There have been several recent news articles concerning the attitude of Kurdish and Arab leaders and soldiers regarding Kurdish independence, and particularly the city of Kirkuk. My take on it is that (1) the Kurds want considerable autonomy, but do not universally insist on actual independence; (2) Arabs would even accept an independent Kurdistan, but would never allow Kirkuk to be part of it; (3) Kurds feel loyalty to Iraq, but a greater loyalty to Kurdish interests.
I believe that these sentiments, far from being discouraging, actually provide a glimmer of hope, and suggest a strategy for US withdrawal that is similar to, but not identical to, the plan proposed by Rep. Murtha. The key to this is the city of Kirkuk.
If Kirkuk stays in Iraq (with a continued important Arab presence), then the Sunnis will be unlikely to revolt. If Kurdistan receives considerable control of its own affairs, even if they do not have total control over everything, including over matters concerning Kirkuk, then the Kurds will be unlikely to revolt. The Shiites are unlikely to revolt because as it looks now, they will be the majority group, and will gain most of the centralized power. Therefore, a rough balance of power is developing centered around Kirkuk. It is ironic that the Arabization of Kirkuk, which was one of Saddam's final programs, will have played a critical role in this new balance. This balance of power will constitute a strong internal force opposing civil war.
Now we come to how we can help. First, we go to the UN and try to make a deal as follows: if we withdraw ASAP, the UN agrees to come back in with us in the event of civil war, as defined by various criteria. If they sign on, it will help tremendously; if they don't we can still carry on alone.
Second, we withdraw on a short timeframe, making it very clearly known that we (i.e., the US with or without the UN) will come back if a civil war, or the intensely destabilizing unilateral secession of any region, occurs, within a number of years, say, 10. Our withdrawal will have the immediate effect of reducing guerrilla activity; no one denies that. There will still be some, but hopefully no more than in other Middle-Eastern countries.
Third, the withdrawal includes turning over our bases in Iraq to the Iraqi army, or destroying them. No one would believe in the withdrawal if we kept a major force there. However, if we turned the bases over to the Iraqi army, then this would be an important contribution to their national defense, and would enhance the effect of the withdrawal.
The state of affairs in Iraq after we withdrew would be composed of the balance of power mentioned previously, an internal force opposing civil war, plus an harmonious external force in the shape of our (US w/wo UN) pledge to re-enter the country to put down civil war or unilateral secession, plus a substantial drop in guerrilla activity. These three forces would then work to potentiate each other, minimizing the likelihood of civil war.
This could be done. It has a quite acceptable probability of success. It agrees very well with Murtha's proposal, and it's something I think most Democrats could sign on to, since it emphasizes the Iraqi people being in control of their own affairs, a quick withdrawal, consultation and involvement with the UN, and yet it isn't "cut and run" in any sense.
There are two gambles here: the strength of the power-balance centered on Kirkuk, and the reduction of guerrilla activity once we withdraw. Either or both of these could be undone, in which case we would have to go back in in some form. If our UN negotiations were successful, though, at least this would be less harmful to America's position in the world, since it would be a UN peace-keeping mission instead of a near-unilateral preemptive invasion and occupation. Even if we went back in unilaterally, it would still be no worse than our current situation; for one thing, we could have a well-rested armed force, with new weapons, adequate armor-plating, and so on.
So, I'm hoping that Democrats will get behind a plan like this, and publicize it widely. It's the first time in a long while that I actually have a tiny bit of optimism about Iraq. We can do this.
UPDATE: It appears that most dKossacks have come to believe that bloody civil war is inevitable in Iraq, and that there is nothing we can do to prevent it (the poll currently suggests over 90% fall in this group). I also accepted that before reading the comments in several interviews with Iraq Arabs and Kurds that give some reason to believe a natural balance of power is developing there. I want to point out how devastating it will be for Democrats and the anti-war cause if a scenario such as the one outlined here comes about over the objections of Democrats and anti-war people. It would be viewed as a vindication for everything Bushco has done. I think we need to be open to opportunities to alter the situtation to our advantage and to that of Iraq.
Greg Shenaut