Ted Pincus Blog

2009-09-07T14:05:00.001-07:00

PONDERING THE UNTHINKABLES

THREE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD ASK OURSELVES ABOUT FORGOTTEN LESSONS

By Ted Pincus

What are the three most urgent issues facing American society today? Isn’t it time to look at new solutions based on lessons we’ve repeatedly learned to our sorrow? Is it madness not to question what we’re doing?

As a 75-year-old PR man I have to admit that our folly in all three dilemmas is caring too much about public opinion. We’re seriously jeopardizing our future by fixating on how other people will view us.

The three unthinkable questions we must address are:

Is it time for us to stop trying to solve the world’s civil wars by risking our sons’ necks and treasury?

Why can’t we take off the gloves and finish al Qaeda?

Why don’t we act promptly to neutralize nuclear Iran before it’s too late?

WE MUST EXIT AFGHANISTAN

Being a referee in civil wars has always been no-win.

We’ve seemed to learn nothing from history. Vainly trying to mix into domestic ethnic and sectarian conflicts has only cost us –and the host country—bloodshed and billions. Fifteen years of futility in Viet Nam taught us nothing, despite the loss of 47,244 American lives, with 103,329 injured, millions of civilian lives there, and gigantic sums that should have gone toward Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society crusade to fight hunger and poverty.

On Jan 4, 1971, Richard Nixon proudly proclaimed “The end is in sight.” On April 3 of that year, South Viet Nam’s President Thieu and his corrupt administration were re-elected, unopposed. In May 1972, the Paris Peace Talks collapsed. In October, Henry Kissinger meets quietly with Le Duc Tho and makes concessions. On Jan.27,1973, Nixon announces a cease fire agreement that will bring “peace with honor.” In Dec., 1974, North Viet Nam violates the agreement by attacking Phuoc Long province and overruns Da Nang in March, when 100,000 SVN soldiers surrender after being abandoned by their commanding officers. On April 29, the ignominious finale arrived with the panicked rescue of the last 7,000 U.S. troops and key Viet Namese officials by helicopter at Saigon, while our Tan Son Nhut air base was looted and thousands of civilians begged for asylum at our embassy compound.

Sound familiar?

Much fresher in our memories should be the Bush follies in Iraq where our well intentioned initiative to remove a petty tyrant gave us accidental ownership of a full blown sectarian civil war bred by centuries of seething Shiite-Sunni hatred. After more than six years as a hapless referee,losing over 4000 lives and a trillion of treasury (which turned a half-trillion federal surplus into a projected 1.5 trillion deficit for fiscal 2010), we’re in the quagmire again. Our generals have declared victory one more time of course. But the almost daily bloodshed between the two sects (with Kurds caught in the crossfire) continues unabated.

(In 2004 I wrote an editorial for the Chicago Sun Times detailing that the only hope for a true exit from Iraq with honor would be to separate the adversaries by a three-way partitioning under NATO supervision. It caught the eye of House Intl. Relations Chairman Henry Hyde who endorsed and circulated the piece in congress, before it hit a wall with Don Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice.)

While we now proudly rely on the 600,000 man strength of a revitalized Iraqi army, which we term “self-sufficient”, as we slink away in a noble exit strategy and call it a day, the Nouri al-Maliki government perpetuates the strife by denying the Sunni a fair share.

Does any of this tell us that it’s overdue for us to exit Afghanistan? Here’s a nation with another 32.7 million people—80% Sunni M

uslim and 20% Shiite, the precise opposite mix of Iraq. Equally fanatical, equally corrupt and producer of 93% of the world’s opium. A remarkable 44% of the population is under 14, and the literacy rate nationwide is 28% (12% for females). Overrun by everyone from Alexander to the Mongols to the Russians, torn by ethnic strife in between, and more lately raped by the Taliban, the nation has never had a break.

Once more, in good conscience, we’ve stepped into the fray.We’ve tried to protect a Karzai government that is not only one of the world’s most corrupt but –based on the August 2009 election travesty—should likely not even be legitimately in power. We’ve been investing over $4 billion per month in this holding action, along with the lives of 43,000 American troops at risk, backed by 32,000 NATO troops. To date, we’ve lost 812 lives, including 48 in August. And while U.S. Commander Stanley McChrystal says the Taliban are winning this civil war and we face rising casualties, the plan is to boost our troop strength to 68,000 by December. If another year there could cost us 500 or 700 American boys, is it truly worth the price?

To what end? Nobody has even begun to define an exit strategy. And does the world care if we leave? Will we be derided as betraying humanity if we slink off the stage again? Remember, the Afghans see us not as saviors but as occupiers like the Ruskies, and want us gone. The latest ABC News poll of Gary Langer shows Afghan favorable views of the U.S. have plummeted from 85% in 2005 to 47% now. In neighboring Pakistan, says Pew Research, 13% say they have confidence in Obama, whose support is even exceeded by Osama Bin Laden with 18%.

If we leave, why worry about opinion at all? Did we worry when we stood idle and watched 800,000 Tutsi slaughtered in the Rwanda Hutu genocide? Or when Sri Lanka was torn apart by civil war? Or Myanmar taken over and oppressed by a military junta? Were we embarrassed to watch from the sidelines as China took over Tibet? Or as 1.6 million were killed in the ongoing Congolese civil war? Or as 200,000 innocents have been killed in Darfur and another two million displaced by an indicted tyrant whom nobody, including an impotent U.N., will arrest? And if we’re so concerned about the virulent rise of muslim fundamentalism, why are we sitting on our hands while it sweeps Somalia, Mali, Niger and Mauritania (where al Qaeda is now called AQIM).

And if the question of “selective” aid to certain causes isn’t enough reason to reconsider our Afghan commitment what about the dollar cost trade-offs? Our losing investment in Iraq and our currently rising one in Afghanistan have contributed hugely to the $10 trillion federal deficit handed to Obama. The biggest tragedy of all –beyond wasted dollars and wasted lives—is that it has crowded out the monumental humanitarian challenges we face: providing adequate health care and education and curtailing poverty here at home, and fighting hunger abroad. Although our defense budget is now 21% of our total it equals our whole social security budget (which some say is threadbare) and almost equals the 23% that we spend on health care. And that’s before the reform legislation aiming to aid millions of Americans without care.

Consider that our trillion dollar defense budget today almost equals the military budgets of all other nations combined. Our Navy’s battle fleet –despite cutbacks—is still larger than the next 13 navies of the world combined. Our total defense budget is now exceeding 4.7% of our gross domestic product.

It’s time to stop the madness. We simply can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman.

WE MUST FIND AND FINISH AL QAEDA

Think about it. Until 9/11, nobody –not Nazi Germany, imperial Japan or Cold War Russia—really threatened our survival. But today our nation is at physical risk from the fanatical tactics of a virtually unseen enemy: less than a few thousand ill-clothed and ill-equipped members of al Qaeda. Before realizing the new realities of a world without rules of engagement, we endured the lessons of the Beirut marine barracks debacle, the Khobar Towers disaster in Dharan, 9/11, the Nairobi embassy attack, the destroyer Cole attack, the Locherbie air disaster and the narrowly avoided simultaneous destruction of 10 transatlantic airliners in an Islamic fundamentalist plot foiled by Scotland Yard.

While congress, the ACLU and Amnesty International fiercely abide by their noble ideals to preserve principles of the 1949 Geneva Convention, realities have raced far ahead of this anachronism. There are no more uniformed armies against us with elegant tank formations and fancy command centers –only hit and run criminals. No navy challenges our ships—only pirates in tiny rag tag motorboats. There is no gentleman’s war any more. The guidelines of gallantry, civility and rules in global conflict have become meaningless in the face of an innocent human shield, a roadside IED, a suicide belt on an elderly woman, or a rocket propelled grenade launched by a young man in shorts and sandals from a hospital window.

And these insidious threats may pale in comparison to the day when one anonymous terrorist detonates a single nuclear device in the center of a major city. Against whom would we retaliate? All bets would be off.

This is why –in a future year—we’ll look back in remorse, wonder and perhaps fury at the well-intentioned efforts of many Americans to cling to yesterday’s idea of fair play. The very ramparts that are our first line of defense are under moralistic, irrational attack. In the name of “privacy” our NSA is handcuffed in its ability to intercept wireless communications among the invisibles out to kill us. FBI search warrants are more difficult to obtain. The CIA is under fire for almost every effort designed to learn global terrorism’s next plots and destroy its leadership if possible.

Although congressmen sat by and watched the Bush and then Obama administrations accelerate the series of Predator drone attacks that have been the only successful method of destroying al Qaeda and Taliban leadership since 9/11, they suddenly panicked and sanctimoniously condemned a CIA plan –uncovered this year—to covertly assassinate certain targeted terrorist leaders.

And after castigating,deflating and deforming the nation’s entire intelligence community during the Clinton years and most pointedly post 9/11 for ineptitude, we are now on a vendetta to persecute and prosecute many of the CIA operatives who have silently put their lives on the line to protect us against this unique,intractable enemy. Why? Because they were over-zealous in their attempts to pry vital, life-and-death intelligence out of terrorist detainees. Were there mistakes made? Yes, as in every war. Were there abuses? Yes. But the same CIA interrogators who drew out of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ,after waterboarding, a torrent of information that has saved many lives, are now being prosecuted by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for overreaching. Even though Holder himself as Deputy Attorney General in 2002, told CNN that Guantanamo detainees were “not in fact entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention,” he has suddenly turned puritanical and reversed his view. He’s mounting a messianic campaign to have a special prosecutor crucify the CIA perpetrators –based on a 2004 report, just released by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, citing some isolated instances of abuse and coercion.

But what the 2004 also abundantly details is that the CIA “invested immense time and effort to implement the program quietly, effectively and within the law” and that the agency “generally provided good guidance and support to interrogators.” It also glaringly spotlights that the CIA top brass and Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees had full knowledge of all “enhanced interrogation” techniques and raised no alarm. Nor should they have done so. The report discloses a wide array of terrorist plots around the globe that were foiled after detainee interrogations. These included the apprehension of Jose Padilla and Binyan Mohammed, who were about to detonate a “dirty” radioactive bomb; an unknown al Qaeda cell in Karachi planning to pilot an aircraft assault in the U.S; a plot to attack the U.S. Consulate in Karachi; and another to hijack an aircraft that could be flown into Heathrow; and yet another to attack a California high rise; and another plot to sever the lines of suspension bridges in New York.

Almost no intelligence officials are advocating that rogue interrogation should be allowed and laws violated. What the disclosures are telling us is that the laws themselves must be modified for our own survival in an increasingly lawless world unfit for polite niceties. The concept is now new. Pre-emptive strikes against dangerous criminals have been accepted by civilized society for centuries. Witness the duties of a police sniper blowing the head off a hostage-taking kidnapper—without any courtesy of explaining Miranda rights, arrest, indictment or trial. Similarly, what American mayor –faced with a criminal whose secret,ticking time bomb is about to level a downtown area—would not demand any and every kind of interrogation to discover its location and save lives of his citizens?

The biggest time bomb ever is now ticking. And instead of turning more boys into IED fodder pursuing Taliban crazies in the barren Afghan hills, why not spend far, far less of our resources to intensify the one strategy that really works—Predator drone strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban high command in South Waziristan and Kandahar Province? The Defense Dept. has budgeted only $3.5 billion for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) worldwide for 2010—a price less than one month cost of continuing our futile conventional war in Afghanistan. But cost effectiveness aside, this single weapon is our only means of decapitating global terrorism while risking no more American lives. And if we left Afghanistan tomorrow the UAV could still be launched from Pakistan or other secure locations.

On the same theme, and with the same irony, our nation is now turning with vengeance upon the mercenary units that have been aiding the CIA and our Special Forces – the private contractors at Blackwater (now renamed Xe) and similar groups that have proven themselves in some of our dirtiest tasks. While they too have had rogue elements and incidents , they are more than willing to do the jobs, for a fee, that nobody else wants. With little fanfare, and only minor public outcry until now, there are almost 120,000 of these contractors in Iraq and 74,000 in Afghanistan.

Imagine what magnitude of funds could be diverted to America’s social causes if we were to bring home most of these surrogates from Asia, along with our troops. We’d be plugging the biggest financial drain our nation has ever faced and sparing lives of countless boys and girls.

WE MUST NEUTRALIZE A NUCLEAR IRAN

No case of nationalized terrorism and potential hostage-taking in the world today could be any clearer or more threatening than the relentless Iranian drive to develop a nuclear bomb.

Once again, the lessons we endured so painfully are staring at us this year. In each instance, a megalomaniac promises death and destruction, then delivers it to an incredulous population. Kaiser Wilhelm, Adolph Hitler, Hideki Tojo, Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Osama Bin Laden.

Now there is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, promising to “wipe Israel off the map” and bring retribution to that Great Satan America. Despite a ravaged economy, propped up only by crude oil exports, Iran has been steadily developing weaponry. Its new Shahab -3ER missile with a 2000 Km range can reach Turkey, and its long range ballistic BM 25 can reach 3500 Km targets like Athens and Budapest. Its satellite launching capabilities could be converted into ICBM launchers that would put cities like Rome, Vienna, Berlin and Warsaw well within range, not to mention Tel Aviv of course which would be hit by much lesser equipment (like the Shahab-2) if launched from Iran’s terrorist proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

And carrying what? Inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency report that this summer Iran has amassed 4,592 centrifuges and 3,325 pounds of enriched uranium –enough to produce two nuclear bombs. The world’s response? While free world leaders in the U.S., U.K., France and Germany are ready to propose sanctions to the U.N. Security Council if Iran does not drop the current charade by an Obama-imposed deadline of Sept. 30, it is general knowledge that this effort will continue to be stymied by vetoes of Russia and China, of whom Iran is a multi-billion dollar client.

As so eloquently dramatized by Freidrich Durrenmatt’s play, “The Visit”, money talks, and when someone says “It’s not the money it’s the principle,” you can be sure it’s the money. Thus while the diplomatic waltz continues endlessly, every month brings precious time for Iran to bury its Natanz nuclear facilities in deeper cover and obtain even more sophisticated electronic air defense technology from Russia.

Accordingly, in a conclusion similar to the obvious option that we strike at the heart of al Qaeda before it strikes us again, we must act now to eliminate Iran’s death factory. Harvard’s pre-eminent Alan Dershowitz says it best in one of the seminal treatises of our time: his book “Pre-emption”. In this modern era when there is a clear and present threat it is imperative that the intended victim strike first, not second. There may be no second chance. Israel began teaching the civilized world this axiom in 1967, and to everyone’s secret relief, in 1981 when it took out Saddam’s Osirak nuclear reactor, and again in 2006 when it destroyed a developing nuclear facility in Syria.

Everyone says a nuclear Iran “cannot be tolerated.” Yet inaction itself is de facto tolerance, even implied approval. Can Israel act successfully alone? Perhaps. But it will likely need U.S. help at least in supplying bunker-buster bombs, Iraq territorial overflight authorization, and aerial refueling.

Regarding all three of these imperatives, our undoing may be simply a sad case of national dementia—the faded memories of prior threats among us seniors, and the fact that our proliferating juniors were not even born to witness the tragedies of Munich, the Tet Offensive, or Rwandan genocide. In fact some were mere teeny-boppers when 9/11 occurred. Some are just now trying to figure out why we’re placing 68,000 of our favorite sons in harm’s way to protect a land of rubble populated by 93% of the world’s opium growers.

