Can We All Just Agree On A Plan?

By Kav

First of all I am very happy to see that traffic on Cabal has gone up and that good debate is with us again. I think this is an important resource and that we criminally underused it for a few months.

Well, tomorrow is election day in the US of A and you guys have a choice between Bush or Kerry. I'm not going to comment on the merits or faults of either candidate. The last thing I want to be accused of, as a foreign citizen, is trying to influence your election. Instead I would like to propose a challenge. In an effort to break away from partisan politics I want to see if us great thinkers on this 'ere board can achieve consensus on an important issue. More than that I want to see whether we can come up with ideas for dealing with problems in the world without resorting to jumping into party lines.

So, to that end, I have a simple question, one that has a potentially very complicated answer:

What should we do next in Iraq?

That's it. Now here are my rules:

1) no bitching about previous mistakes - real or imagined. We are there and we to need think forward. Ideas should progress from how things stand as of today the 1 November 2004.

2) no mentioning of Bush or Kerry - these ideas are simply how we should proceed and what are aims should be. Feel free to use their ideas but in this case there is no need to reference the originators.

3) no hyping of parties or ideologies beyond the need to describe an idea in context, e.g. 'perhaps we should adopt the communist solution of ...'

4) no slagging off of parties or ideologies.

I declare myself the dictator responsible for deciding whether the rules have been broken and a virtual arse-kicking shall be delivered to the perpetrator! Of course this might betray my personal biases as much as breaking the rules might betray your own but so be it.

I am intrigued to see whether we can get anywhere and achieve any kind of consensus. I understand the problems of not having full information on the problem but we can all try. If there is anyone game enough to have a go I suggest they write a comment; this is our chance to step into the roles of politicians and talk with a diverse set of capable minds that hold differing view points. Surely a fantastic opportunity.

Comments

[Hubris]

Good rules, Kav.

At this point, is it sort of a choice between cracking down harder on the insurgent/terrorist strongholds (and thereby risking more innocent casualties), or trying to increase the stability of the fledgling democracy? If that is the choice (and some may dispute that in this thread), I would choose the latter.

Pour all of our resources into creating an environment for stable/fair elections (Afghanistan was pretty cool, wasn't it?) and strengthening the means of self-governance (and security) for the Iraqi government.

If we can foster an environment where insurgents are rebelling against an Iraqi government that Iraqis feel is truly of their own choosing, then the perspective on the insurgents would change radically in both Iraq and the Middle East at large, I think.

Of course, I'm a bit of a dreamer...

[Averroes]

One of the retired military men was talking about who slowly the reconstruction was going, and how that was helping to fuel the discontent. he said that all those companies in there meant well, but just weren't up to the task in those conditins.

His suggestion: pick a medium sized city in an area where there isn't a whole lot of insurgency, probably in the south. Bring in some Navy Seabees, and have them get the electricity, water, sewage and major buildings back in order, clean the place up, get the schools going, etc. He said they could do it well and much faxter than civilian companies.

Then make this city a showplace, and have the iraqi government push the message that your city could have all this, plus the jobs and other benefits that went with it, if you cooperated and took a stand against the insurgents.

He said that as cooperation rose, the civilian companies could do more. Important would be to use Iraqi companies and workers where possible.

The Seabees have the experience and know how tro build in adverse conditions.

You know, Kav, bitchin' about the past is a lot easier than looking toward a solution.

Hubris, i think your "choice" is rather better seen as the former being a sine qua non for the latter.

[Kav]

There's nothing wrong with dreaming. Cynics try to crush our romantacism (I know I am one) but how can we get anywhere if we don't at least try and follow our dreams?

As an aside, I have a lot of issues with this current administration on a number of topics but one thing I was definitely pleased with was the elections in Afghanistan. Okay so its not quite the same as Iraq but if we could do it there then surely there is some hope for Iraq, no?

[Hubris]

Averroes,

Good idea and point taken on the first being necessary for the second. I guess I'm splitting them in the sense that there is some choice available in our tactics, and I'm also hoping that strengthening the Iraqi forces would result in less of a need for crackdowns carried out solely/primarily by the American forces.

