region, so the root cause of the conflict with Al-Qaeda remains. As long as any popular support for Al-Qaeda is in place, the threat of continued terrorist attacks on the US and the West remain very real.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home