No need perhaps to belabor the George Santayana warning that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We already are.

* * *

PONDERING THE UNTHINKABLES

THREE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD ASK OURSELVES ABOUT FORGOTTEN LESSONS

By Ted Pincus

The three unthinkable questions we must address are:

Is it time for us to stop trying to solve the world’s civil wars by risking our sons’ necks and treasury?

Why can’t we take off the gloves and finish al Qaeda?

Why don’t we act promptly to neutralize nuclear Iran before it’s too late?

WE MUST EXIT AFGHANISTAN

Being a referee in civil wars has always been no-win.

Sound familiar?

Does any of this tell us that it’s overdue for us to exit Afghanistan? Here’s a nation with another 32.7 million people—80% Sunni M

It’s time to stop the madness. We simply can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman.

WE MUST FIND AND FINISH AL QAEDA

WE MUST NEUTRALIZE A NUCLEAR IRAN

No case of nationalized terrorism and potential hostage-taking in the world today could be any clearer or more threatening than the relentless Iranian drive to develop a nuclear bomb.

No need perhaps to belabor the George Santayana warning that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We already are.

* * *

PONDERING THE UNTHINKABLES

THREE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD ASK OURSELVES ABOUT FORGOTTEN LESSONS

By Ted Pincus

The three unthinkable questions we must address are:

Is it time for us to stop trying to solve the world’s civil wars by risking our sons’ necks and treasury?

Why can’t we take off the gloves and finish al Qaeda?

Why don’t we act promptly to neutralize nuclear Iran before it’s too late?

WE MUST EXIT AFGHANISTAN

Being a referee in civil wars has always been no-win.

Sound familiar?

Does any of this tell us that it’s overdue for us to exit Afghanistan? Here’s a nation with another 32.7 million people—80% Sunni M

It’s time to stop the madness. We simply can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman.

WE MUST FIND AND FINISH AL QAEDA

WE MUST NEUTRALIZE A NUCLEAR IRAN

No case of nationalized terrorism and potential hostage-taking in the world today could be any clearer or more threatening than the relentless Iranian drive to develop a nuclear bomb.

No need perhaps to belabor the George Santayana warning that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We already are.

* * *

PONDERING THE UNTHINKABLES

THREE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD ASK OURSELVES ABOUT FORGOTTEN LESSONS

By Ted Pincus

The three unthinkable questions we must address are:

Is it time for us to stop trying to solve the world’s civil wars by risking our sons’ necks and treasury?

Why can’t we take off the gloves and finish al Qaeda?

Why don’t we act promptly to neutralize nuclear Iran before it’s too late?

WE MUST EXIT AFGHANISTAN

Being a referee in civil wars has always been no-win.

Sound familiar?

Does any of this tell us that it’s overdue for us to exit Afghanistan? Here’s a nation with another 32.7 million people—80% Sunni M

It’s time to stop the madness. We simply can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman.

WE MUST FIND AND FINISH AL QAEDA

WE MUST NEUTRALIZE A NUCLEAR IRAN

No case of nationalized terrorism and potential hostage-taking in the world today could be any clearer or more threatening than the relentless Iranian drive to develop a nuclear bomb.

No need perhaps to belabor the George Santayana warning that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We already are.

* * *

PONDERING THE UNTHINKABLES

THREE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD ASK OURSELVES ABOUT FORGOTTEN LESSONS

By Ted Pincus

The three unthinkable questions we must address are:

Is it time for us to stop trying to solve the world’s civil wars by risking our sons’ necks and treasury?

Why can’t we take off the gloves and finish al Qaeda?

Why don’t we act promptly to neutralize nuclear Iran before it’s too late?

WE MUST EXIT AFGHANISTAN

Being a referee in civil wars has always been no-win.

Sound familiar?

Does any of this tell us that it’s overdue for us to exit Afghanistan? Here’s a nation with another 32.7 million people—80% Sunni M

It’s time to stop the madness. We simply can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman.

WE MUST FIND AND FINISH AL QAEDA

WE MUST NEUTRALIZE A NUCLEAR IRAN

No case of nationalized terrorism and potential hostage-taking in the world today could be any clearer or more threatening than the relentless Iranian drive to develop a nuclear bomb.

No need perhaps to belabor the George Santayana warning that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We already are.

* * *

PONDERING THE UNTHINKABLES

THREE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD ASK OURSELVES ABOUT FORGOTTEN LESSONS

By Ted Pincus

The three unthinkable questions we must address are:

Is it time for us to stop trying to solve the world’s civil wars by risking our sons’ necks and treasury?

Why can’t we take off the gloves and finish al Qaeda?

Why don’t we act promptly to neutralize nuclear Iran before it’s too late?

WE MUST EXIT AFGHANISTAN

Being a referee in civil wars has always been no-win.

Sound familiar?

Does any of this tell us that it’s overdue for us to exit Afghanistan? Here’s a nation with another 32.7 million people—80% Sunni M

It’s time to stop the madness. We simply can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman.

WE MUST FIND AND FINISH AL QAEDA

WE MUST NEUTRALIZE A NUCLEAR IRAN

No case of nationalized terrorism and potential hostage-taking in the world today could be any clearer or more threatening than the relentless Iranian drive to develop a nuclear bomb.

No need perhaps to belabor the George Santayana warning that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We already are.

* * *

PONDERING THE UNTHINKABLES

THREE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD ASK OURSELVES ABOUT FORGOTTEN LESSONS

By Ted Pincus

The three unthinkable questions we must address are:

Is it time for us to stop trying to solve the world’s civil wars by risking our sons’ necks and treasury?

Why can’t we take off the gloves and finish al Qaeda?

Why don’t we act promptly to neutralize nuclear Iran before it’s too late?

WE MUST EXIT AFGHANISTAN

Being a referee in civil wars has always been no-win.

Sound familiar?

Does any of this tell us that it’s overdue for us to exit Afghanistan? Here’s a nation with another 32.7 million people—80% Sunni M

It’s time to stop the madness. We simply can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman.

WE MUST FIND AND FINISH AL QAEDA

WE MUST NEUTRALIZE A NUCLEAR IRAN

No case of nationalized terrorism and potential hostage-taking in the world today could be any clearer or more threatening than the relentless Iranian drive to develop a nuclear bomb.

No need perhaps to belabor the George Santayana warning that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We already are.

* * *

2009-01-02T12:10:00.000-08:00

SUN TIMES COLUMN 320
1/2/09 EDITION
NOUVEAU POOR SOCIETY MAY TAKE TWO YEARS
OF THERAPY BEFORE REGAINING TRUST AND TRACTION

By Ted Pincus
What hit us this year? Let’s sort it out and have a look ahead.

This autumn, in a reversal of fortune perhaps unprecedented in modern history, American society morphed into the Nouveau Poor. The American dream became a galloping nightmare, the end of the era of excess.

Unforeseen by virtually any of the pundits, policy priests or players, the global meltdown left us all disbelieving, fleeced and wildly disoriented. We asked ourselves: How could a government run by seemingly risk-averse conservatives allow myriad crap games to take place with our money on the line? How could the icons of Wall St. shoot the moon on flaky leverage while garnering 10 percent of the nation’s salaries? How could our most revered banks end up on their knees? How could the auto companies that were symbols of industrial might over our lifetime be on the street today with a tin cup? How could noble global giants like Siemens be nailed on broadscale bribery charges?

And how could a time-honored,sweet old salt-of-the-earth money manager—a dad,uncle, gramps and Park Ave. paragon—scam some of the world’s most sophisticated investors out of $50 billion for the fun of it?

But there is was. The unreal became real. Nigerians were suddenly being warned to be wary of emails from Americans seeking deals.. And if you received an insufficient- funds notice from your bank, you weren’t sure if they meant your money or theirs. And after a quarter-century binge, you’d think that the big dose of cold water would sober us up and we would have learned a few lessons. But that’s hardly the case.

I find two aspects of the travesty especially fascinating. One is the concept that nobody admits to being accountable for the most severe recession since the Great Depression, nor the most precipitous drop (47 percent this year) in the equity market (and likewise many people’s net worth.)

Despite a proliferation of sheriffs on our range –dozens of federal agencies watching over us and thousands of regulations in place—nobody saw the wild west show evolving and blew the whistle. Newfangled, fancy securitized mortgages for sub-prime borrowers, blessed as triple A. An insane spiral of executive comp,pomp and entitlement driving a mad auction of home prices and corporate jets. Nobody (except Economist Joe Stiglitz) said “This is all unsustainable.” Certainly not the feds nor the legislators nor the financial system,precarious as it was becoming with brokers leveraged 35 to 1. When everyone’s enjoying the party, nobody want to be the one to say “the party’s over.”

Thus as we view the wreckage, no one steps up to claim responsibility. Lawmakers who fell for the siren song sung of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists and allowed lax oversight are the same ones now castigating the villains. There has yet to be an overhaul of supervision of the great arbiters –the major rating agencies whose profit motives colored their blessings, turning watchdogs into lapdogs. The carmakers have yet to admit that their blind, unstoppable output of iron behemoths made them anachronisms in the market. In fact, other than Master Illusionist Madoff’s stunning confession, the only mea culpa murmured by anyone was this month’s quiet acknowledgement by top cop SEC Chairman Chris Cox that he had sort of slept through the gathering storm on Wall St.

When Walt Kelly’s Pogo paraphrased Commodore Perry and proclaimed that “we have met the enemy and he is us,” he was pushing conservation, but could well have admonished all of us this year. Let’s face it. We were all asleep and ultimately all accountable for both the financial collapse and the moral meltdown.

The second fascinating thing is that despite the jolt, we’re still ignoring many root causes of our latest disaster. While the ’29 crash really affected a modest number of fat cats and two-bit speculators on high margin, the Crash of 08 was a great leveler. It democratized the agony, impacting most of the nation’s 67 million shareholders plus untold others indirectly through benefit plans and dependency.

Yet as the smoke clears, why have we still so many lessons to learn? With Madoffs on the make and governors on the take, where are the new safeguards? How long a reaction time is necessary? How long does it take for Congress to figure out that Sec. Henry Paulson who emerged from Wall St. to help create the present mess is the same guy doing massive damage in the same barnyard? Why would they decry a sick banking system and then hand him the first half of a $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program bailout kitty to simply dole out to a few of his favorite banks, plus a whopper to AIG, with no strings attached? They’re sitting on the dough and pumping virtually none into our strapped system. And with 20 days left of his reign, why are some legislators considering handing him more?

The whole epic is becoming a cliff-hanger because a brand new posse comes to town in a few days, armed with a different kind of stimulus package. It sensibly aims at stemming foreclosures first, forestalling bankruptcies, reversing the home price slide, hopefully with a massive refinancing program to give livable 4.5 percent, 30-year-fixed mortgages to the millions out there in trouble. It will likely launch an array of infrastructure projects that should create 30,000-50,000 new jobs for every $1 billion spent. And the highest priority will be intangible: a restoration of trust in each other, bank to bank, business to business, and people to government. (Faith will be a tough hurdle. For example, consider that the Dow didn’t recover its 1929 high until 1954) We can only hope that the Paulson swan song will be prevented from further sabotaging America’s new dawn before the sun has a chance to rise.

A year ago on this day, my column expressed the worry that we were already in a recession, and were due for a very rough ride in 08—and I only hoped I was wrong. As a Great Depression baby and now an aging flack, I’ve seen seven recessions. I believe this one will be the worst by far, the most stubborn, painful post-war period of our lives. While the Obama team faces economic challenges almost as awesome as did FDR, it also faces the dual dilemma of global terrorism and simmering conflicts on most continents. It will be tackling a trillion dollar rescue task while saddled with a leftover $9.8 trillion national debt and soaring health and social security obligations. Triggered by the avalanche of mortgage delinquencies forecast to double this next year and unsustainably high credit card debt, the economy is quite likely to see a 6 percent plunge in GDP, unemployment in double digits, and 24 months of anguish,I believe.

But as Nietzsche said, what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. And if we do wake up and realize that the free lunch was always a myth, that sacrifice is a necessity, and that each of us is responsible for past neglect and wishful thinking, we may emerge from this mass embarrassment as a trimmer, healthier, wiser society. If we do, our future New Years will be well worth celebrating.

2007-05-20T19:11:00.000-07:00

SUN TIMES COLUMN 264

5/16/07 draft for 5/22 edition

FED PRESSURES ON CONSULTANTS

BRING BONANZA TO CLARK- WAMBERG

By Ted Pincus

It’s eternally fascinating to watch the way squeezes upon one segment of an industry can, like compressing a tube of toothpaste, create a bonanza at the other end.

Perhaps nowhere is this as pronounced in recent times as in the corporate services and consulting arena, where the sanctification mandated by Sarbanes-Oxley and other decrees have produced an almost puritanical atmosphere. The latest shift is being ignited by California Congressman Henry Waxman’s crusading investigation of the potential conflicts of interest in executive compensation consulting. In a nutshell, his thesis is that the folks who are advising a bigwig’s directors about his mega-salary,perks and severance package should not be the same folks hired to provide the massive outsourcing services of actuarial,benefits administration and other HR consulting. Why? Simply because of the temptation created by leverage. Couldn’t your judgment on what the boss should take home be a bit colored by a gigantic HR contract you enjoy with the same company? Color it purple—for plum.

Given the choice of shedding executive compensation consulting which might be earning $250,000 yearly, or your humongous HR services contract worth millions, which would you sacrifice? It’s a question that some of the giants like Hewitt, Mercer, Towers Perrin, and others may have to face.

Like the era four years ago when the big accounting firms had to peel off their consulting divisions, this new wrinkle may be touching off a windfall for the independent consultants specializing in comp. One prime beneficiary is Chicago’s Tom Wamberg, whose phone this week is ringing off the hook. “Hundreds of companies are suddenly awakening to Congressman Waxman’s alarm about a perceived conflict of interest in that sector and are seeking independents with no connections,” says the 54-year-old CEO of Clark-Wamberg Consulting.

The gusher of business couldn’t have come at a more propitious moment because just last November Wamberg orchestrated the merger of his Clark Consulting (formerly NYSE: CLK) with the giant Dutch insurance conglomerate AEGON. It was a happy deal all the way around., with Clark shareholders winning a 42 percent premium above the market, while Wamberg and some Chicago investors bought some of the consulting units for $55 million and established Clark-Wamberg in Barrington. Crown jewel among those is the Pearl Meyer Group, a leading independent specialist in comp. From six offices across the U.S., it serves more than 500 companies in that single capacity, with the latest client being one of the nation’s major telephone companies that just switched to Meyer. “With the wave of divestitures we see coming, there may be unprecedented acquisition opportunities for Meyer to be there as a ready buyer, “ Wamberg tells me this week.

With 450 employees at his new enterprise and current volume of $112 million, Wamberg sees growth in varied avenues. Another Clark unit he kept was Federal Policy Group, a registered lobbying firm in the federal taxation niche, serving 80 clients that include GM,GE,Deere and Caterpillar. Then there’s Clark Benson, a financial planning firm that is in the process of acquiring several others in a roll-up. There’s Clark Strategic Advisors, specialists in alternative investments, currently establishing a new hedge fund geared for the banking industry. Its 15 Chartered Financial Analysts on staff seek non-traditional vehicles for endowment funds and other institutional investors. The heads of each of these and other original Clark units remained on board as Wamberg moved the enterprise.