[Kav]

'You know, Kav, bitchin' about the past is a lot easier than looking toward a solution.'

I know, that's why I hoped to remove it from this particular process. I agree that we should evaluate our past efforts, acknowledge our mistakes, learn from them and take credit/blame when due, but eventually there comes a time when you need to push that to one side and discuss options for going forward without getting mired down in accusations and blame. By all means play the blame game but just not in this thread :-)

I think that this military man chappie of whom you speak is on the right track. Call it salami tactics; start with one town and city, then move on the next all the time showing how things can be and maybe taking the fight and resentment out of the insurgents. One slice at a time.

another aside. Why is Basra as quiet as it is? It cannot all be down to the differnent approaches of the American and UK forces? (Even though I enjoy that slight swell of smugness that we seem to do the job better :-)). Is it history? Demographics? What? And can we emulate it to the north in some way?

[Averroes]

" Why is Basra as quiet as it is?"

Two reasons:

1) Shia.

2) Northern Ireland.

[Curtis Erhart]

Averroes,

I like your idea a lot, but wouldn't the city have to be a Sunni, i.e., not in the South, city? The Kurds are doing rather well in the North and the Shia are doing better, if not as well, in the south, and neither is helping the Sunnis feel like they themselves have a stake in fighting the insurgency.

[Kav]

Curtis, I see what you mean, but of course we need to pick somewhere that is relatively safe for the workers to get the job done. Can anyone suggest a Sunni dominated city that might fit the bill?

[Curtis Erhart]

Or possibly you could pick a town that was small enough to pacify with overwhelming force. A force that wouldn't be challenged.

[Chum]

There are a number of things hat could immediately improve the perceptions of our intentions:

1. Stop building the U. S. military bases scattered around Iraq. This would send a message that we have no permanent designs of occupation.

2. Set up a program to immediately distribute oil proceeds. The lack of accounting and accountability leaves current practices little diferent than the oil for food program. Having a vested interest might help stop the sabotage of the pipelines.

3. Dump Allawi and find a true Iraqi nationalist that Iraqis could rally behind. Propping up an ex-CIA operative who finds force as an optimum solution will never garner the level of support needed to incite ordinary Iraqis to contribute in a meaningful way to the security situation.

4. Get most of the contractors and foreign workers out of Iraq. The lack of jobs coupled with the connotation associated with giving available work to outsiders only adds fuel to the fires of despair. At one point the Iraqi people built much infrastructure, and it is time for THEM to do it again. People are usually loathe to see destroyed what they build themselves.

5. Actually make an earnest attempt to begin reconstruction. Much of the money earmarked for this endeavor has not ben allocated. Is the reason for this because of the lack of security or is the lack of security a function of unavailable work?

6. Truly isolate the Iraq hotspots while at the same time halting the attacks that kill innocent folks. If accomplished then the city by city approach at reconstruction might be able to be achieved.

7. Find a way to take the American face off of the war. This is hard to acomplish while saving face, but this is a key component to starting on a different path towards true Iraqi sovereignty.

8. Show some level of contrition for the innocents killed and maimed, as well as for the damage already done. The Iraqi people aren't in a thankful mood and we are still scratching our heads wondering why. We don't have to walk in another's shoe's to know that they no longer fit.

Another key is understanding the insurgency. I don't get a feeling that we still don't really know who is behind it and what their ultimate goals are. What if it is the incredible shame they feel for being occupied? Eventually other Iraqis will have to deal with this faction, and it appears the current training program for police is not working.

[Averroes]

Chum, i always love your sunny, positive writings.

1) if you have a military, you need a base. What would you do with all those troops?

2) We don't own the oil, so we can't set up a program to diestribute the proceeds. The iraqis have chosen to do other things with it. write them.

