Dr. J.'s Commentary: Iraq: The Third Way to Resolution

Ever since it began, the discussion of how and when to end the U.S. intervention in Iraq has been shaped by the Georgites: either the U.S. stays until "victory [undefined] is achieved" (that is, indefinitely) or the U.S. leaves precipitously, which will surely lead to a bloodbath of enormous magnitude. Unfortunately, many on the side of withdrawal have spoken as if there were only the two alternatives: stay forever or leave (reasonably) precipitously.

However, there is a third route to U.S. disengagement that deserves serious discussion, because it has the prospect of bringing peace to Iraq following a U.S. departure, and because it would, or at least could, provide for a peaceful U.S. departure as well as a peaceful resolution of the Iraqi civil wars. And it is a route based on historical precedent.

From 1946 to 1954, France fought to regain its pre-World War II colonial hold on Indo-China (the modern countries of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos). While the bulk of the peoples of the region were anti-French, there was also a major element of civil war, especially in Vietnam, which had a major privileged, pro-French class. If the French had just left precipitously, their forces could have been seriously compromised in such a withdrawal and civil war might have overtaken the country.

However, an international conference was established to deal with the situation. The 1954 Geneva Agreements came out of it. The agreement provided for a peaceful withdrawal of the French forces, the supposedly temporary division of Vietnam into northern and southern sections (something absolutely new for that country), and an agreement to hold elections in the whole country by 1956. Conspicuously, the United States did not sign the Geneva Agreements. The U.S. then proceeded to support the right-wing elements in the southern part of the country to delay the elections, which were indeed never held. We all know what eventually happened.

In the case of Iraq, the United States would have to sign any agreements coming out of a similar international conference and would thus be bound by the agreements (assuming a non-Georgite government). The conveners of such a conference could be chosen from among: France, Germany, Russia, China, and Indonesia (the country with the world's largest Muslim population but without any direct stake in the conflict). The participants would include the U.S., the present Iraqi government, representatives of every major Iraqi faction that pledged to adhere to any final agreement hammered out, and the major bordering powers (as proposed by the Iraq Study Group): Iran, Syria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

It would also be advisable to independently invite the Arab League that, should an agreement be reached, could be called upon, perhaps in cooperation with Iran, to provide security during the transition period. The United Nations would also be a party, especially since it would be the best agency to handle humanitarian aid after the restoration of peace in the country. Also, during the transition period, a UN Military Command could be established to handle a very limited, circumscribed number of functions, one of which would directly involve peacekeeping. The goal, announced in advance, would be just as it was for the former French Indo-China, the peaceful withdrawal of all foreign military forces and the establishment of a peaceful, democratically organized Iraq.

Among the proposals a U.S. government other than one headed by the Georgites could bring to the table:

1. The announcement of a date for the end of U.S. offensive military action in Iraq. This might be combined with their phased replacement, even in advance of a final agreement, by a combined Arab League/Iranian force.
2. Propose to the Iraqi government the repeal of the "Bremer Plan" for the takeover of the Iraqi economy by foreign investors.
3. Announce a date for the termination of all U.S. private contracts for security and construction in Iraq, other than those that might be negotiated by the interim UN Command and the Iraqi government. Ask Congress to appropriate any funds necessary for the early termination of contracts with Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.
4. Shut down all construction of permanent military bases, with handover of what already exists to the UN Command on an interim basis. Future disposal would be part of the final settlement.
5. Announce support for a comprehensive Israel-Palestine settlement along the lines of the already privately negotiated "Geneva Agreement."
6. Renounce any interest in ownership or control of any Iraqi oil reserves.
7. Announce, in advance, support for a final settlement that would guarantee the Sunni minority a fair share of oil revenues. (If certain projections for the potential discovery of major oil reserves under the Iraqi Western Desert, Sunni territory, were to prove correct, this point would become easier to negotiate.) Support for Kurdish integrity would also be announced.
8. Propose the creation, under UN leadership, of a new international organization for combating terrorism using the most sophisticated weapons of intelligence, police work, and focused military action as indicated.

Obviously, many details of such a proposal would have to be worked out. But surely professional diplomats on all sides could do so, assuming the common goal of establishing a peaceful, democratic Iraq. Of course, the Bush Administration could never agree to this because given that Permanent War is its ongoing aim, it doesn't want such a goal to be reached. But this proposal could also be a powerful political tool for the Democratic Party: "We want the same goal the Georgites want: a peaceful, Democratic Iraq. We also want a peaceful withdrawal of U.S. forces at the earliest possible time. This is the way both can be accomplished. The continuing presence of U.S. combat forces only leads all parties away from achieving the goal, not towards it, but precipitous withdrawal could lead to tragic unintended consequences." It's a slam dunk.

Note: This Commentary is based in part on my The Political Junkies.net column that appeared on August 1, 2007.

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly contributing author for The Political Junkies, and contributing editor for The Moving Planet Blog.