Wamberg terms himself a true contrarian in today’s services sector, where synergy is the holy grail. “We have virtually no cross selling among our diverse businesses,” he says “and that’s both our misfortune and good luck. By serving separate sets of clients our people can consult with pure objectivity, not influenced by other obligations. We think this role will help us double in size in the next five years.”

Paradoxically, in these times of conflict paranoia, that may be a pleasant perch.

-30-

2006-11-01T13:19:00.000-08:00

A PRACTICAL PROPOSAL TO EXIT IRAQ

Oct. 2005

By Ted Pincus

We’re stumped. No way out.

We can’t stay mired in the sand for years, as the neocon hawks insist. It’s unthinkable to say we won and walk away, as the doves demand.

But there’s a third ornithological alternative. Call it The Phoenix solution.

In boxing, when there’s excessive bleeding, you separate the adversaries, especially when they were coerced into the ring together in the first place.

When you cut through all the chatter, there’s one basic reason that we face endless bloodshed that has prevented our departure: Sunni paranoia that as a 20% minority, it will be forever outvoted and dominated in any form of “free democratic” Iraq. It’s the terror of this prospect that has generated its own reign of terror and will sustain it ad infinitum. The fact is that 95% of the insurgent attacks have been initiated by Sunni Arabs, primarily against Shiite and Kurdish troops, police and civilians. Finding a way to overcome Sunni fear holds the key to a peaceful exit. And how has history shown that we resolve a bitter ethnic dispute? By separating the parties, making each feel secure, and giving the underdog a bone he can’t refuse – a portion that is more than his fair share. You pacify even the most rabid suicidal fanatic by taking away a cause to die for.

That solution could be embodied in a new strategy not yet considered by American, Mideast or world leadership: a Confederation of Iraqi States with a three way partition administered by NATO. In summary, it would create an independent Sunni state –Babylonia (20% of the population); an independent Kurdistan (Kurds, Turkomen,Chaldeans, 17% of the population); and an independent Shiite Sumeria (63% of the population), all under the continued umbrella of a joint border protection force and an oil revenue-sharing guarantee.

IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEW INITIATIVE?

Despite the Bush administration’s grasping for auspicious straws in the wind, any realistic assessment (including those by some of our own generals) is grim. Iraq has successfully elected an interim central government dominated by Shiites whom the Sunni has sworn to thwart. On Oct. 15 the Iraqi people went go back to the polls and ratified a referendum to a Shiite-drafted constitution, written over the loud objections of most Sunni leaders. The content reflects what many observers feel is a worrisome regression into a theocracy dominated by clerics administering Shariah law, rigidly restraining women’s rights and posing low tolerance for non-believers. While it does propose creation of semi-autonomous regions of the country, it still paves the way for permanent Shiite supremacy as the faction holding the overwhelming majority trump card.

Since the ratification was passed despite the violent protests of the Sunnis, the current rate of bloodshed –highest since the 2003 invasion—has continued and is predicted to intensify, perhaps provoking Lebanon-style all-out civil war. On any basis, we’re at square one, or worse.

WHY SHOULD THE PROBLEM GO AWAY?

Let’s pause and look at it from the underdog’s perspective. As an Iraqi Sunni, you’ve been on top since the Sixteenth Century when the Ottomans threw out the last of the Mongols and gave your tribes the prime position. You’ve been the elite political force, the intelligentsia, with overriding economic control, and enjoying a highly secular regime. And for 35 years, you were Saddam’s Baath brethren and beneficiaries—riding herd over the majority—until his downfall. Suddenly you’re faced with a U.S.-imposed “democracy” in which your adversaries, with a massive majority led by clerics take control. There you sit, five million surrounded by 22 million non-Sunni neighbors. You now face the prospect of being allocated the pauper’s share of government posts, top jobs, access to ports (you have none), access to oil reserves (you have almost no wells) and a legal and religious climate wholly unacceptable despite the fact that the Shiites are your Arab brothers and even the non-Arab Kurds are mostly of the same Muslim faith. To avoid this fate, you believe, may be well worth dying for. And there’s always the hope that you’ll fight and survive, grind down the Americans after 10 or 20 years of occupation, see them finally exit like the French in Algeria, and then take over the country by force.

It’s unlikely that our sheer perseverance will pay. The latest Brookings Institution report shows the insurgents growing in two years from an estimated 3,000 fighters in Aug. 03 to 18,000 as of Aug. 05. In that month there were 90 U.S. troops killed vs. 36 in the same month of 03; 608 wounded vs. 181 in the 03 month; 280 Iraqi security personnel killed vs. 50 in Aug. 03; and 600 Iraqi civilians killed vs. 225 in Aug. 03. And on this past Sept. 14 alone, there were eight separate terrorist bombings that killed 160 and injured 500, for which various Al Queda/Sunni groups took full credit, including their Abu Musab Zarqawi who brazenly declared “all-out war on Iraq’s Shiites.” One underlying tangible motivation is that the expected Sunni share of future national oil revenue was 20% in 03 and now estimated to be as low as 5%, Brookings says.

Little wonder that the Sunnis are pessimistic about a fair share, and thousands of them took to the streets in Tikrit alone on Aug. 29 and since, to denounce the draft. Sunni Alliance spokesman Adnan Muhammad Salman al-Dulaimi has urged his followers to flatly reject the constitution next month. Meanwhile, Iraq Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has turned a deaf ear.

But the sorry state of affairs should surprise no one (least of whom those CIA officials who had accurately predicted it four years ago). Iraq is an artificial land, never meant to be a united country. It was invented out of the post World War I mess inherited by Winston Churchill as British Colonial Secretary charged with making sense of the defeated Ottoman Empire. The three major ethnic groups were united by decree, with the Sunnis given the upper hand through most of the Twentieth Century. This force togetherness laid the same seeds of ultimate violence as had similar cases such as Sudan, Rwanda, Serbia and Chechnya. An age-old folly repeated once again.

HOW WOULD A PARTITION PLAN WORK?

There is every historical precedent for the potential success of a partition solution, witness the Balkans, or better yet the eminently positive separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic in 1993. It’s notable that in the same year, Eritrea was finally separated from Ethiopia and has become the comeback story of East Africa.

Essentially, the reorganization of Iraq must be implemented not by the U.S. or Coalition Command, nor the Oil-For-Food-tarnished U.N. which has lost much credibility, but by The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO has earned its stripes repeatedly, most particularly in the Balkans. Symbolizing Europe, it would have far greater respect in the Mideast than any other entity. Those with whom I’ve spoken who see practical sense in the idea include former U.S. Ambassador and State Dept. Director of Central European Affairs J.D. Bindinagle, and University of Chicago Professor of Near Eastern Civilization Ilai Alon.

While there would continue to be an operating umbrella government, it would serve only three purposes: 1. a joint military force to protect Iraq borders; 2. the production and distribution of all Iraqi oil and natural gas; and 3. operation of the refineries,pipelines and ocean tanker ports on the Persian Gulf, on behalf of all three states of the Confederation.Beyond this, each of the sectors would operate as an autonomous entity with total freedom to draft its own constitution, establish its own legal system government and taxation power. Each would have sovereign status and representation at the U.N.

The partitioning would be along existing ethnic population lines, with the arable land split almost evenly. The Kurdish north would be centered at Kirkuk (pop.728,000), Irbil( pop. 839,000) and Mosul (pop. 1.7 million). The Shiite south would be centered at Basra (pop.1.3 million),Karbala (pop. 549,000 ) and Amarah ( pop. 340,000). The Sunnis would occupy the central sector as most do now, anchored by Baghdad (pop.5.6 million), Hilla (pop. 524,000) and Samarra (pop.200,000).

Of Iraq’s total population of 27 million, some would be voluntarily relocated to unify them with their ethnic countrymen. There would be myriad sacrifices, but far smaller ones than the certain casualties of continued strife. Consider that the partition of India in 1947 precipitated a massive transfer of Hindus to India and Muslims to Pakistan –but with positive long term blessings, as did the transfer of populations in Post World War II Poland, Czechoslovakia and Germany, for improved quality of life.

HOW TO SELL IT?

Confronting the idea would be three major hurdles, each surmountable.

The key to the entire plan is to feed the underdog. This means a willingness by the Shiites and Kurds to hand the Sunnis more than they deserve in economic benefits, namely a 25% share of the nation’s oil and gas net revenues. With 80% of the producing oil output in the south and virtually the balance in Kurdistan, and the most gas coming from Kirkuk, Bai Hassan and other fields in the north, and the Zubair field in the south, the Shiites and Kurds have a monopoly that needs equalization. By taking slightly less than their rightful share, and providing a permanent guarantee to the Sunni, they hopefully would be buying a lasting peace.

In selling this idea to Shiite and Kurd leadership, we’re halfway home. Top Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has already gone on public record as supporting the concept of autonomy for the three regions. While some independent clerics like Moktada al-Sadr and Ayatollah Muhammad Yacoubi have opposed the concept, some of the most politically powerful Shiites in Iraq, like Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a key mover in the influential Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, are ardent supporters.

The Kurds meanwhile have already achieved semi-autonomy and leaders like Massoud Barzani would likely be the first in line to concede oil revenues in exchange for peaceful independence and guaranteed protection on the borders of Trukey and Syria –two nations never enamored with the prospect of a free Kurdistan. And although Saddam’s “Arabization” programs forced an influx of Sunni who would now be relocated –mainly from the province of Nineveh—this once again may be a trade-off well worth the disruption.

The second hurdle will be selling the idea to Europe. Sending a NATO peacekeeping force to Iraq is no small order. But today, with the massive immigration of Muslims into Central Europe (new total: over 20 million, and in France alone representing 11% of the nation’s population) and with the London subway bombings as a clear warning, Europe may see that it has far more to lose from a sustained conflagration in Iraq. It may well have a new perspective of the return-on-investment in stepping off the sidelines and playing a key role to bring lasting peace (including the reduction of risk of oil shortages and further price inflation).

Far fetched? Bear in mind that NATO has a stellar history of successes in peacekeeping –in contrast to the U.N.’s deer-in-the-headlights paralysis that cost a half-million lives in Rwanda. NATO has acted decisively in bringing peace to Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and now has trained,airlifted and directed 1,300 African Union peacekeepers that are bringing the Darfur genocide to an end. Also bear in mind that NATO is already actively fighting terrorism in Central Asia, where four provisional reconstruction teams are in West Afghanistan, providing security, rehab and extending the government authority beyond Kabul. Its International Security Assistance Force is now heading south to secure that area as well. Lastly, bear in mind that NATO is already in Iraq, quietly and with meager publicity. Its Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said last month that “we recognize a continuing commitment to the democratic process in Iraq,” as exemplified by NATO’s current training of Iraqi troops at Ar Rustimiyah.

The third hurdle of course would be to gain consent from the U.S. government. A year ago, the idea would have been dismissed categorically as one offering less than the president’s vision of “mission accomplished.” But today’s altered circumstances present a far more compelling incentive to consider this compromise solution as a welcome gift. In the wake of wholly unanticipated Katrina, the president’s overall approval rating has sunk to a record low of 40%, according to the latest Wall St Journal/NBC News poll, and it says 55% favor bringing our soldiers home. Meanwhile, the latest NY Times/CBS News poll shows only 35% with confidence about his ability to handle Iraq. It reported 52% of Americans call for immediate withdrawal “even if it means abandoning the president’s goal of restoring stability to that country.” An increasing number of experts are predicting that our chances of ultimately surmounting the rising, resilient, ubiquitous insurgency are no better than they were in Viet Nam, or the French experience in Algeria and Indo-China, or the Israeli experience in Lebanon. With the U.S. Army spread thin, with the National Guard unable to keep a serviceman on active duty longer than 24 months, with no chance for a draft as a congressional election year looms, The White House has few options. And on the flip side, what greater political bonanza could the GOP find in 06 than a rapid,decisive shift of our responsibilities to NATO, winning credit for implementing a peaceful solution, and bringing the boys home?

BUT COULD WE PULL IT OFF?

Follow the money. Look at the fundamental math. Iraq and the U.S.—besides offering ethnic separation and security—can virtually buy themselves a lasting peace. Consider that Iraq is sitting on 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves –the third largest known deposit in the world—and 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet its current production of only 2.2 million barrels of oil per day helps boost its gross domestic product to only $54 billion. Only 10% of the nation has been geologically explored and only 17 of 80 discovered oil fields have even been developed. Of Iraq’s 1,500 operating wells, about 1,000 are in the Shiite south (mainly the Rumaila field) with its high quality “sweet crude” that contains far lower percent of hydrogen sulfide and burns much cleaner. Moreover, most Iraqi oil in both north and south is some of the world’s least costly to extract because it lies close to the surface, with an average cost of less than $2 per barrel to produce.

But even with its present export limitations, Iraq’s 2.2 million daily barrels now enjoy record price levels of over $65 (before tanker costs), translating into projected annual gross revenues of $52 billion, not to mention natural gas and other exports. If the Sunni Federal Republic of Babylonia were handed a guaranteed 25% share or perhaps $13 billion (i.e., $2.6 million per capita), gross before transport, it would be receiving over a $2.5 billion premium per year above its proportional share. Obviously, if peace can at last permit expanded exploration and production activity, the numbers would soar.

At the same time, to fund a NATO administration of the regional separation, relocation and confederation government, would it not be a bargain for the U.S., after withdrawal, to subsidize NATO with the full $5 billion per month we now spend fighting a futile conflict? After two years of that subsidy, the cost requirement may well drop to the $1 billion monthly level, eminently affordable by our treasury.

HOW TO INITIATE?

We should launch the idea with a bold-stroke proposal placed upon the world stage by Sec. of State Condi Rice, delivered through our Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to Iraq President Jalal Talabani and the National Assembly. It would call for a petition, signed by leaders of all three ethnic factions plus the National Assembly and President Bush, to be presented to NATO’s Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, formally requesting a NATO partnership with the Iraq legislature to create the Confederation and partition the country. The proposal would include an expeditious U.S. withdrawal and guarantee of a full 24 months subsidy followed by the reduced level of funding.The Rice manifesto would be communicated on a basis not to appear that we’re “dumping” Iraq on a NATO fall-guy, but with full recognition (and humility) that the U.S. has outlived its usefulness as chief rebuilder of that nation. It would candidly acknowledge that, mindful of the lightning rod of anti-Western resentment that we’ve become, the most constructive alternative is to shift the security and administration role to a respected neutral organization, while we continue to provide the bulk of financial support for security, humanitarian aid, and rebuilding.

Rather than earning Arab and worldwide derision and condemnation as a cut-and-run coward, we’d earn respect as an imaginative facilitator who was able to break a deadly, mindless,hopeless logjam. We’d be seen as an enlightened benefactor that truly learned lessons from history, finally realizing that if we had acted as decisively in Bosnia or Rwanda, over a million lives would have been saved. The fact is that we need this turnabout in world opinion as much as we need to stabilize Iraq and shed its burden. Harvard’s Kennedy School Professor Joe Nye, a colleague of mine on the board of Business for Diplomatic Action, said last month that the U.S. image has sunk so low that in key countries like Jordan and Pakistan, more people say they have confidence in Osama bin Laden than in George W. Bush. And even in traditionally allied nations like Sweden,Netherlands and Germany, a very recent survey showed “the arrogance of the American people,exacerbated by our current visa policies, were the key drivers of anti-American sentiment,” which is still on the rise, according to our BDA Chairman, DDB’s Keith Reinhard. Our record $700 billion foreign trade deficit this year is another painful symptom of our popularity level.