3) Allawi is fine. and temporary. But then, you probably oppose elections, thinking that we should just pick a better dictator. Oh, i know, I'll see you here in february, and you will say that the election was a sham and we made sure that the new guy was someone we wanted. (Write the thing now, to save time then. That way you can just plug in the name.)

4) Good idea, as I stated above. I read a story of a bridge, one of three, being built over the Tigris, which had taken over a year. A local iraqi said that when they were bombed out in the first gulf war, Saddam had them all rebuilt in a couple of months. Iraqis are complaining that much of the work that was done early, such as in the drive to get the schools ready after the first summer, was shoddy. "Even we could do it better!"

But, in fact, there is employment. The reconstruction is not all bad.

5) Ever hear of a bureaucracy? Getting shot at slows things. By the way, there has been plenty of reconstruction.

6) HAHAaHAa. This one is a lot like "Secure the iraq border." Of course, it is most often stated as, "Bush didn't secure the iraqi border."

You know, i'll just bet that when they DID isolate hotspots, you were critical.

7) Your recommendation? Early on, Thomas Friedman (a ccard-carrying liberal) said that it was essential to get Americans out of the cities, especially in the Sunni triangle, because Americans are "radioactive" in that area. He thought iut could be done if NATO took over in the cities. (Other Arab countries would never take part.)

Your job, Chum, is to explain how to get NATO there.

8) I feel your self-important moral indignation, chum. if only all the soldiers in Iraq were as morally upstanding and sensitive as you. Kumbayah!

I suggest you go to iraq and set an example.

" I don't get a feeling that we still don't really know who is behind it and what their ultimate goals are."

I guess we didn't get their letter.

According to the Iraqi bloggers, both America hating and those who like us, the reasons for the insurgency are complex.

[Chum]

Leave it to Averroes in the true spirit of coming up with solutions to real problems to worry more bout the designs of the poster than on the merits of what is suggested. Off the top of my head (yes Averroes, I have one of those) I came up with 8 possible remedies while you came up with a single borrowed thought as your only proposal. What amazes me most is your being totally oblivious as to who is calling (and firing) the shots over there. All of the above could b done if sio desired.

I'm going to break the ground rules here and state that as a result of last night's election none of things proferred will be remotely considered with the end result being the one good line Kerry had throughout the entire process - more of the same!

[pyrrho]

I think that the main issue is democracy.

Democracy can emerge all of the sudden from it's opposite... so we always have a chance.

We need to help free elections occur and recur.

I would like to see a bunch of election "reconstruction" offices. Down to the neighborhood level let the Iraqis elect representatives that would get part time stipends to monitor certain efforts and represent their neighborhoods, low level positions like "Local Water Supply Commissioner" and such for electricity, education etc...

This would allow Iraqi's to identify the people they trust to represent them civically and give such people a small subsidy in return for them watching reconstruction in a micromanaged way, and create a field of candidates for future national elections.

But in the end, it's just about the democracy.

[Nussmier]

Pyrrho: I like the idea but we cant keep high ranking government officials safe. How are we going to keep low level peeps who want to work with us safe?

[Kav]

Chum, one virtual arse kicking to you for breaking the rules. The point of this exercise was to attempt to have a thread where we don't complain about the politicians.

Averroes, consider yourself on an arse-kicking yellow card for:
"Bush didn't secure the iraqi border." and 'a ccard-carrying liberal'

The former could be interpreted as a dig at the attitides and percieved idiocy of anti-Bushites and the latter added no real information to the debate; why does it matter if he is a liberal who carries a card? It would have been enough to say that he had said it.

I like that ideas are being bandied around and critiqued. It would be nice if we could come up with a coherant and somewhat refined plan of action. I hope to add some more to the debate tomorrow when I am less knackered...

[pyrrho]

serioulsy I want one bullet point on the joint cabal resolution... maximizing the chance of democracy.

Nussmier,

good point but I don't care. We do it and let security fall in place. If they are honest elections, the insurgency would be attacking people THAT NEIGHBORHOOD elected.

I think the real danger is more that this could promote radicals with local support... but you need these people out in public taking part in open society anyway.

