The Biden Plan (for Iraq)

[Pangloss]

I think this is a great example of why we have to move past sweeping generalizations and partisan decision-making. Joseph Biden is no friend to the administration, but he's no cut-and-run guy either, and he often defends the administration's choices on foreign and domestic policy, stops short of blaming Bush for current events and developments, and focuses on things that actually matter, rather than trying to convince us that the sky is falling and the world is going to heck just because we elected George Bush to office.

 

Senator Biden wrote a piece about a week ago for the New York Times in which he proposed a three-region split in Iraq in which oil revenues would be shared between the three region-groups but each region would have local governing authority. The new Iraqi constitution already permits this, and the Kurds have already more or less done it, and the Sunnis and Shiites are more or less approaching the same thing, but the oil revenue is going to be a sticking point because the the Sunnis would be geographically stuck without the north/south oil fields. If that happens then sectarian violence would likely continue and/or get worse.

 

Biden's editorial can be read here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/opinion/01biden.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

Biden was a guest on a local political show today and spoke at great length about the issue, much longer than his editorial or the amount of time he normally gets from the Sunday talk shows or other mainstream media interviews.

 

I admit I'm often in disagreement with Biden, and I also see some stuff in the NYT editorial that could be viewed as anti-Bush. But just because something gives the appearance of being partisan DOESN'T mean that it's WRONG. We can't be so determined to avoid even the appearance of partisanship that we bypass good ideas just because they come from sources we've dismissed as partisan. We have to look harder, dig deeper, and find those realities that, while sometimes distasteful, may actually allow us to achieve our goals.

 

A few points that I believe Biden has right:

 

1) If we don't come up with some kind of sensible, workable plan, then events will dictate their own course, and it probably won't be one that we like.

 

2) Another reason why we need a sensible plan is because we can't just slap some sort of shaky government in place, call it "Mission Accomplished", and bring the troops home. That's every bit as bad as "cut and run". In the long run, we'd just be back over there in a few years taking care of the mess we left behind.

 

3) In his South Florida interview (today), Biden mentions the Articles of Confederation as another example, like Bosnia, of when a country was originally established in a divided manner and ultimately turned out just fine. I can understand why he left that example out of his NYT piece! That was hardly an example of success -- we almost lost the country over the problems inherent in that structure. But it did give the country a chance to learn and grow together over time, and there may be a valid comparison with Iraq there.

 

4) While this plan doesn't address the insurgency per se, that issue can be more readily addressed by a stable, non-sectarian Iraq.

 

5) Solving this problem will go a long way towards improving our foreign relations on just about every front, even including Latin America.

[Jim]

Biden does have his moments although it is a shame so much of the NYTs piece is devoted to attacking Bush. It takes an act of will for me to skip past the bashing to the substance.

 

Regarding substance, I have no idea if his proposal is workable. I have a hard time seeing a confederacy keeping together when the oil income from the different "states" would vary so significantly. It is an idea worth exploring, although I doubt this would be a new idea to policy wonks.

[Pangloss]

True, but they're not gratuitous attacks, they're substantive. You and I may disagree with his points, but they're not necessarily partisan. They could be ideological, but if he backs up his position, as I heard him do this afternoon, then it's more relevent. (This is what I loathe most about the modern media -- I wouldn't mind so much if 100% of the media was left of Michael Moore, what gets me is that I don't have enough TIME to hear their full arguments and support for those arguments. I'm forced to read between the lines and make assumptions and guesses that often don't match reality. It's incredibly frustrating.)

 

Anyway, I don't want to get too far off the subject. I think the general idea is that the entire oil revenue would be pooled and then shared according to general population percentage. The Sunnis would, therefore, get about 20% of the total pot, which is a lot more than they would get if they allow the country to fully segment (i.e. nothing), and they ought to understand that can't possibly hope to accomplish national leadership again with their size anyway, so insurgency is ultimately pointless and this gives them an option to get out of that trap.

 

What's in it for the Shiites is a little less savory, but it would mean sharing in current revenue from the northern (Kurdish) regions, which full, insurgency-derived division would cut off, and that means a chance to rebuild and develop NOW rather than having to wait for the possibility of future investment (the south/shiite land is the bigger oil field, but it's completely undeveloped).