What we need most is a new mindset. We must awaken to the realities of the Iraq enigma, not spitefully throw the Sunni Babylonians out with the Baath water, and recognize that Iraq’s “successful” constitutional vote was not a triumph of freedom but only another incendiary bomb. Rethinking our hapless Mideast aspirations, we must be willing to end up with three stable, workable little democracies rather than blindly insisting on a single, flawed, fantasy democracy doomed to disintegration. In the real world of cold, corporate calculation, companies that consolidated unwisely in the 80’s and 90’s are busy spinning off and separating the misfitting parts into more sensible entities. The same logic should set a pattern for geopolitics. Blood is forever thicker than mandates.

Will the proposal fly? House International Affairs Chairman Henry Hyde reacted very positively to the idea and has turned it over to Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton with his personal endorsement. It poses a tough question for the administration. But considering the morass engulfing us, exactly what do we have to lose in asking ?

-30-

Mr. Pincus is a columnist of The Chicago Sun Times, a Finance Professor at DePaul University, a communications consultant to Fortune 500 companies, and the former owner of the nation’s third largest independent public relations agency.

A PRACTICAL PROPOSAL TO EXIT IRAQ

Oct. 2005

By Ted Pincus

We’re stumped. No way out.

We can’t stay mired in the sand for years, as the neocon hawks insist. It’s unthinkable to say we won and walk away, as the doves demand.

But there’s a third ornithological alternative. Call it The Phoenix solution.

In boxing, when there’s excessive bleeding, you separate the adversaries, especially when they were coerced into the ring together in the first place.

When you cut through all the chatter, there’s one basic reason that we face endless bloodshed that has prevented our departure: Sunni paranoia that as a 20% minority, it will be forever outvoted and dominated in any form of “free democratic” Iraq. It’s the terror of this prospect that has generated its own reign of terror and will sustain it ad infinitum. The fact is that 95% of the insurgent attacks have been initiated by Sunni Arabs, primarily against Shiite and Kurdish troops, police and civilians. Finding a way to overcome Sunni fear holds the key to a peaceful exit. And how has history shown that we resolve a bitter ethnic dispute? By separating the parties, making each feel secure, and giving the underdog a bone he can’t refuse – a portion that is more than his fair share. You pacify even the most rabid suicidal fanatic by taking away a cause to die for.

That solution could be embodied in a new strategy not yet considered by American, Mideast or world leadership: a Confederation of Iraqi States with a three way partition administered by NATO. In summary, it would create an independent Sunni state –Babylonia (20% of the population); an independent Kurdistan (Kurds, Turkomen,Chaldeans, 17% of the population); and an independent Shiite Sumeria (63% of the population), all under the continued umbrella of a joint border protection force and an oil revenue-sharing guarantee.

IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEW INITIATIVE?

Despite the Bush administration’s grasping for auspicious straws in the wind, any realistic assessment (including those by some of our own generals) is grim. Iraq has successfully elected an interim central government dominated by Shiites whom the Sunni has sworn to thwart. On Oct. 15 the Iraqi people went go back to the polls and ratified a referendum to a Shiite-drafted constitution, written over the loud objections of most Sunni leaders. The content reflects what many observers feel is a worrisome regression into a theocracy dominated by clerics administering Shariah law, rigidly restraining women’s rights and posing low tolerance for non-believers. While it does propose creation of semi-autonomous regions of the country, it still paves the way for permanent Shiite supremacy as the faction holding the overwhelming majority trump card.

Since the ratification was passed despite the violent protests of the Sunnis, the current rate of bloodshed –highest since the 2003 invasion—has continued and is predicted to intensify, perhaps provoking Lebanon-style all-out civil war. On any basis, we’re at square one, or worse.

WHY SHOULD THE PROBLEM GO AWAY?

Let’s pause and look at it from the underdog’s perspective. As an Iraqi Sunni, you’ve been on top since the Sixteenth Century when the Ottomans threw out the last of the Mongols and gave your tribes the prime position. You’ve been the elite political force, the intelligentsia, with overriding economic control, and enjoying a highly secular regime. And for 35 years, you were Saddam’s Baath brethren and beneficiaries—riding herd over the majority—until his downfall. Suddenly you’re faced with a U.S.-imposed “democracy” in which your adversaries, with a massive majority led by clerics take control. There you sit, five million surrounded by 22 million non-Sunni neighbors. You now face the prospect of being allocated the pauper’s share of government posts, top jobs, access to ports (you have none), access to oil reserves (you have almost no wells) and a legal and religious climate wholly unacceptable despite the fact that the Shiites are your Arab brothers and even the non-Arab Kurds are mostly of the same Muslim faith. To avoid this fate, you believe, may be well worth dying for. And there’s always the hope that you’ll fight and survive, grind down the Americans after 10 or 20 years of occupation, see them finally exit like the French in Algeria, and then take over the country by force.

It’s unlikely that our sheer perseverance will pay. The latest Brookings Institution report shows the insurgents growing in two years from an estimated 3,000 fighters in Aug. 03 to 18,000 as of Aug. 05. In that month there were 90 U.S. troops killed vs. 36 in the same month of 03; 608 wounded vs. 181 in the 03 month; 280 Iraqi security personnel killed vs. 50 in Aug. 03; and 600 Iraqi civilians killed vs. 225 in Aug. 03. And on this past Sept. 14 alone, there were eight separate terrorist bombings that killed 160 and injured 500, for which various Al Queda/Sunni groups took full credit, including their Abu Musab Zarqawi who brazenly declared “all-out war on Iraq’s Shiites.” One underlying tangible motivation is that the expected Sunni share of future national oil revenue was 20% in 03 and now estimated to be as low as 5%, Brookings says.

Little wonder that the Sunnis are pessimistic about a fair share, and thousands of them took to the streets in Tikrit alone on Aug. 29 and since, to denounce the draft. Sunni Alliance spokesman Adnan Muhammad Salman al-Dulaimi has urged his followers to flatly reject the constitution next month. Meanwhile, Iraq Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has turned a deaf ear.

But the sorry state of affairs should surprise no one (least of whom those CIA officials who had accurately predicted it four years ago). Iraq is an artificial land, never meant to be a united country. It was invented out of the post World War I mess inherited by Winston Churchill as British Colonial Secretary charged with making sense of the defeated Ottoman Empire. The three major ethnic groups were united by decree, with the Sunnis given the upper hand through most of the Twentieth Century. This force togetherness laid the same seeds of ultimate violence as had similar cases such as Sudan, Rwanda, Serbia and Chechnya. An age-old folly repeated once again.

HOW WOULD A PARTITION PLAN WORK?

There is every historical precedent for the potential success of a partition solution, witness the Balkans, or better yet the eminently positive separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic in 1993. It’s notable that in the same year, Eritrea was finally separated from Ethiopia and has become the comeback story of East Africa.

Essentially, the reorganization of Iraq must be implemented not by the U.S. or Coalition Command, nor the Oil-For-Food-tarnished U.N. which has lost much credibility, but by The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO has earned its stripes repeatedly, most particularly in the Balkans. Symbolizing Europe, it would have far greater respect in the Mideast than any other entity. Those with whom I’ve spoken who see practical sense in the idea include former U.S. Ambassador and State Dept. Director of Central European Affairs J.D. Bindinagle, and University of Chicago Professor of Near Eastern Civilization Ilai Alon.

While there would continue to be an operating umbrella government, it would serve only three purposes: 1. a joint military force to protect Iraq borders; 2. the production and distribution of all Iraqi oil and natural gas; and 3. operation of the refineries,pipelines and ocean tanker ports on the Persian Gulf, on behalf of all three states of the Confederation.Beyond this, each of the sectors would operate as an autonomous entity with total freedom to draft its own constitution, establish its own legal system government and taxation power. Each would have sovereign status and representation at the U.N.

The partitioning would be along existing ethnic population lines, with the arable land split almost evenly. The Kurdish north would be centered at Kirkuk (pop.728,000), Irbil( pop. 839,000) and Mosul (pop. 1.7 million). The Shiite south would be centered at Basra (pop.1.3 million),Karbala (pop. 549,000 ) and Amarah ( pop. 340,000). The Sunnis would occupy the central sector as most do now, anchored by Baghdad (pop.5.6 million), Hilla (pop. 524,000) and Samarra (pop.200,000).

Of Iraq’s total population of 27 million, some would be voluntarily relocated to unify them with their ethnic countrymen. There would be myriad sacrifices, but far smaller ones than the certain casualties of continued strife. Consider that the partition of India in 1947 precipitated a massive transfer of Hindus to India and Muslims to Pakistan –but with positive long term blessings, as did the transfer of populations in Post World War II Poland, Czechoslovakia and Germany, for improved quality of life.

HOW TO SELL IT?

Confronting the idea would be three major hurdles, each surmountable.

The key to the entire plan is to feed the underdog. This means a willingness by the Shiites and Kurds to hand the Sunnis more than they deserve in economic benefits, namely a 25% share of the nation’s oil and gas net revenues. With 80% of the producing oil output in the south and virtually the balance in Kurdistan, and the most gas coming from Kirkuk, Bai Hassan and other fields in the north, and the Zubair field in the south, the Shiites and Kurds have a monopoly that needs equalization. By taking slightly less than their rightful share, and providing a permanent guarantee to the Sunni, they hopefully would be buying a lasting peace.

In selling this idea to Shiite and Kurd leadership, we’re halfway home. Top Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has already gone on public record as supporting the concept of autonomy for the three regions. While some independent clerics like Moktada al-Sadr and Ayatollah Muhammad Yacoubi have opposed the concept, some of the most politically powerful Shiites in Iraq, like Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a key mover in the influential Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, are ardent supporters.

The Kurds meanwhile have already achieved semi-autonomy and leaders like Massoud Barzani would likely be the first in line to concede oil revenues in exchange for peaceful independence and guaranteed protection on the borders of Trukey and Syria –two nations never enamored with the prospect of a free Kurdistan. And although Saddam’s “Arabization” programs forced an influx of Sunni who would now be relocated –mainly from the province of Nineveh—this once again may be a trade-off well worth the disruption.

The second hurdle will be selling the idea to Europe. Sending a NATO peacekeeping force to Iraq is no small order. But today, with the massive immigration of Muslims into Central Europe (new total: over 20 million, and in France alone representing 11% of the nation’s population) and with the London subway bombings as a clear warning, Europe may see that it has far more to lose from a sustained conflagration in Iraq. It may well have a new perspective of the return-on-investment in stepping off the sidelines and playing a key role to bring lasting peace (including the reduction of risk of oil shortages and further price inflation).

Far fetched? Bear in mind that NATO has a stellar history of successes in peacekeeping –in contrast to the U.N.’s deer-in-the-headlights paralysis that cost a half-million lives in Rwanda. NATO has acted decisively in bringing peace to Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and now has trained,airlifted and directed 1,300 African Union peacekeepers that are bringing the Darfur genocide to an end. Also bear in mind that NATO is already actively fighting terrorism in Central Asia, where four provisional reconstruction teams are in West Afghanistan, providing security, rehab and extending the government authority beyond Kabul. Its International Security Assistance Force is now heading south to secure that area as well. Lastly, bear in mind that NATO is already in Iraq, quietly and with meager publicity. Its Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said last month that “we recognize a continuing commitment to the democratic process in Iraq,” as exemplified by NATO’s current training of Iraqi troops at Ar Rustimiyah.

The third hurdle of course would be to gain consent from the U.S. government. A year ago, the idea would have been dismissed categorically as one offering less than the president’s vision of “mission accomplished.” But today’s altered circumstances present a far more compelling incentive to consider this compromise solution as a welcome gift. In the wake of wholly unanticipated Katrina, the president’s overall approval rating has sunk to a record low of 40%, according to the latest Wall St Journal/NBC News poll, and it says 55% favor bringing our soldiers home. Meanwhile, the latest NY Times/CBS News poll shows only 35% with confidence about his ability to handle Iraq. It reported 52% of Americans call for immediate withdrawal “even if it means abandoning the president’s goal of restoring stability to that country.” An increasing number of experts are predicting that our chances of ultimately surmounting the rising, resilient, ubiquitous insurgency are no better than they were in Viet Nam, or the French experience in Algeria and Indo-China, or the Israeli experience in Lebanon. With the U.S. Army spread thin, with the National Guard unable to keep a serviceman on active duty longer than 24 months, with no chance for a draft as a congressional election year looms, The White House has few options. And on the flip side, what greater political bonanza could the GOP find in 06 than a rapid,decisive shift of our responsibilities to NATO, winning credit for implementing a peaceful solution, and bringing the boys home?

BUT COULD WE PULL IT OFF?

Follow the money. Look at the fundamental math. Iraq and the U.S.—besides offering ethnic separation and security—can virtually buy themselves a lasting peace. Consider that Iraq is sitting on 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves –the third largest known deposit in the world—and 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet its current production of only 2.2 million barrels of oil per day helps boost its gross domestic product to only $54 billion. Only 10% of the nation has been geologically explored and only 17 of 80 discovered oil fields have even been developed. Of Iraq’s 1,500 operating wells, about 1,000 are in the Shiite south (mainly the Rumaila field) with its high quality “sweet crude” that contains far lower percent of hydrogen sulfide and burns much cleaner. Moreover, most Iraqi oil in both north and south is some of the world’s least costly to extract because it lies close to the surface, with an average cost of less than $2 per barrel to produce.

But even with its present export limitations, Iraq’s 2.2 million daily barrels now enjoy record price levels of over $65 (before tanker costs), translating into projected annual gross revenues of $52 billion, not to mention natural gas and other exports. If the Sunni Federal Republic of Babylonia were handed a guaranteed 25% share or perhaps $13 billion (i.e., $2.6 million per capita), gross before transport, it would be receiving over a $2.5 billion premium per year above its proportional share. Obviously, if peace can at last permit expanded exploration and production activity, the numbers would soar.

At the same time, to fund a NATO administration of the regional separation, relocation and confederation government, would it not be a bargain for the U.S., after withdrawal, to subsidize NATO with the full $5 billion per month we now spend fighting a futile conflict? After two years of that subsidy, the cost requirement may well drop to the $1 billion monthly level, eminently affordable by our treasury.

HOW TO INITIATE?

We should launch the idea with a bold-stroke proposal placed upon the world stage by Sec. of State Condi Rice, delivered through our Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to Iraq President Jalal Talabani and the National Assembly. It would call for a petition, signed by leaders of all three ethnic factions plus the National Assembly and President Bush, to be presented to NATO’s Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, formally requesting a NATO partnership with the Iraq legislature to create the Confederation and partition the country. The proposal would include an expeditious U.S. withdrawal and guarantee of a full 24 months subsidy followed by the reduced level of funding.The Rice manifesto would be communicated on a basis not to appear that we’re “dumping” Iraq on a NATO fall-guy, but with full recognition (and humility) that the U.S. has outlived its usefulness as chief rebuilder of that nation. It would candidly acknowledge that, mindful of the lightning rod of anti-Western resentment that we’ve become, the most constructive alternative is to shift the security and administration role to a respected neutral organization, while we continue to provide the bulk of financial support for security, humanitarian aid, and rebuilding.