My hopes for Iraq are not strong... the thread of hope comes from the fact that democracy can leap unexpected from any odd situation, including this one.

[rAs]

These are all great thoughts on this important matter, even Chum and Averroes' quibbles. I had to wait until the election was over to come up with some pragmatic ideas:

1. Fire Rumsfeld

Before a major change of tactics in Iraq, we need to signal our intent to the world by dismissing this incompetent man. Rumsfeld has managed to make nothing but bad calls throughout this entire campaign, from failing to designate enough troops to the occupation, to overestimating the Iraqi's approval of being occupied, to failing to armor our humvees and supply trucks, to failing to secure the nuclear facilities. Bush should use his "mandate" as empowerment to send the quarterback to the showers.

2. Double Our Troop Strength and Take the Fight to the Insurgents in a Ground War

The reason the number of insurgents are increasing is because we are using long-range bombing tactics. This kills countless civilians, and the families of those civilians join the insurgency. No one is going to like it, but taking the country back street by street in close-quarters combat will reduce civilian casualties and restore order.

This is not a politically-smart tactic, however, as this will also mean increased American casualties. So the question becomes: Do American's have a strong enough will to do this the right way? If Bush's reelection shows American support for his policies, then I think it's time for us to prove we can do what needs to be done.

3. Flood Secured Zones with Humanitarian Aid

As streets are secured, give those people the humanitarian relief we promised them so long ago. This will remove motivations to join the insurgency. People with full bellies and safe streets don't take up arms against the troops who brought them such prosperity.

Again, not a politically-smart tactic. This will cost money and America's a little strapped for cash at the moment. Spending cuts will be needed all over, including Democrat and Republican causes, less social-services and less experimental defense spending. We need that money for our troops and Iraqi welfare.

That taps me out, but that's what I see as the reality of what needs to happen in Iraq. The Idealism I hear from everyone is nice, but I think it's getting us into trouble.

[Batman]

rAs:
Good to hear your ideas. I gotta say, I don't think more troops is the answer. That just gives the insurgents more targets and upsets the locals even more. Plus, that means we are getting deeper involved rather than working our way out. I just don't think more troops will make fighting the insurgents any easier, I don't think that this is the problem.
I think Rumsfeld will resign very soon, as will Powell. However, I don't share your feelings that he should be fired. I just don't think he has performed as poorly as you do.

[rAs]

Batman,

We have no intention of pulling out of Iraq. The plan is to build military bases there and use the country as a foothold for democracy in the Middle East. I have philosophical problems with this intention, but since that's the plan and America approves it, then I'm getting on board to make sure it's done right.

If we pull out of Iraq without stabilizing the country, it will decend into Civil War, democracy will fail, and we will have a country far less liberalized than when Saddam controlled it. Putting more troops on the ground will give the insurgents more targets, but it also increases security on the streets. I hate the idea of more American soldiers coming home in flag-drapped coffins, but I also hate the idea that the efforts of the 1000+ soldiers who have already died and the countless others who are disfigured by this war going to waste.

[Kent Brockman]

rAs, I'm not sure if either you or Batman are right. Certainly, the construction of more permanent bases seems to imply that we are going to hang around in Iraq for quite a while. On the other hand, I have seen over the past year more and more comments, that we did our duty in Iraq, set them on the right path and gave them all the chance that they could expect. Now it's their responsibility to make something of it. Either way, the US will be safer, even if Iraq will descend into civil war for a while. (Their argument, not mine.)

[Hubris]

Kent Brockman is more articulate than I ever imagined! (Just teasing man, I know your IP). ;)

[hrun]

:) I just forgot to switch back to my usual self. Maybe I should get some drugs from Averroes for my multiple personalities.

[Averroes]

rAs, I'm going to pick on you, but i must say that i am just picking an example. We are all a couple of oceans away, talkint with complete assurance about that if which we know little. Chum is absolutely sure about "who is calling the shots," having a direct line to what is going on in Iraq.

