Christopher Hitchens's three options on Iraq

In his Slate article Christopher Hitchens provides this useful rule of thumb:

If, when reading an article about the debate over Iraq, you come across the expression "the realist school" and mentally substitute the phrase "the American friends of the Saudi royal family," your understanding of the situation will invariably be enhanced.

And provides these choices:

Iraq has only three alternatives before it. The first is dictatorship by one faction or sect over all the others: a solution that has been exhausted by horrific failure. The second is partition, which would certainly involve direct intervention by all its neighbours to secure privileges for their own proxies and would therefore run the permanent risk of civil war. And the third is federalism, where each group would admit that it was not strong enough to dictate terms to the others and would agree to settle differences by democratic means.

It's hard to argue with that. Hitch chooses the third. And it's hard to argue with that too.

Comments

[John Hirst]

Given those three choices, the third is the most sensible.

Shouldn't George W Bush and Tony Blair have chosen not to go there in the first place?

[Sarkis Zeronian]

John, not going there in the first place leads to Hitch's first option "dictatorship by one faction or sect over all the others: a solution that has been exhausted by horrific failure".

[sonic]

my 2c

http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2006/12/running-through-options.html

[John Hirst]

Sarkis, Yes I am aware that it might go full circle. Saddam was probably not the best of leaders a country could wish for. And, this is probably the great yorkshire understatement. It was not thought out to replace him with anything better. It was grabbing oil for the gas guzzlers in the States. It was against international law. It was for the wrong reasons. This is why it went wrong. Had it been for the right reasons, whatever they might be, could it have turned out right? It appears to be a lose - lose situation all round. The third option sounds easier than it might be to put it into practice.

[Charles Fiddes Payne]

Christopher Hitchens sums up the options very nicely, though rejects the second option (partition) too easily, especially since it seems to be the most likely outcome anyway given the spiralling chaos; certainly the policies of Iraq's neighbours are fostering it. The UK should take advantage of this likely outcome by siding with the Shias as they will likely take control of Southern Iraq. Most of the oil is in this region. Iraq's neighbour, Iran, is Shia and wants nuclear power. The UK would be best served by supporting this desire and fostering close relations with Iran. By doing so, the biggest threat to the new Shia Southern Iraq would be muted, and another oil-rich state kept onside. There is no need for Britain to follow US policy, especially when it is direct conflict with our own.