Rather than earning Arab and worldwide derision and condemnation as a cut-and-run coward, we’d earn respect as an imaginative facilitator who was able to break a deadly, mindless,hopeless logjam. We’d be seen as an enlightened benefactor that truly learned lessons from history, finally realizing that if we had acted as decisively in Bosnia or Rwanda, over a million lives would have been saved. The fact is that we need this turnabout in world opinion as much as we need to stabilize Iraq and shed its burden. Harvard’s Kennedy School Professor Joe Nye, a colleague of mine on the board of Business for Diplomatic Action, said last month that the U.S. image has sunk so low that in key countries like Jordan and Pakistan, more people say they have confidence in Osama bin Laden than in George W. Bush. And even in traditionally allied nations like Sweden,Netherlands and Germany, a very recent survey showed “the arrogance of the American people,exacerbated by our current visa policies, were the key drivers of anti-American sentiment,” which is still on the rise, according to our BDA Chairman, DDB’s Keith Reinhard. Our record $700 billion foreign trade deficit this year is another painful symptom of our popularity level.

What we need most is a new mindset. We must awaken to the realities of the Iraq enigma, not spitefully throw the Sunni Babylonians out with the Baath water, and recognize that Iraq’s “successful” constitutional vote was not a triumph of freedom but only another incendiary bomb. Rethinking our hapless Mideast aspirations, we must be willing to end up with three stable, workable little democracies rather than blindly insisting on a single, flawed, fantasy democracy doomed to disintegration. In the real world of cold, corporate calculation, companies that consolidated unwisely in the 80’s and 90’s are busy spinning off and separating the misfitting parts into more sensible entities. The same logic should set a pattern for geopolitics. Blood is forever thicker than mandates.

Will the proposal fly? House International Affairs Chairman Henry Hyde reacted very positively to the idea and has turned it over to Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton with his personal endorsement. It poses a tough question for the administration. But considering the morass engulfing us, exactly what do we have to lose in asking ?

-30-

Mr. Pincus is a columnist of The Chicago Sun Times, a Finance Professor at DePaul University, a communications consultant to Fortune 500 companies, and the former owner of the nation’s third largest independent public relations agency.

A PRACTICAL PROPOSAL TO EXIT IRAQ

Oct. 2005

By Ted Pincus

We’re stumped. No way out.

We can’t stay mired in the sand for years, as the neocon hawks insist. It’s unthinkable to say we won and walk away, as the doves demand.

But there’s a third ornithological alternative. Call it The Phoenix solution.

In boxing, when there’s excessive bleeding, you separate the adversaries, especially when they were coerced into the ring together in the first place.

When you cut through all the chatter, there’s one basic reason that we face endless bloodshed that has prevented our departure: Sunni paranoia that as a 20% minority, it will be forever outvoted and dominated in any form of “free democratic” Iraq. It’s the terror of this prospect that has generated its own reign of terror and will sustain it ad infinitum. The fact is that 95% of the insurgent attacks have been initiated by Sunni Arabs, primarily against Shiite and Kurdish troops, police and civilians. Finding a way to overcome Sunni fear holds the key to a peaceful exit. And how has history shown that we resolve a bitter ethnic dispute? By separating the parties, making each feel secure, and giving the underdog a bone he can’t refuse – a portion that is more than his fair share. You pacify even the most rabid suicidal fanatic by taking away a cause to die for.

That solution could be embodied in a new strategy not yet considered by American, Mideast or world leadership: a Confederation of Iraqi States with a three way partition administered by NATO. In summary, it would create an independent Sunni state –Babylonia (20% of the population); an independent Kurdistan (Kurds, Turkomen,Chaldeans, 17% of the population); and an independent Shiite Sumeria (63% of the population), all under the continued umbrella of a joint border protection force and an oil revenue-sharing guarantee.

IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEW INITIATIVE?

Despite the Bush administration’s grasping for auspicious straws in the wind, any realistic assessment (including those by some of our own generals) is grim. Iraq has successfully elected an interim central government dominated by Shiites whom the Sunni has sworn to thwart. On Oct. 15 the Iraqi people went go back to the polls and ratified a referendum to a Shiite-drafted constitution, written over the loud objections of most Sunni leaders. The content reflects what many observers feel is a worrisome regression into a theocracy dominated by clerics administering Shariah law, rigidly restraining women’s rights and posing low tolerance for non-believers. While it does propose creation of semi-autonomous regions of the country, it still paves the way for permanent Shiite supremacy as the faction holding the overwhelming majority trump card.

Since the ratification was passed despite the violent protests of the Sunnis, the current rate of bloodshed –highest since the 2003 invasion—has continued and is predicted to intensify, perhaps provoking Lebanon-style all-out civil war. On any basis, we’re at square one, or worse.

WHY SHOULD THE PROBLEM GO AWAY?

Let’s pause and look at it from the underdog’s perspective. As an Iraqi Sunni, you’ve been on top since the Sixteenth Century when the Ottomans threw out the last of the Mongols and gave your tribes the prime position. You’ve been the elite political force, the intelligentsia, with overriding economic control, and enjoying a highly secular regime. And for 35 years, you were Saddam’s Baath brethren and beneficiaries—riding herd over the majority—until his downfall. Suddenly you’re faced with a U.S.-imposed “democracy” in which your adversaries, with a massive majority led by clerics take control. There you sit, five million surrounded by 22 million non-Sunni neighbors. You now face the prospect of being allocated the pauper’s share of government posts, top jobs, access to ports (you have none), access to oil reserves (you have almost no wells) and a legal and religious climate wholly unacceptable despite the fact that the Shiites are your Arab brothers and even the non-Arab Kurds are mostly of the same Muslim faith. To avoid this fate, you believe, may be well worth dying for. And there’s always the hope that you’ll fight and survive, grind down the Americans after 10 or 20 years of occupation, see them finally exit like the French in Algeria, and then take over the country by force.

It’s unlikely that our sheer perseverance will pay. The latest Brookings Institution report shows the insurgents growing in two years from an estimated 3,000 fighters in Aug. 03 to 18,000 as of Aug. 05. In that month there were 90 U.S. troops killed vs. 36 in the same month of 03; 608 wounded vs. 181 in the 03 month; 280 Iraqi security personnel killed vs. 50 in Aug. 03; and 600 Iraqi civilians killed vs. 225 in Aug. 03. And on this past Sept. 14 alone, there were eight separate terrorist bombings that killed 160 and injured 500, for which various Al Queda/Sunni groups took full credit, including their Abu Musab Zarqawi who brazenly declared “all-out war on Iraq’s Shiites.” One underlying tangible motivation is that the expected Sunni share of future national oil revenue was 20% in 03 and now estimated to be as low as 5%, Brookings says.

Little wonder that the Sunnis are pessimistic about a fair share, and thousands of them took to the streets in Tikrit alone on Aug. 29 and since, to denounce the draft. Sunni Alliance spokesman Adnan Muhammad Salman al-Dulaimi has urged his followers to flatly reject the constitution next month. Meanwhile, Iraq Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has turned a deaf ear.

But the sorry state of affairs should surprise no one (least of whom those CIA officials who had accurately predicted it four years ago). Iraq is an artificial land, never meant to be a united country. It was invented out of the post World War I mess inherited by Winston Churchill as British Colonial Secretary charged with making sense of the defeated Ottoman Empire. The three major ethnic groups were united by decree, with the Sunnis given the upper hand through most of the Twentieth Century. This force togetherness laid the same seeds of ultimate violence as had similar cases such as Sudan, Rwanda, Serbia and Chechnya. An age-old folly repeated once again.

HOW WOULD A PARTITION PLAN WORK?

There is every historical precedent for the potential success of a partition solution, witness the Balkans, or better yet the eminently positive separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic in 1993. It’s notable that in the same year, Eritrea was finally separated from Ethiopia and has become the comeback story of East Africa.

Essentially, the reorganization of Iraq must be implemented not by the U.S. or Coalition Command, nor the Oil-For-Food-tarnished U.N. which has lost much credibility, but by The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO has earned its stripes repeatedly, most particularly in the Balkans. Symbolizing Europe, it would have far greater respect in the Mideast than any other entity. Those with whom I’ve spoken who see practical sense in the idea include former U.S. Ambassador and State Dept. Director of Central European Affairs J.D. Bindinagle, and University of Chicago Professor of Near Eastern Civilization Ilai Alon.

While there would continue to be an operating umbrella government, it would serve only three purposes: 1. a joint military force to protect Iraq borders; 2. the production and distribution of all Iraqi oil and natural gas; and 3. operation of the refineries,pipelines and ocean tanker ports on the Persian Gulf, on behalf of all three states of the Confederation.Beyond this, each of the sectors would operate as an autonomous entity with total freedom to draft its own constitution, establish its own legal system government and taxation power. Each would have sovereign status and representation at the U.N.

The partitioning would be along existing ethnic population lines, with the arable land split almost evenly. The Kurdish north would be centered at Kirkuk (pop.728,000), Irbil( pop. 839,000) and Mosul (pop. 1.7 million). The Shiite south would be centered at Basra (pop.1.3 million),Karbala (pop. 549,000 ) and Amarah ( pop. 340,000). The Sunnis would occupy the central sector as most do now, anchored by Baghdad (pop.5.6 million), Hilla (pop. 524,000) and Samarra (pop.200,000).

Of Iraq’s total population of 27 million, some would be voluntarily relocated to unify them with their ethnic countrymen. There would be myriad sacrifices, but far smaller ones than the certain casualties of continued strife. Consider that the partition of India in 1947 precipitated a massive transfer of Hindus to India and Muslims to Pakistan –but with positive long term blessings, as did the transfer of populations in Post World War II Poland, Czechoslovakia and Germany, for improved quality of life.

HOW TO SELL IT?

Confronting the idea would be three major hurdles, each surmountable.

The key to the entire plan is to feed the underdog. This means a willingness by the Shiites and Kurds to hand the Sunnis more than they deserve in economic benefits, namely a 25% share of the nation’s oil and gas net revenues. With 80% of the producing oil output in the south and virtually the balance in Kurdistan, and the most gas coming from Kirkuk, Bai Hassan and other fields in the north, and the Zubair field in the south, the Shiites and Kurds have a monopoly that needs equalization. By taking slightly less than their rightful share, and providing a permanent guarantee to the Sunni, they hopefully would be buying a lasting peace.

In selling this idea to Shiite and Kurd leadership, we’re halfway home. Top Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has already gone on public record as supporting the concept of autonomy for the three regions. While some independent clerics like Moktada al-Sadr and Ayatollah Muhammad Yacoubi have opposed the concept, some of the most politically powerful Shiites in Iraq, like Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a key mover in the influential Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, are ardent supporters.

The Kurds meanwhile have already achieved semi-autonomy and leaders like Massoud Barzani would likely be the first in line to concede oil revenues in exchange for peaceful independence and guaranteed protection on the borders of Trukey and Syria –two nations never enamored with the prospect of a free Kurdistan. And although Saddam’s “Arabization” programs forced an influx of Sunni who would now be relocated –mainly from the province of Nineveh—this once again may be a trade-off well worth the disruption.

The second hurdle will be selling the idea to Europe. Sending a NATO peacekeeping force to Iraq is no small order. But today, with the massive immigration of Muslims into Central Europe (new total: over 20 million, and in France alone representing 11% of the nation’s population) and with the London subway bombings as a clear warning, Europe may see that it has far more to lose from a sustained conflagration in Iraq. It may well have a new perspective of the return-on-investment in stepping off the sidelines and playing a key role to bring lasting peace (including the reduction of risk of oil shortages and further price inflation).

Far fetched? Bear in mind that NATO has a stellar history of successes in peacekeeping –in contrast to the U.N.’s deer-in-the-headlights paralysis that cost a half-million lives in Rwanda. NATO has acted decisively in bringing peace to Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and now has trained,airlifted and directed 1,300 African Union peacekeepers that are bringing the Darfur genocide to an end. Also bear in mind that NATO is already actively fighting terrorism in Central Asia, where four provisional reconstruction teams are in West Afghanistan, providing security, rehab and extending the government authority beyond Kabul. Its International Security Assistance Force is now heading south to secure that area as well. Lastly, bear in mind that NATO is already in Iraq, quietly and with meager publicity. Its Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said last month that “we recognize a continuing commitment to the democratic process in Iraq,” as exemplified by NATO’s current training of Iraqi troops at Ar Rustimiyah.

The third hurdle of course would be to gain consent from the U.S. government. A year ago, the idea would have been dismissed categorically as one offering less than the president’s vision of “mission accomplished.” But today’s altered circumstances present a far more compelling incentive to consider this compromise solution as a welcome gift. In the wake of wholly unanticipated Katrina, the president’s overall approval rating has sunk to a record low of 40%, according to the latest Wall St Journal/NBC News poll, and it says 55% favor bringing our soldiers home. Meanwhile, the latest NY Times/CBS News poll shows only 35% with confidence about his ability to handle Iraq. It reported 52% of Americans call for immediate withdrawal “even if it means abandoning the president’s goal of restoring stability to that country.” An increasing number of experts are predicting that our chances of ultimately surmounting the rising, resilient, ubiquitous insurgency are no better than they were in Viet Nam, or the French experience in Algeria and Indo-China, or the Israeli experience in Lebanon. With the U.S. Army spread thin, with the National Guard unable to keep a serviceman on active duty longer than 24 months, with no chance for a draft as a congressional election year looms, The White House has few options. And on the flip side, what greater political bonanza could the GOP find in 06 than a rapid,decisive shift of our responsibilities to NATO, winning credit for implementing a peaceful solution, and bringing the boys home?

BUT COULD WE PULL IT OFF?

Follow the money. Look at the fundamental math. Iraq and the U.S.—besides offering ethnic separation and security—can virtually buy themselves a lasting peace. Consider that Iraq is sitting on 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves –the third largest known deposit in the world—and 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet its current production of only 2.2 million barrels of oil per day helps boost its gross domestic product to only $54 billion. Only 10% of the nation has been geologically explored and only 17 of 80 discovered oil fields have even been developed. Of Iraq’s 1,500 operating wells, about 1,000 are in the Shiite south (mainly the Rumaila field) with its high quality “sweet crude” that contains far lower percent of hydrogen sulfide and burns much cleaner. Moreover, most Iraqi oil in both north and south is some of the world’s least costly to extract because it lies close to the surface, with an average cost of less than $2 per barrel to produce.

But even with its present export limitations, Iraq’s 2.2 million daily barrels now enjoy record price levels of over $65 (before tanker costs), translating into projected annual gross revenues of $52 billion, not to mention natural gas and other exports. If the Sunni Federal Republic of Babylonia were handed a guaranteed 25% share or perhaps $13 billion (i.e., $2.6 million per capita), gross before transport, it would be receiving over a $2.5 billion premium per year above its proportional share. Obviously, if peace can at last permit expanded exploration and production activity, the numbers would soar.

At the same time, to fund a NATO administration of the regional separation, relocation and confederation government, would it not be a bargain for the U.S., after withdrawal, to subsidize NATO with the full $5 billion per month we now spend fighting a futile conflict? After two years of that subsidy, the cost requirement may well drop to the $1 billion monthly level, eminently affordable by our treasury.

HOW TO INITIATE?

We should launch the idea with a bold-stroke proposal placed upon the world stage by Sec. of State Condi Rice, delivered through our Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to Iraq President Jalal Talabani and the National Assembly. It would call for a petition, signed by leaders of all three ethnic factions plus the National Assembly and President Bush, to be presented to NATO’s Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, formally requesting a NATO partnership with the Iraq legislature to create the Confederation and partition the country. The proposal would include an expeditious U.S. withdrawal and guarantee of a full 24 months subsidy followed by the reduced level of funding.The Rice manifesto would be communicated on a basis not to appear that we’re “dumping” Iraq on a NATO fall-guy, but with full recognition (and humility) that the U.S. has outlived its usefulness as chief rebuilder of that nation. It would candidly acknowledge that, mindful of the lightning rod of anti-Western resentment that we’ve become, the most constructive alternative is to shift the security and administration role to a respected neutral organization, while we continue to provide the bulk of financial support for security, humanitarian aid, and rebuilding.