Many of the solutions are "bell the cat" solutions, fine enough in the abstract. Our problem is that if we hold ourselves to practical solutions based on real, ground-level problems, we will have to be honest enough to admit that we have few. And the Chum can chikde us for offering borrowed solutions, borrowed, i hope, from those clooser to the situation.

So, rAs, let's take your first. I think you are putting decisions made in the field on Rumsfeld. What i would say is that Rumsfeld had a vision of how the military shouod be configured. When the military argues that he was wrong, he should certainly go.

We seem to have forgotten, or, i suspect, never knew, that war is hell. Many of the criticisms of Rumsfeld reflect a certain naivete about the military and war. I remember my father, who rarely spoke of his war, once saying that he felt sorry for those who ppoured into France in the wake of D-Day to fight in tanks because they knew they were inferior to the tanks the Germans had. They were death traps. When advaced equipment is issued, it tak4es time to equip the entire military, and then new advanced equipment is brought on. It is a continuous process. Guard units tend to be two rounds behind the regular military.

One must remember that the commanders in the field got the troops they requested, and that the troops originally sceduled to go through Turkey never got into iraq until the war was over. If you were going to criticize Rumsfeld from a military persp[ecxtive, you would certainly trace many kf the after war problems to his decision to try to make thois the most sensitive war in history, to absolutely minimize civilian damage. Had he ordered the inceniary carpet bombiong of all the major iraqi cities, there would have been very little of the insurgency we see now. Perhpas your replacement will be more of a hard nosed military person who would make suych decisions.

As for doubling the troop strength, this is truly a bell the cat solution. it is a bit like "provide the troops with fully armored vehicles." It is what everyone would like to do.

On troop strength, i think we need to responsibly DECREASE our troop strength. We must do this. We need iraqi troops and police, and it would be nice for NATO to move in.

And, of course, we would like to flood the secure zones with humanitarian aid. but, in fact, NGOs are leaving. Doctors without Borders announced that they were leaving today.
\
We just don't have the ability to magically make humanitarian aid to appear, more than we have put in ourselves.

Real solutions must start from a sense of the reality on the ground, which, i am afraid, we do not have. We need to be able to say, "we need these medicines here," instead of talk of flooding with aid. part of the problem is that we depend for our information on a sensationalist media, and on ideological dreams.

For an example of something closer, see my next post.

[Averroes]

I am going to copy some of Alaa's blog, where he identifies specific problems and offers some possible solutions. It is messy. But there is a certain understanding and reality to these posts. I have trimmed them a little where i could. Alaa is not always clear, mixing problems and suggestions together. I am sorry, Chum, of these are borrowed. I offer them for enlightenment, not self-aggrandizement.

---------------

[Greetings Friends,

My old friend Lee C. wrote:

“I fail to see the logic of turning against the Interim Government.Why are the Iraqi people not turning on the "foreign fighters", the Jihadi, Sadr and his gang, the Ba'athi remnants and rest of the insurgency?”

Well, Lee, I am not saying that it is logical; however the popular mood is very much incensed because of frustration in the face of the apparent inability of the Government to stem the tide of terrorism that is plaguing our country.

Of course, the worst thing that could happen is the kind of sectarian conflict that seems to be the aim of the terrorist groups. If you remember there was this famous letter of Zarqawi, which I have written about at the time. That letter, which I am convinced of its authenticity was very clear and more or less outlined a complete plan of action. One of the main objectives explicitly stated in that letter was this objective of precipitating a sectarian civil war in Iraq. If you study carefully the pattern of violence and terrorism you will clearly see that there is a definite sectarian orientation to these acts, and most of the victims are from certain religious and ethnic groups (Shiaa, Kurds, Christians – together the vast majority). However to be fair, the Sunni areas have also suffered numerous attacks, the latest of which was the attack on the National Guards posts in Al Baghdadi town in the West of Iraq. Also the victims in the frequent attacks in Mosul and elsewhere were not Shiaa people. We must however, struggle, with all our might to combat this sectarianism, for it is a vile plot to destroy the country.

