My plan for Iraq

It's kind of ludicrous that every Democratic candidate for Congress is asked what his or her "plan" is for Iraq. Why should each member of Congress have a plan? The president is the commander in chief, let him come up with a plan. It's up to Congress to set the boundaries that constitute an acceptable plan; freshman Congressmen and Senators would do well to defer to their more experienced colleagues for that task.

Nevertheless, someone has to be thinking about how we get out of Iraq. Fareed Zakaria's "plan" contains the following:

So what should the United States do? First of all, Washington has to make clear to the Iraqi leaders that its continued presence in the country at current troop levels is not sustainable without some significant moves on their part.

Iraqi leaders must above all decide whether they want America there. Perhaps the most urgent need is for them to help build political support for the continued deployment of U.S. forces... Iraq's Parliament should thus publicly ask American troops to stay. Its leaders should explain to their constituents why the country needs U.S. forces.

Next, Iraqis must forge a national compact. The government needs to make swift and high-profile efforts to bring the sectarian tensions to a close and defang the militias, particularly the Mahdi Army. The longer Iraqi leaders wait, the more difficult it will be for all sides to compromise. There are many paths to help Iraq return to normalcy; jobs need to be created, electricity supplied regularly, more oil produced and exported. But none of that is possible without a secure environment, which in turn cannot be achieved without a political solution to Iraq's sectarian strife.

There is one shift that the United States itself needs to make: we must talk to Iraq's neighbors about their common interest in security and stability in Iraq. None of these countries—not even Syria and Iran—would benefit from the breakup of Iraq, which could produce a flood of refugees and stir up their own restive minority populations. Our regional gambit might well lead to nothing. But not trying it, in the face of so few options, reflects a bizarrely insular and ideological obstinacy.

This plan, like most of the plans one hears about (including those offered in 30-second clips by Congressional candidates), seems fundamentally misguided. The idea here is to tell the Iraqi government to shape up and have them negotiate a peace between the warring parties. But the Iraqi government is not (if it ever was) an impartial mediating force between Sunni and Shiite extremists. It is divided just as the country is. It's becoming clearer and clearer that the most powerful force in government is the faction led by Muqtada al Sadr. Prime Minister al-Maliki is reluctant to move against al Sadr not because he is timid but because his interest is in Shiite domination of the country. The Sunnis in the government are allies of the Sunni insurrectionists. So we can't leave it to the government to solve the problem. As Ronald Reagan famously said, [the Iraqi] government is not the solution to our problems, [the Iraqi] government is the problem.

My plan:

1. US announces it will begin withdrawing troops in say 6 months, with a sharply reduced presence in about 12 months and everyone out in 18.

2. US announces it will not seek to maintain permanent bases in Iraq and it will reduce its regional presence to the levels that prevailed before the war.

3. US convenes or has the UN convene an international conference consisting of all of Iraq's neighbors (if the picture of the map in my mind is correct, this means Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and maybe the UAE), the Iraqi government, and representatives of the US, Britain, and the Arab League. The Conference's objective: put an end to the conflict in Iraq through negotiations and insertion of an international peacekeeping force (not including US or UK forces).

4. No, that's it, I think those three points will do it for us.

Why will this work? Because it's not in any of Iraq's neighbors' interests, nor in the interests of other countries in the region, for Iraq to implode in civil war. The various factions that are fighting each other in Iraq are all supported to some extent from the outside, so Iraq's neighbors have some sway. One fear is that if we leave the civil war that engulfs Iraq will lead to regional conflict as each country steps in to protect its interests - this is less likely if the countries have 6-12 months to work out an agreement before we leave. Extra bonus advantage: if these countries can work together it will help stabilize the region and give the people in the Muslim world the sense that finally they are in control of their own destinies. Plus, containing civil war in Iraq would align Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, of all countries, against radical Sunni and Shiite forces, thus making them de facto allies in the "war on terror."

I have to believe the Baker-Hamilton commission is going to propose something similar. What is the alternative?