Rather than earning Arab and worldwide derision and condemnation as a cut-and-run coward, we’d earn respect as an imaginative facilitator who was able to break a deadly, mindless,hopeless logjam. We’d be seen as an enlightened benefactor that truly learned lessons from history, finally realizing that if we had acted as decisively in Bosnia or Rwanda, over a million lives would have been saved. The fact is that we need this turnabout in world opinion as much as we need to stabilize Iraq and shed its burden. Harvard’s Kennedy School Professor Joe Nye, a colleague of mine on the board of Business for Diplomatic Action, said last month that the U.S. image has sunk so low that in key countries like Jordan and Pakistan, more people say they have confidence in Osama bin Laden than in George W. Bush. And even in traditionally allied nations like Sweden,Netherlands and Germany, a very recent survey showed “the arrogance of the American people,exacerbated by our current visa policies, were the key drivers of anti-American sentiment,” which is still on the rise, according to our BDA Chairman, DDB’s Keith Reinhard. Our record $700 billion foreign trade deficit this year is another painful symptom of our popularity level.

What we need most is a new mindset. We must awaken to the realities of the Iraq enigma, not spitefully throw the Sunni Babylonians out with the Baath water, and recognize that Iraq’s “successful” constitutional vote was not a triumph of freedom but only another incendiary bomb. Rethinking our hapless Mideast aspirations, we must be willing to end up with three stable, workable little democracies rather than blindly insisting on a single, flawed, fantasy democracy doomed to disintegration. In the real world of cold, corporate calculation, companies that consolidated unwisely in the 80’s and 90’s are busy spinning off and separating the misfitting parts into more sensible entities. The same logic should set a pattern for geopolitics. Blood is forever thicker than mandates.

Will the proposal fly? House International Affairs Chairman Henry Hyde reacted very positively to the idea and has turned it over to Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton with his personal endorsement. It poses a tough question for the administration. But considering the morass engulfing us, exactly what do we have to lose in asking ?

-30-

Mr. Pincus is a columnist of The Chicago Sun Times, a Finance Professor at DePaul University, a communications consultant to Fortune 500 companies, and the former owner of the nation’s third largest independent public relations agency.

A PRACTICAL PROPOSAL TO EXIT IRAQ

Oct. 2005

By Ted Pincus

We’re stumped. No way out.

We can’t stay mired in the sand for years, as the neocon hawks insist. It’s unthinkable to say we won and walk away, as the doves demand.

But there’s a third ornithological alternative. Call it The Phoenix solution.

In boxing, when there’s excessive bleeding, you separate the adversaries, especially when they were coerced into the ring together in the first place.

When you cut through all the chatter, there’s one basic reason that we face endless bloodshed that has prevented our departure: Sunni paranoia that as a 20% minority, it will be forever outvoted and dominated in any form of “free democratic” Iraq. It’s the terror of this prospect that has generated its own reign of terror and will sustain it ad infinitum. The fact is that 95% of the insurgent attacks have been initiated by Sunni Arabs, primarily against Shiite and Kurdish troops, police and civilians. Finding a way to overcome Sunni fear holds the key to a peaceful exit. And how has history shown that we resolve a bitter ethnic dispute? By separating the parties, making each feel secure, and giving the underdog a bone he can’t refuse – a portion that is more than his fair share. You pacify even the most rabid suicidal fanatic by taking away a cause to die for.

That solution could be embodied in a new strategy not yet considered by American, Mideast or world leadership: a Confederation of Iraqi States with a three way partition administered by NATO. In summary, it would create an independent Sunni state –Babylonia (20% of the population); an independent Kurdistan (Kurds, Turkomen,Chaldeans, 17% of the population); and an independent Shiite Sumeria (63% of the population), all under the continued umbrella of a joint border protection force and an oil revenue-sharing guarantee.

IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEW INITIATIVE?

Despite the Bush administration’s grasping for auspicious straws in the wind, any realistic assessment (including those by some of our own generals) is grim. Iraq has successfully elected an interim central government dominated by Shiites whom the Sunni has sworn to thwart. On Oct. 15 the Iraqi people went go back to the polls and ratified a referendum to a Shiite-drafted constitution, written over the loud objections of most Sunni leaders. The content reflects what many observers feel is a worrisome regression into a theocracy dominated by clerics administering Shariah law, rigidly restraining women’s rights and posing low tolerance for non-believers. While it does propose creation of semi-autonomous regions of the country, it still paves the way for permanent Shiite supremacy as the faction holding the overwhelming majority trump card.

Since the ratification was passed despite the violent protests of the Sunnis, the current rate of bloodshed –highest since the 2003 invasion—has continued and is predicted to intensify, perhaps provoking Lebanon-style all-out civil war. On any basis, we’re at square one, or worse.

WHY SHOULD THE PROBLEM GO AWAY?

Let’s pause and look at it from the underdog’s perspective. As an Iraqi Sunni, you’ve been on top since the Sixteenth Century when the Ottomans threw out the last of the Mongols and gave your tribes the prime position. You’ve been the elite political force, the intelligentsia, with overriding economic control, and enjoying a highly secular regime. And for 35 years, you were Saddam’s Baath brethren and beneficiaries—riding herd over the majority—until his downfall. Suddenly you’re faced with a U.S.-imposed “democracy” in which your adversaries, with a massive majority led by clerics take control. There you sit, five million surrounded by 22 million non-Sunni neighbors. You now face the prospect of being allocated the pauper’s share of government posts, top jobs, access to ports (you have none), access to oil reserves (you have almost no wells) and a legal and religious climate wholly unacceptable despite the fact that the Shiites are your Arab brothers and even the non-Arab Kurds are mostly of the same Muslim faith. To avoid this fate, you believe, may be well worth dying for. And there’s always the hope that you’ll fight and survive, grind down the Americans after 10 or 20 years of occupation, see them finally exit like the French in Algeria, and then take over the country by force.

It’s unlikely that our sheer perseverance will pay. The latest Brookings Institution report shows the insurgents growing in two years from an estimated 3,000 fighters in Aug. 03 to 18,000 as of Aug. 05. In that month there were 90 U.S. troops killed vs. 36 in the same month of 03; 608 wounded vs. 181 in the 03 month; 280 Iraqi security personnel killed vs. 50 in Aug. 03; and 600 Iraqi civilians killed vs. 225 in Aug. 03. And on this past Sept. 14 alone, there were eight separate terrorist bombings that killed 160 and injured 500, for which various Al Queda/Sunni groups took full credit, including their Abu Musab Zarqawi who brazenly declared “all-out war on Iraq’s Shiites.” One underlying tangible motivation is that the expected Sunni share of future national oil revenue was 20% in 03 and now estimated to be as low as 5%, Brookings says.

Little wonder that the Sunnis are pessimistic about a fair share, and thousands of them took to the streets in Tikrit alone on Aug. 29 and since, to denounce the draft. Sunni Alliance spokesman Adnan Muhammad Salman al-Dulaimi has urged his followers to flatly reject the constitution next month. Meanwhile, Iraq Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has turned a deaf ear.

But the sorry state of affairs should surprise no one (least of whom those CIA officials who had accurately predicted it four years ago). Iraq is an artificial land, never meant to be a united country. It was invented out of the post World War I mess inherited by Winston Churchill as British Colonial Secretary charged with making sense of the defeated Ottoman Empire. The three major ethnic groups were united by decree, with the Sunnis given the upper hand through most of the Twentieth Century. This force togetherness laid the same seeds of ultimate violence as had similar cases such as Sudan, Rwanda, Serbia and Chechnya. An age-old folly repeated once again.

HOW WOULD A PARTITION PLAN WORK?

There is every historical precedent for the potential success of a partition solution, witness the Balkans, or better yet the eminently positive separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic in 1993. It’s notable that in the same year, Eritrea was finally separated from Ethiopia and has become the comeback story of East Africa.

Essentially, the reorganization of Iraq must be implemented not by the U.S. or Coalition Command, nor the Oil-For-Food-tarnished U.N. which has lost much credibility, but by The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO has earned its stripes repeatedly, most particularly in the Balkans. Symbolizing Europe, it would have far greater respect in the Mideast than any other entity. Those with whom I’ve spoken who see practical sense in the idea include former U.S. Ambassador and State Dept. Director of Central European Affairs J.D. Bindinagle, and University of Chicago Professor of Near Eastern Civilization Ilai Alon.

While there would continue to be an operating umbrella government, it would serve only three purposes: 1. a joint military force to protect Iraq borders; 2. the production and distribution of all Iraqi oil and natural gas; and 3. operation of the refineries,pipelines and ocean tanker ports on the Persian Gulf, on behalf of all three states of the Confederation.Beyond this, each of the sectors would operate as an autonomous entity with total freedom to draft its own constitution, establish its own legal system government and taxation power. Each would have sovereign status and representation at the U.N.

The partitioning would be along existing ethnic population lines, with the arable land split almost evenly. The Kurdish north would be centered at Kirkuk (pop.728,000), Irbil( pop. 839,000) and Mosul (pop. 1.7 million). The Shiite south would be centered at Basra (pop.1.3 million),Karbala (pop. 549,000 ) and Amarah ( pop. 340,000). The Sunnis would occupy the central sector as most do now, anchored by Baghdad (pop.5.6 million), Hilla (pop. 524,000) and Samarra (pop.200,000).

Of Iraq’s total population of 27 million, some would be voluntarily relocated to unify them with their ethnic countrymen. There would be myriad sacrifices, but far smaller ones than the certain casualties of continued strife. Consider that the partition of India in 1947 precipitated a massive transfer of Hindus to India and Muslims to Pakistan –but with positive long term blessings, as did the transfer of populations in Post World War II Poland, Czechoslovakia and Germany, for improved quality of life.

HOW TO SELL IT?

Confronting the idea would be three major hurdles, each surmountable.

The key to the entire plan is to feed the underdog. This means a willingness by the Shiites and Kurds to hand the Sunnis more than they deserve in economic benefits, namely a 25% share of the nation’s oil and gas net revenues. With 80% of the producing oil output in the south and virtually the balance in Kurdistan, and the most gas coming from Kirkuk, Bai Hassan and other fields in the north, and the Zubair field in the south, the Shiites and Kurds have a monopoly that needs equalization. By taking slightly less than their rightful share, and providing a permanent guarantee to the Sunni, they hopefully would be buying a lasting peace.

In selling this idea to Shiite and Kurd leadership, we’re halfway home. Top Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has already gone on public record as supporting the concept of autonomy for the three regions. While some independent clerics like Moktada al-Sadr and Ayatollah Muhammad Yacoubi have opposed the concept, some of the most politically powerful Shiites in Iraq, like Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a key mover in the influential Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, are ardent supporters.

The Kurds meanwhile have already achieved semi-autonomy and leaders like Massoud Barzani would likely be the first in line to concede oil revenues in exchange for peaceful independence and guaranteed protection on the borders of Trukey and Syria –two nations never enamored with the prospect of a free Kurdistan. And although Saddam’s “Arabization” programs forced an influx of Sunni who would now be relocated –mainly from the province of Nineveh—this once again may be a trade-off well worth the disruption.

The second hurdle will be selling the idea to Europe. Sending a NATO peacekeeping force to Iraq is no small order. But today, with the massive immigration of Muslims into Central Europe (new total: over 20 million, and in France alone representing 11% of the nation’s population) and with the London subway bombings as a clear warning, Europe may see that it has far more to lose from a sustained conflagration in Iraq. It may well have a new perspective of the return-on-investment in stepping off the sidelines and playing a key role to bring lasting peace (including the reduction of risk of oil shortages and further price inflation).

Far fetched? Bear in mind that NATO has a stellar history of successes in peacekeeping –in contrast to the U.N.’s deer-in-the-headlights paralysis that cost a half-million lives in Rwanda. NATO has acted decisively in bringing peace to Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and now has trained,airlifted and directed 1,300 African Union peacekeepers that are bringing the Darfur genocide to an end. Also bear in mind that NATO is already actively fighting terrorism in Central Asia, where four provisional reconstruction teams are in West Afghanistan, providing security, rehab and extending the government authority beyond Kabul. Its International Security Assistance Force is now heading south to secure that area as well. Lastly, bear in mind that NATO is already in Iraq, quietly and with meager publicity. Its Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said last month that “we recognize a continuing commitment to the democratic process in Iraq,” as exemplified by NATO’s current training of Iraqi troops at Ar Rustimiyah.

The third hurdle of course would be to gain consent from the U.S. government. A year ago, the idea would have been dismissed categorically as one offering less than the president’s vision of “mission accomplished.” But today’s altered circumstances present a far more compelling incentive to consider this compromise solution as a welcome gift. In the wake of wholly unanticipated Katrina, the president’s overall approval rating has sunk to a record low of 40%, according to the latest Wall St Journal/NBC News poll, and it says 55% favor bringing our soldiers home. Meanwhile, the latest NY Times/CBS News poll shows only 35% with confidence about his ability to handle Iraq. It reported 52% of Americans call for immediate withdrawal “even if it means abandoning the president’s goal of restoring stability to that country.” An increasing number of experts are predicting that our chances of ultimately surmounting the rising, resilient, ubiquitous insurgency are no better than they were in Viet Nam, or the French experience in Algeria and Indo-China, or the Israeli experience in Lebanon. With the U.S. Army spread thin, with the National Guard unable to keep a serviceman on active duty longer than 24 months, with no chance for a draft as a congressional election year looms, The White House has few options. And on the flip side, what greater political bonanza could the GOP find in 06 than a rapid,decisive shift of our responsibilities to NATO, winning credit for implementing a peaceful solution, and bringing the boys home?

BUT COULD WE PULL IT OFF?

Follow the money. Look at the fundamental math. Iraq and the U.S.—besides offering ethnic separation and security—can virtually buy themselves a lasting peace. Consider that Iraq is sitting on 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves –the third largest known deposit in the world—and 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet its current production of only 2.2 million barrels of oil per day helps boost its gross domestic product to only $54 billion. Only 10% of the nation has been geologically explored and only 17 of 80 discovered oil fields have even been developed. Of Iraq’s 1,500 operating wells, about 1,000 are in the Shiite south (mainly the Rumaila field) with its high quality “sweet crude” that contains far lower percent of hydrogen sulfide and burns much cleaner. Moreover, most Iraqi oil in both north and south is some of the world’s least costly to extract because it lies close to the surface, with an average cost of less than $2 per barrel to produce.

But even with its present export limitations, Iraq’s 2.2 million daily barrels now enjoy record price levels of over $65 (before tanker costs), translating into projected annual gross revenues of $52 billion, not to mention natural gas and other exports. If the Sunni Federal Republic of Babylonia were handed a guaranteed 25% share or perhaps $13 billion (i.e., $2.6 million per capita), gross before transport, it would be receiving over a $2.5 billion premium per year above its proportional share. Obviously, if peace can at last permit expanded exploration and production activity, the numbers would soar.