The people are incensed for many reasons some of which are:

- During the disturbance in Najaf, the Government and the MNF took very decisive action and we all saw the consequences. Similarly, the problem in Sadr City was dealt with resolutely. However, no such firmness is seen in regard to the situation in locations such as Latifiya, Diala and the like.
- Latifiya, is a small town, much smaller than Najaf. This place has become the haven for the most hardened criminal gangs. There is a stretch of highway no longer than 10 km which goes by this town. This road has seen repeated murders, kidnappings, and harassment of quite innocent travelers, mostly in fact in one point on this road. The bandits simply commit these acts and go home in time for dinner and comfortable beds. It is established for instance, that the incarceration and beheading of the American and British Engineers took place in that very town. They have even attacked funeral processions of people taking their dead to nearby Karbala, as is the custom with Shiaa people. The murder of the policemen returning from Jordan took place at precisely the same point on that road. Even my relative who was kidnapped lately was attacked in the same place. The Government claimed several times that it has chastised this area and arrested many individuals, yet the atrocities continue to be perpetrated, in even greater frequency and scale. So people are wondering why is it that the Government and the MNF is so ineffective in this area, when they were so determined in the case of Najaf and Sadr City. Also the fact that one of the important persons responsible for national security in the Government happens to be of the same tribe as the main population of the town is not lost on people.
- The above is only one example of several such similar areas. Some areas of Baghdad are also known to be haven for terrorists.
- It is well known, that the policy of Dr. Ayad Allawi, is to try to rehabilitate some of the elements of the previous regime. Although I personally support this policy, yet there are obvious dangers here. The people suspect that infiltration and covert collaboration with the terrorists is taking place from within the new security formations as has been demonstrated in the latest atrocity of the massacre of the unarmed young volunteers near Mandili. The assailants knew exactly about the movement of these poor guys and were waiting in ambush. They were sent unarmed on a desolate road and at night, completely without any protection. Those responsible in the training camp must be investigated, at least for criminal negligence.
- Why should the soldiers, mainly from the Southern parts, be brought to this dangerous location for training? Wouldn’t it have been safer to train them nearer home in much more secure areas?
- We have yet to see a single public prosecution of any of the perpetrators of these atrocities, although, both the American and Iraqi authorities claim that they have captured many. This is most peculiar and highly suspicious.
- Sadr and his followers are open, public and frank opposition, and every one of their leaders is working in broad daylight. They are not some dark figures working underground and using terrorist car bombings and suicide attacks. This fact must be stated, in fairness, regardless whether we like that movement or not. Therefore it is not correct to class them with the terrorists of Fallujah and Latifiyah etc.

Above are some of the points that are troubling people. For my part I sincerely hope that the Government acts quickly to dispel these misgivings and regain the trust and support of the people which is beginning to wane.

Salaam]

Alaa in a later post, expands on one problem and focuses on the area around Latifiyah:

[Hi,

This piece of news:

“An Iraqi insurgent group, meanwhile, said on a Web site it had taken 11 Iraqi National Guard soldiers hostage.
They were seized on a highway between Baghdad and Hillah, according to the Internet posting by the militant group, the Ansar al-Sunnah Army. The posting included the names of all 11.”

The location mentioned above is also roughly in the area mentioned in my previous post. It is a big mistake that this region is not properly controlled. It seems to me that the military strategy requires drastic revision. This pocket of Latifiya-Yousifiya-Iskandarya, which by the way is connected by a back road to the Falujah area, must be under careful surveillance as a matter of urgency. I know this area very well as I have done much work there. In this particular triangle which is situated just to the south of Baghdad, were concentrated the installations of “War Industrialization”, of Sadam. The previous regime has taken care to populate this region with the “right kind” of demography. For instance, the ammunition and explosive manufacturing complexes of “Al Qaqaa” which is connected with another complex called “Hittin”, which in turn leads to the industrial complex of “Iskandariya Mechanical Industries”, form a vast expanse of manufacturing compounds. From the vicinity of Al-Qaqaa complex there is a road which crosses the river nearby where a strategic bridge was built by “The Military Industrialization Corps” in the late eighties. Crossing that bridge there is a highway which passes through an area called “Jurf Al Sakhar”, where a major project of Petrochemical Industry and a refinery had been planned since long time. In the eighties of the last century the last project was actually a joint venture with a consortium led by “Bechtel”, with American financing, and the work was actually started in the eighties and early nineties, but of course could not continue.