 

It's worth noting that, if I'm not mistaken, the current UN agreement states that international oil investment cannot take place until the country's oil system is unified under a common corporate structure (yeah, the US actually agreed to a nationalized oil system). (I'm talking off the top of my head here, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

For the Kurds it means having to split something they'd currently be getting 100% of. But it means having a future oil field and a better society down the road.

 

It's a win-win-win.

[bascule]

I've proposed dividing the country up based on ethnic groups before, but I never had the foresight to consider the oil angle. Oops.

 

Jamming a bunch of different ethnic/cultural groups inside some artificially drawn borders has never seemed to work out, but I don't know how the oil issues could be sensibly resolved.

[Pangloss]

It's an interesting point. Maybe the psychology of their situation is relevent. One person gets hit by secrtarian violence and 18 other people are affected by it and become scared. They fall back on more traditional modes of thinking.

 

Perhaps a few years of separation may lead them to a return to thinking of themselves as "Iraqis" over their religious affiliation. They already seem to have a strong national identity, perhaps this will give that sense a firm enough footing to allow actual joint governance.

[Sisyphus]

I like the idea. And, more importantly, I think the Iraqis would like the idea. They're much too at each other's throats and far too worried about being dominated by the other groups for a national state to be stabile for many years to come. This seems like a very workable and stabile intermediate step. Cheers to Biden. I wonder what Bush thinks about it.

[Jim]

I like the idea. And, more importantly, I think the Iraqis would like the idea. They're much too at each other's throats and far too worried about being dominated by the other groups for a national state to be stabile for many years to come. This seems like a very workable and stabile intermediate step. Cheers to Biden. I wonder what Bush thinks about it.

 

I do not see what is so novel about this solution. He's basically giving up on a unified Iran and agreeing to three separate countries notwithstanding the face saving term "confederacy." I'm not saying we don't get there eventually, but it's hardly a brainstorm.

 

The devil is in the details of how oil revenues are to be divided. The section of the country that comes out on the short end of that stick, isn't going to support the plan.

[Sisyphus]

It's not just a face-saving term. It's a way to end sectarian violence and put all the Iraqis fears to rest. Honestly, right now, it shouldn't be fully unified. "Giving up" on a foolish plan is hardly to be criticized. I think the analogy to post-Revolution America is a good one. We had Georgia cotton farmers and new England Puritan merchants and everything in between. Obviously they would never have agreed to give up their independant ways of doing things, and they didn't. Only another decade or so down the line did the advantages of a more unified state become more apparent, hence the new Constitution (which was still a big compromise between the two views). The situation in Iraq is only magnified, if anything.

 

If your only real problem is with the oil revenues, then I don't think it's really a big one. Nobody is getting totally shafted, and the combined benefits of ending a violent power struggle and ensuring that they won't, in fact, be ruled by their enemies after all has got to be worth a great deal.

 

And no, it's not like nobody had said anything like that before, but it is an actual, realistic plan, which, frankly, is necessarily an improvement.

[Pangloss]

I'm not 100% sure myself, Jim, but I haven't yet seen a really good reason not to do it. I definitely understand the sentiment -- it sure sounds counter-intuitive, doesn't it? Maybe in a funny sort of way that's it's true appeal -- it's different. (That's when we Americans are at our best, after all, when we're kicking our neurons around and trying new ideas.)

 

The section that comes out on the short end of the stick here is the Sunnis, but they would like the plan because 20% is more than 0%.

 

The real beauty of the plan is that once you put it into place you pull the rug out from under the groups that want to increase the sectarian violence. As I said before this plan, on its own, does nothing about the Al Qaeda types. But a stable, peaceful Iraq, with no Americans in it and chock full of people who wish Al Qaeda were dead, is absolutely the best way to take care of them.

 

Most of the Iraqi people identify themselves as Iraqis. If we emphasize that these are "states" (in the American sense, like Florida or Texas or New York), or "sub-states" if you will, and not "nations", and continue to emphasize the importance of a national "Iraqi" identity (and the pride that deservedly goes with it), then I think that's a point that everyone can understand and get behind.

 

I don't want to make too much out of it, but this plan is the first real glimmer of hope I've seen on this subject in a very long time. It's caused me to think again about what I used to call my "Iraqi Dream" -- the idea that some day American parents will be able to take their children to visit the birthplace of western civilization, in a host country that welcomes them, with no fear of violence or even reproachment.

 

I think that would mean more to me than seeing man walk on Mars.