At the same time, to fund a NATO administration of the regional separation, relocation and confederation government, would it not be a bargain for the U.S., after withdrawal, to subsidize NATO with the full $5 billion per month we now spend fighting a futile conflict? After two years of that subsidy, the cost requirement may well drop to the $1 billion monthly level, eminently affordable by our treasury.

HOW TO INITIATE?

We should launch the idea with a bold-stroke proposal placed upon the world stage by Sec. of State Condi Rice, delivered through our Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to Iraq President Jalal Talabani and the National Assembly. It would call for a petition, signed by leaders of all three ethnic factions plus the National Assembly and President Bush, to be presented to NATO’s Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, formally requesting a NATO partnership with the Iraq legislature to create the Confederation and partition the country. The proposal would include an expeditious U.S. withdrawal and guarantee of a full 24 months subsidy followed by the reduced level of funding.The Rice manifesto would be communicated on a basis not to appear that we’re “dumping” Iraq on a NATO fall-guy, but with full recognition (and humility) that the U.S. has outlived its usefulness as chief rebuilder of that nation. It would candidly acknowledge that, mindful of the lightning rod of anti-Western resentment that we’ve become, the most constructive alternative is to shift the security and administration role to a respected neutral organization, while we continue to provide the bulk of financial support for security, humanitarian aid, and rebuilding.

Rather than earning Arab and worldwide derision and condemnation as a cut-and-run coward, we’d earn respect as an imaginative facilitator who was able to break a deadly, mindless,hopeless logjam. We’d be seen as an enlightened benefactor that truly learned lessons from history, finally realizing that if we had acted as decisively in Bosnia or Rwanda, over a million lives would have been saved. The fact is that we need this turnabout in world opinion as much as we need to stabilize Iraq and shed its burden. Harvard’s Kennedy School Professor Joe Nye, a colleague of mine on the board of Business for Diplomatic Action, said last month that the U.S. image has sunk so low that in key countries like Jordan and Pakistan, more people say they have confidence in Osama bin Laden than in George W. Bush. And even in traditionally allied nations like Sweden,Netherlands and Germany, a very recent survey showed “the arrogance of the American people,exacerbated by our current visa policies, were the key drivers of anti-American sentiment,” which is still on the rise, according to our BDA Chairman, DDB’s Keith Reinhard. Our record $700 billion foreign trade deficit this year is another painful symptom of our popularity level.

What we need most is a new mindset. We must awaken to the realities of the Iraq enigma, not spitefully throw the Sunni Babylonians out with the Baath water, and recognize that Iraq’s “successful” constitutional vote was not a triumph of freedom but only another incendiary bomb. Rethinking our hapless Mideast aspirations, we must be willing to end up with three stable, workable little democracies rather than blindly insisting on a single, flawed, fantasy democracy doomed to disintegration. In the real world of cold, corporate calculation, companies that consolidated unwisely in the 80’s and 90’s are busy spinning off and separating the misfitting parts into more sensible entities. The same logic should set a pattern for geopolitics. Blood is forever thicker than mandates.

Will the proposal fly? House International Affairs Chairman Henry Hyde reacted very positively to the idea and has turned it over to Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton with his personal endorsement. It poses a tough question for the administration. But considering the morass engulfing us, exactly what do we have to lose in asking ?

-30-

Mr. Pincus is a columnist of The Chicago Sun Times, a Finance Professor at DePaul University, a communications consultant to Fortune 500 companies, and the former owner of the nation’s third largest independent public relations agency.

A PRACTICAL PROPOSAL TO EXIT IRAQ

Oct. 2005

By Ted Pincus

We’re stumped. No way out.

We can’t stay mired in the sand for years, as the neocon hawks insist. It’s unthinkable to say we won and walk away, as the doves demand.

But there’s a third ornithological alternative. Call it The Phoenix solution.

In boxing, when there’s excessive bleeding, you separate the adversaries, especially when they were coerced into the ring together in the first place.

When you cut through all the chatter, there’s one basic reason that we face endless bloodshed that has prevented our departure: Sunni paranoia that as a 20% minority, it will be forever outvoted and dominated in any form of “free democratic” Iraq. It’s the terror of this prospect that has generated its own reign of terror and will sustain it ad infinitum. The fact is that 95% of the insurgent attacks have been initiated by Sunni Arabs, primarily against Shiite and Kurdish troops, police and civilians. Finding a way to overcome Sunni fear holds the key to a peaceful exit. And how has history shown that we resolve a bitter ethnic dispute? By separating the parties, making each feel secure, and giving the underdog a bone he can’t refuse – a portion that is more than his fair share. You pacify even the most rabid suicidal fanatic by taking away a cause to die for.

That solution could be embodied in a new strategy not yet considered by American, Mideast or world leadership: a Confederation of Iraqi States with a three way partition administered by NATO. In summary, it would create an independent Sunni state –Babylonia (20% of the population); an independent Kurdistan (Kurds, Turkomen,Chaldeans, 17% of the population); and an independent Shiite Sumeria (63% of the population), all under the continued umbrella of a joint border protection force and an oil revenue-sharing guarantee.

IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEW INITIATIVE?

Despite the Bush administration’s grasping for auspicious straws in the wind, any realistic assessment (including those by some of our own generals) is grim. Iraq has successfully elected an interim central government dominated by Shiites whom the Sunni has sworn to thwart. On Oct. 15 the Iraqi people went go back to the polls and ratified a referendum to a Shiite-drafted constitution, written over the loud objections of most Sunni leaders. The content reflects what many observers feel is a worrisome regression into a theocracy dominated by clerics administering Shariah law, rigidly restraining women’s rights and posing low tolerance for non-believers. While it does propose creation of semi-autonomous regions of the country, it still paves the way for permanent Shiite supremacy as the faction holding the overwhelming majority trump card.

Since the ratification was passed despite the violent protests of the Sunnis, the current rate of bloodshed –highest since the 2003 invasion—has continued and is predicted to intensify, perhaps provoking Lebanon-style all-out civil war. On any basis, we’re at square one, or worse.

WHY SHOULD THE PROBLEM GO AWAY?

Let’s pause and look at it from the underdog’s perspective. As an Iraqi Sunni, you’ve been on top since the Sixteenth Century when the Ottomans threw out the last of the Mongols and gave your tribes the prime position. You’ve been the elite political force, the intelligentsia, with overriding economic control, and enjoying a highly secular regime. And for 35 years, you were Saddam’s Baath brethren and beneficiaries—riding herd over the majority—until his downfall. Suddenly you’re faced with a U.S.-imposed “democracy” in which your adversaries, with a massive majority led by clerics take control. There you sit, five million surrounded by 22 million non-Sunni neighbors. You now face the prospect of being allocated the pauper’s share of government posts, top jobs, access to ports (you have none), access to oil reserves (you have almost no wells) and a legal and religious climate wholly unacceptable despite the fact that the Shiites are your Arab brothers and even the non-Arab Kurds are mostly of the same Muslim faith. To avoid this fate, you believe, may be well worth dying for. And there’s always the hope that you’ll fight and survive, grind down the Americans after 10 or 20 years of occupation, see them finally exit like the French in Algeria, and then take over the country by force.

It’s unlikely that our sheer perseverance will pay. The latest Brookings Institution report shows the insurgents growing in two years from an estimated 3,000 fighters in Aug. 03 to 18,000 as of Aug. 05. In that month there were 90 U.S. troops killed vs. 36 in the same month of 03; 608 wounded vs. 181 in the 03 month; 280 Iraqi security personnel killed vs. 50 in Aug. 03; and 600 Iraqi civilians killed vs. 225 in Aug. 03. And on this past Sept. 14 alone, there were eight separate terrorist bombings that killed 160 and injured 500, for which various Al Queda/Sunni groups took full credit, including their Abu Musab Zarqawi who brazenly declared “all-out war on Iraq’s Shiites.” One underlying tangible motivation is that the expected Sunni share of future national oil revenue was 20% in 03 and now estimated to be as low as 5%, Brookings says.

Little wonder that the Sunnis are pessimistic about a fair share, and thousands of them took to the streets in Tikrit alone on Aug. 29 and since, to denounce the draft. Sunni Alliance spokesman Adnan Muhammad Salman al-Dulaimi has urged his followers to flatly reject the constitution next month. Meanwhile, Iraq Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has turned a deaf ear.

But the sorry state of affairs should surprise no one (least of whom those CIA officials who had accurately predicted it four years ago). Iraq is an artificial land, never meant to be a united country. It was invented out of the post World War I mess inherited by Winston Churchill as British Colonial Secretary charged with making sense of the defeated Ottoman Empire. The three major ethnic groups were united by decree, with the Sunnis given the upper hand through most of the Twentieth Century. This force togetherness laid the same seeds of ultimate violence as had similar cases such as Sudan, Rwanda, Serbia and Chechnya. An age-old folly repeated once again.

HOW WOULD A PARTITION PLAN WORK?

There is every historical precedent for the potential success of a partition solution, witness the Balkans, or better yet the eminently positive separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic in 1993. It’s notable that in the same year, Eritrea was finally separated from Ethiopia and has become the comeback story of East Africa.

Essentially, the reorganization of Iraq must be implemented not by the U.S. or Coalition Command, nor the Oil-For-Food-tarnished U.N. which has lost much credibility, but by The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO has earned its stripes repeatedly, most particularly in the Balkans. Symbolizing Europe, it would have far greater respect in the Mideast than any other entity. Those with whom I’ve spoken who see practical sense in the idea include former U.S. Ambassador and State Dept. Director of Central European Affairs J.D. Bindinagle, and University of Chicago Professor of Near Eastern Civilization Ilai Alon.

While there would continue to be an operating umbrella government, it would serve only three purposes: 1. a joint military force to protect Iraq borders; 2. the production and distribution of all Iraqi oil and natural gas; and 3. operation of the refineries,pipelines and ocean tanker ports on the Persian Gulf, on behalf of all three states of the Confederation.Beyond this, each of the sectors would operate as an autonomous entity with total freedom to draft its own constitution, establish its own legal system government and taxation power. Each would have sovereign status and representation at the U.N.

The partitioning would be along existing ethnic population lines, with the arable land split almost evenly. The Kurdish north would be centered at Kirkuk (pop.728,000), Irbil( pop. 839,000) and Mosul (pop. 1.7 million). The Shiite south would be centered at Basra (pop.1.3 million),Karbala (pop. 549,000 ) and Amarah ( pop. 340,000). The Sunnis would occupy the central sector as most do now, anchored by Baghdad (pop.5.6 million), Hilla (pop. 524,000) and Samarra (pop.200,000).

Of Iraq’s total population of 27 million, some would be voluntarily relocated to unify them with their ethnic countrymen. There would be myriad sacrifices, but far smaller ones than the certain casualties of continued strife. Consider that the partition of India in 1947 precipitated a massive transfer of Hindus to India and Muslims to Pakistan –but with positive long term blessings, as did the transfer of populations in Post World War II Poland, Czechoslovakia and Germany, for improved quality of life.

HOW TO SELL IT?

Confronting the idea would be three major hurdles, each surmountable.

The key to the entire plan is to feed the underdog. This means a willingness by the Shiites and Kurds to hand the Sunnis more than they deserve in economic benefits, namely a 25% share of the nation’s oil and gas net revenues. With 80% of the producing oil output in the south and virtually the balance in Kurdistan, and the most gas coming from Kirkuk, Bai Hassan and other fields in the north, and the Zubair field in the south, the Shiites and Kurds have a monopoly that needs equalization. By taking slightly less than their rightful share, and providing a permanent guarantee to the Sunni, they hopefully would be buying a lasting peace.

In selling this idea to Shiite and Kurd leadership, we’re halfway home. Top Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has already gone on public record as supporting the concept of autonomy for the three regions. While some independent clerics like Moktada al-Sadr and Ayatollah Muhammad Yacoubi have opposed the concept, some of the most politically powerful Shiites in Iraq, like Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a key mover in the influential Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, are ardent supporters.

The Kurds meanwhile have already achieved semi-autonomy and leaders like Massoud Barzani would likely be the first in line to concede oil revenues in exchange for peaceful independence and guaranteed protection on the borders of Trukey and Syria –two nations never enamored with the prospect of a free Kurdistan. And although Saddam’s “Arabization” programs forced an influx of Sunni who would now be relocated –mainly from the province of Nineveh—this once again may be a trade-off well worth the disruption.

The second hurdle will be selling the idea to Europe. Sending a NATO peacekeeping force to Iraq is no small order. But today, with the massive immigration of Muslims into Central Europe (new total: over 20 million, and in France alone representing 11% of the nation’s population) and with the London subway bombings as a clear warning, Europe may see that it has far more to lose from a sustained conflagration in Iraq. It may well have a new perspective of the return-on-investment in stepping off the sidelines and playing a key role to bring lasting peace (including the reduction of risk of oil shortages and further price inflation).

Far fetched? Bear in mind that NATO has a stellar history of successes in peacekeeping –in contrast to the U.N.’s deer-in-the-headlights paralysis that cost a half-million lives in Rwanda. NATO has acted decisively in bringing peace to Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and now has trained,airlifted and directed 1,300 African Union peacekeepers that are bringing the Darfur genocide to an end. Also bear in mind that NATO is already actively fighting terrorism in Central Asia, where four provisional reconstruction teams are in West Afghanistan, providing security, rehab and extending the government authority beyond Kabul. Its International Security Assistance Force is now heading south to secure that area as well. Lastly, bear in mind that NATO is already in Iraq, quietly and with meager publicity. Its Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said last month that “we recognize a continuing commitment to the democratic process in Iraq,” as exemplified by NATO’s current training of Iraqi troops at Ar Rustimiyah.

The third hurdle of course would be to gain consent from the U.S. government. A year ago, the idea would have been dismissed categorically as one offering less than the president’s vision of “mission accomplished.” But today’s altered circumstances present a far more compelling incentive to consider this compromise solution as a welcome gift. In the wake of wholly unanticipated Katrina, the president’s overall approval rating has sunk to a record low of 40%, according to the latest Wall St Journal/NBC News poll, and it says 55% favor bringing our soldiers home. Meanwhile, the latest NY Times/CBS News poll shows only 35% with confidence about his ability to handle Iraq. It reported 52% of Americans call for immediate withdrawal “even if it means abandoning the president’s goal of restoring stability to that country.” An increasing number of experts are predicting that our chances of ultimately surmounting the rising, resilient, ubiquitous insurgency are no better than they were in Viet Nam, or the French experience in Algeria and Indo-China, or the Israeli experience in Lebanon. With the U.S. Army spread thin, with the National Guard unable to keep a serviceman on active duty longer than 24 months, with no chance for a draft as a congressional election year looms, The White House has few options. And on the flip side, what greater political bonanza could the GOP find in 06 than a rapid,decisive shift of our responsibilities to NATO, winning credit for implementing a peaceful solution, and bringing the boys home?

BUT COULD WE PULL IT OFF?

Follow the money. Look at the fundamental math. Iraq and the U.S.—besides offering ethnic separation and security—can virtually buy themselves a lasting peace. Consider that Iraq is sitting on 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves –the third largest known deposit in the world—and 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet its current production of only 2.2 million barrels of oil per day helps boost its gross domestic product to only $54 billion. Only 10% of the nation has been geologically explored and only 17 of 80 discovered oil fields have even been developed. Of Iraq’s 1,500 operating wells, about 1,000 are in the Shiite south (mainly the Rumaila field) with its high quality “sweet crude” that contains far lower percent of hydrogen sulfide and burns much cleaner. Moreover, most Iraqi oil in both north and south is some of the world’s least costly to extract because it lies close to the surface, with an average cost of less than $2 per barrel to produce.