The highway continues to lead to an area called “Amiriyah” which is on the outskirts of Fallujah, and where many of other war industry complexes are located, such as the famous “Saddam Establishment” for the manufacture of artillery and related hardware, built by the Yugoslavs in the seventies. Many other factories were planned and actually started in this area, many of which have much to do with the WMD programs. This entire region is a sparsely populated wilderness, (apart from an ultra modern housing town in Amiriyah, and the housing compounds of Iskandariya) with tribal peasant communities here and there, with the military installations mentioned above largely in ruins, but nevertheless providing excellent hiding places for any subterranean groups, not to mention the important stocks of explosives and other hardware which were extensively looted and hidden by the ex-regime bandits and their ilk in these regions, no doubt with the collusion of many of the local peasants, to whom many of the bandits are related tribally. Thus the latest revelation of the disappearance of about 350 tons of high explosives from Al Qaqaa site does not surprise me or any Iraqi in the least, and I am sure this is but a small sample of the stuff actually in the hands of the peasants and bandits around there and elsewhere in the country. People don’t seem to realize the enormity of the quantities of weaponry and ammunition of all kinds that existed before the fall of the regime. Saddam had at one time a standing army of 2 millions and sufficient armament and ammunition for these as well as the numerous security organizations. Where do you think all this material has gone? (. . .)

Thus armed groups of terrorists and insurgents can move about freely and in small groups throughout this rather large area, and have no problem in finding shelter from a population, either intimidated or actually sympathetic, not to mention the lucrative business of kidnappings and ransoms which is developing into a major industry in these parts, in addition to financial support which is pouring generously from many sources. To pin them down and track them requires considerable effort and skill. Nevertheless, to control these parts is more important in my opinion than even the problem of Fallujah. Another rather similar area is situated near the Iranian border in the east in the Governorate of Diala, where constant harassment by the subversives is going on, including the latest massacre of the poor army recruits. In my humble opinion, neutralizing and controlling these regions should precede any push towards the urban concentrations of the West.]

My own suggestins are simpler. Mostly they involve the Americans being less American.

1) We need to stop throwing money at things, stop thinking that materialism is the driving force in everyone's life. As one tribsl chief told an American commander when offered money to solve another problem, "we don't want your money, we want your respect."

2) We have to quit telling the iraqis how to do things. We need to listen to how they do things, and help them fit their customs into democracy. In Afghanistan, it was done absolutely better.

3) We should listen to the British. As a worried British commander was quoted as saying at the end of the war, "The Americans don't do the Empire thing very well. We have centuries of experience."

4) We need to let the iraqis set the proximal gopals and guide the means. The allawi government is a start, a part of the change. We hope that the elections would be even better.

I myust point out that our sitting here at our boards thinking up great and general solutions for these real and practical problems is also very American. the most general solution i can offer is for all the americans, from Bush on down, who have anything to do with the planning or execution of our interventin in iraq do as much as they can to be less American, less loud, less obtrusin=ve, less talkative, less full of ideas, less a slave to our assumptions. We need to listen more, learn more.

[pyrrho]

rAs,

I agree fully, I didn't support invading Iraq, I support fixing it. I like all your ideas although the troops is the most difficult thing.

Batman, we need to have a common goal. Do we want a solution? or is it ok to leave Iraq with turmoil and an ineffective democracy (their problem!?). Putting more troops is not nec. getting further in unless you assume we can't solve the problem. If the idea is to solve the problem, then we do that and that is the way out as well.

But of course, we can't know how our risks will play our, pay off, or go wrong.