But even with its present export limitations, Iraq’s 2.2 million daily barrels now enjoy record price levels of over $65 (before tanker costs), translating into projected annual gross revenues of $52 billion, not to mention natural gas and other exports. If the Sunni Federal Republic of Babylonia were handed a guaranteed 25% share or perhaps $13 billion (i.e., $2.6 million per capita), gross before transport, it would be receiving over a $2.5 billion premium per year above its proportional share. Obviously, if peace can at last permit expanded exploration and production activity, the numbers would soar.

At the same time, to fund a NATO administration of the regional separation, relocation and confederation government, would it not be a bargain for the U.S., after withdrawal, to subsidize NATO with the full $5 billion per month we now spend fighting a futile conflict? After two years of that subsidy, the cost requirement may well drop to the $1 billion monthly level, eminently affordable by our treasury.

HOW TO INITIATE?

We should launch the idea with a bold-stroke proposal placed upon the world stage by Sec. of State Condi Rice, delivered through our Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to Iraq President Jalal Talabani and the National Assembly. It would call for a petition, signed by leaders of all three ethnic factions plus the National Assembly and President Bush, to be presented to NATO’s Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, formally requesting a NATO partnership with the Iraq legislature to create the Confederation and partition the country. The proposal would include an expeditious U.S. withdrawal and guarantee of a full 24 months subsidy followed by the reduced level of funding.The Rice manifesto would be communicated on a basis not to appear that we’re “dumping” Iraq on a NATO fall-guy, but with full recognition (and humility) that the U.S. has outlived its usefulness as chief rebuilder of that nation. It would candidly acknowledge that, mindful of the lightning rod of anti-Western resentment that we’ve become, the most constructive alternative is to shift the security and administration role to a respected neutral organization, while we continue to provide the bulk of financial support for security, humanitarian aid, and rebuilding.

Rather than earning Arab and worldwide derision and condemnation as a cut-and-run coward, we’d earn respect as an imaginative facilitator who was able to break a deadly, mindless,hopeless logjam. We’d be seen as an enlightened benefactor that truly learned lessons from history, finally realizing that if we had acted as decisively in Bosnia or Rwanda, over a million lives would have been saved. The fact is that we need this turnabout in world opinion as much as we need to stabilize Iraq and shed its burden. Harvard’s Kennedy School Professor Joe Nye, a colleague of mine on the board of Business for Diplomatic Action, said last month that the U.S. image has sunk so low that in key countries like Jordan and Pakistan, more people say they have confidence in Osama bin Laden than in George W. Bush. And even in traditionally allied nations like Sweden,Netherlands and Germany, a very recent survey showed “the arrogance of the American people,exacerbated by our current visa policies, were the key drivers of anti-American sentiment,” which is still on the rise, according to our BDA Chairman, DDB’s Keith Reinhard. Our record $700 billion foreign trade deficit this year is another painful symptom of our popularity level.

What we need most is a new mindset. We must awaken to the realities of the Iraq enigma, not spitefully throw the Sunni Babylonians out with the Baath water, and recognize that Iraq’s “successful” constitutional vote was not a triumph of freedom but only another incendiary bomb. Rethinking our hapless Mideast aspirations, we must be willing to end up with three stable, workable little democracies rather than blindly insisting on a single, flawed, fantasy democracy doomed to disintegration. In the real world of cold, corporate calculation, companies that consolidated unwisely in the 80’s and 90’s are busy spinning off and separating the misfitting parts into more sensible entities. The same logic should set a pattern for geopolitics. Blood is forever thicker than mandates.

Will the proposal fly? House International Affairs Chairman Henry Hyde reacted very positively to the idea and has turned it over to Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton with his personal endorsement. It poses a tough question for the administration. But considering the morass engulfing us, exactly what do we have to lose in asking ?

-30-

Mr. Pincus is a columnist of The Chicago Sun Times, a Finance Professor at DePaul University, a communications consultant to Fortune 500 companies, and the former owner of the nation’s third largest independent public relations agency.

HELP SAVE A VANISHING SPECIES

2005-11-20T10:08:00.000-08:00

Shaken or stirred, with olive or twist, it�s the dickens.

There it once stood, unchallenged in its pristine purity. Glistening in its funny, funnel-shaped glass perched on a delicate stem. It had always been a shimmering silver lake of limpid, languid solace, the ultimate civilized sunset companion. The essence of grace. To legions of us, it had been the messenger of quiet bliss, providing a wet gossamer curtain that descends over the cares of the day, washes them deftly away, and draping our entire psyche in the glow of euphoric serenity.

But today, it�s a vanishing species. A great icon is disappearing from the American cocktail scene. At the same time, we traditionalists are a dying breed, shunned and sneered upon by the hordes of thirsty, trendy philistines who insist on change, idolizing the next new thing. They�ve provided a ready market to be eagerly exploited by those who�ve been grandly bastardizing this hallowed beverage with blatant forgeries � the nation�s greedy, mischievous bartenders,restaurant menu-writers and ad copy chiefs.It�s the proliferation of the Fauxtini.

Just look anywhere. Go to Gibsons where crafty bartender George Cozzi will try to foist upon you an Apple Puckertini made with vodka,garnished with apple slice; or to Restaurant Nine where Ryan Gartner features the Ghostini (vodka, green melon Midori and sour mix); or elsewhere find an outrageous roster of infinite hybrids from the milk chocolatini to the orange-grenadini, crantini,melontini,mangotini , the Dirtytini swimming in olive juice,or The Peninsula bar�s Cosmolini brewed with citron vodka,champagne,triple sec,lime and white peach puree.

It�s a free country. Anyone should be able to concoct and advocate any beverage recipe they wish. People should be able to stretch their imagination and taste buds to conjure up the most hideous, disgusting combinations of booze, mixers and garni that could ever trickle down the human gullet. As I�m sure the ACLU would concur, folks should be permitted to experiment, fantasize and reach for new horizons of inebriation. Never let it be said that our modern society should stifle the creative urges of aspiring pioneers, courageously risking reputation �and happy hour clientele�by exploring the uncharted waters of alcoholic chemistry.

But is there no veneration of history? Is there no reverence for the elixir invented by 17^th Century Dutch physician Franciscus de la Boe in Leiden, who first distilled alcohol from the juice of juniper berries and blended it with a spirit base of malted barley,wheat and botanicals? Is there no respect for his highness William of Orange who dethroned England�s JamesII, imposed high tarifffs on imported grain spirits from the continent and spurred mass local production of what came to be known as London Dry Gin? Is there no tribute to be paid to that anonymous bartender at New York�s Knickerbocker Hotel in 1910 who first added dry white French vermouth and a pimiento olive? (never ever to be contaminated in good conscience with blue cheese stuffing). As fate would have it, the ice was broken �so to speak�when some rascal fiendishly substituted a tiny onion for the olive. At least he had the decency to call it a Gibson.

I ask you, what�s the true test of an enlightened civilization? Is it not to continually enhance its quality of life while sustaining the heritage that made it great, preserving the traditional values that formed its rock solid foundation?

Thus it is with extreme revulsion that we witness one of society�s most hallowed symbols disguised in outlandish fashion �yet still fraudulently called by its original name. It�s allowed to masquerade as an �improved� version of the real McCoy when it�s really an impostor � an insidiously emasculated shadow of its former self, totally unworthy of the title.

Let them freely call it a Girardelli Splash or a Peach Panache or Rasputin�s Raspberry Razzamatazz. Let them drown it in crushed ice, drench it with pomegranate juice, infuse it with huckleberry essence , shake it with eucalyptus crystals,doll it with strawberry sipping straw, top it off with sea urchin foam and perfumed peacock plumage, and ignite it with lighter fluid. Let them worship it, fan it, can it, bottle it in Baccarat crystal.

But please, whatever you do, don�t let them ever, ever try to take a fluid composition that is not four heavenly ounces of genuine Beefeater,Boodles,Bombay or Tanqueray and seven measured drops of imported dry vermouth, all stirred gently with 10 ice cubes in a freezing cold stainless steel shaker�and have the temerity to call it: a martini.

Help fight for the preservation of purity. You�ll be the salvation of someone�s soul. Maybe mine.

Isn�t that a sobering thought?

2005-09-28T08:24:00.000-07:00

We’re stumped. No way out.

We can’t stay mired in the sand for years, as the neocon hawks insist. It’s unthinkable to say we won and walk away, as the doves demand.

But there’s a third ornithological alternative. Call it The Phoenix solution.

In boxing, when there’s excessive bleeding, you separate the adversaries, especially when they were coerced into the ring together in the first place.

When you cut through all the chatter, there’s one basic reason that we face endless bloodshed that has prevented our departure: Sunni paranoia that as a 20% minority, it will be forever outvoted and dominated in any form of “free democratic” Iraq. It’s the terror of this prospect that has generated its own reign of terror and will sustain it ad infinitum. The fact is that 95% of the insurgent attacks have been initiated by Sunni Arabs, primarily against Shiite and Kurdish troops, police and civilians. Finding a way to overcome Sunni fear holds the key to a peaceful exit. And how has history shown that we resolve a bitter ethnic dispute? By separating the parties, making each feel secure, and giving the underdog a bone he can’t refuse – a portion that is more than his fair share. You pacify even the most rabid suicidal fanatic by taking away a cause to die for.

That solution could be embodied in a new strategy not yet considered by American, Mideast or world leadership: a Confederation of Iraqi States with a three way partition administered by NATO. In summary, it would create an independent Sunni state –Babylonia (20% of the population); an independent Kurdistan (Kurds, Turkomen,Chaldeans, 17% of the population); and an independent Shiite Sumeria (63% of the population), all under the continued umbrella of a joint border protection force and an oil revenue-sharing guarantee.

IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEW INITIATIVE?

Despite the Bush administration’s grasping for auspicious straws in the wind, any realistic assessment (including those by some of our own generals) is grim. Iraq has successfully elected an interim central government dominated by Shiites whom the Sunni has sworn to thwart. This coming Oct. 15 the Iraqi people will go back to the polls in a referendum to a Shiite-drafted constitution, written over the loud objections of most Sunni leaders. The content reflects what many observers feel is a worrisome regression into a theocracy dominated by clerics administering Shariah law, rigidly restraining women’s rights and posing low tolerance for non-believers. While it does propose creation of semi-autonomous regions of the country, it still paves the way for permanent Shiite supremacy as the faction holding the overwhelming majority trump card. Currently five million copies of the draft constitution are being printed for distribution, allowing only three weeks for the public to study,debate and consider it prior to balloting. Under transitional law, it can only be defeated if two thirds of the voters in any three of Iraq’s 18 provinces vote it down.

Either way, the result may be moot. If the constitution is passed despite the violent protests of the Sunnis, the current rate of bloodshed –highest since the 2003 invasion—will continue or intensify, perhaps provoking Lebanon-style all-out civil war. If it’s defeated, it would mean new elections for a new temporary national assembly that would draft a new constitution, presumably with a similar scenario, and meanwhile continued terror and destruction unabated. On any basis, we’re at square one, or worse.

WHY SHOULD THE PROBLEM GO AWAY?

Let’s pause and look at it from the underdog’s perspective. As an Iraqi Sunni, you’ve been on top since the Sixteenth Century when the Ottomans threw out the last of the Mongols and gave your tribes the prime position. You’ve been the elite political force, the intelligentsia, with overriding economic control, and enjoying a highly secular regime. And for 35 years, you were Saddam’s Baath brethren and beneficiaries—riding herd over the majority—until his downfall. Suddenly you’re face with a U.S.-imposed “democracy” in which your adversaries, with a massive majority led by clerics take control. There you sit, five million surrounded by 22 million non-Sunni neighbors. You now face the prospect of being allocated the pauper’s share of government posts, top jobs, access to ports (you have none), access to oil reserves (you have almost no wells) and a legal and religious climate wholly unacceptable despite the fact that the Shiites are your Arab brothers and even the non-Arab Kurds are mostly of the same Muslim faith. To avoid this fate, you believe, may be well worth dying for. And there’s always the hope that you’ll fight and survive, grind down the Americans after 10 or 20 years of occupation, see them finally exit like the French in Algeria, and then take over the country by force.

It’s unlikely that our sheer perseverance will pay. The latest Brookings Institution report shows the insurgents growing in two years from an estimated 3,000 fighters in Aug. 03 to 18,000 as of Aug. 05. In that month there were 90 U.S. troops killed vs. 36 in the same month of 03; 608 wounded vs. 181 in the 03 month; 280 Iraqi security personnel killed vs. 50 in Aug. 03; and 600 Iraqi civilians killed vs. 225 in Aug. 03. And on this past Sept. 14 alone, there were eight separate terrorist bombings that killed 160 and injured 500, for which various Al Queda/Sunni groups took full credit, including their Abu Musab Zarqawi who brazenly declared “all-out war on Iraq’s Shiites.” One underlying tangible motivation is that the expected Sunni share of future national oil revenue was 20% in 03 and now estimated to be as low as 5%, Brookings says.

Little wonder that the Sunnis are pessimistic about a fair share, and thousands of them took to the streets in Tikrit alone on Aug. 29 and since, to denounce the draft. Sunni Alliance spokesman Adnan Muhammad Salman al-Dulaimi has urged his followers to flatly reject the constitution next month. Meanwhile, Iraq Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has turned a deaf ear.

But the sorry state of affairs should surprise no one (least of whom those CIA officials who had accurately predicted it four years ago). Iraq is an artificial land, never meant to be a united country. It was invented out of the post World War I mess inherited by Winston Churchill as British Colonial Secretary charged with making sense of the defeated Ottoman Empire. The three major ethnic groups were united by decree, with the Sunnis given the upper hand through most of the Twentieth Century. This force togetherness laid the same seeds of ultimate violence as had similar cases such as Sudan, Rwanda, Serbia and Chechnya. An age-old folly repeated once again.

HOW WOULD A PARTITION PLAN WORK?

There is every historical precedent for the potential success of a partition solution, witness the Balkans, or better yet the eminently positive separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic in 1993. It’s notable that in the same year, Eritrea was finally separated from Ethiopia and has become the comeback story of East Africa.

Essentially, the reorganization of Iraq must be implemented not by the U.S. or Coalition Command, nor the Oil-For-Food-tarnished U.N. which has lost much credibility, but by The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO has earned its stripes repeatedly, most particularly in the Balkans. Symbolizing Europe, it would have far greater respect in the Mideast than any other entity. Those with whom I’ve spoken who see practical sense in the idea include former U.S. Ambassador and State Dept. Director of Central European Affairs J.D. Bindinagle, and University of Chicago Professor of Near Eastern Civilization Ilai Alon.

While there would continue to be an operating umbrella government, it would serve only three purposes: 1. a joint military force to protect Iraq borders; 2. the production and distribution of all Iraqi oil and natural gas; and 3. operation of the refineries,pipelines and ocean tanker ports on the Persian Gulf, on behalf of all three states of the Confederation.Beyond this, each of the sectors would operate as an autonomous entity with total freedom to draft its own constitution, establish its own legal system government and taxation power. Each would have sovereign status and representation at the U.N.

The partitioning would be along existing ethnic population lines, with the arable land split almost evenly. The Kurdish north would be centered at Kirkuk (pop.728,000), Irbil( pop. 839,000) and Mosul (pop. 1.7 million). The Shiite south would be centered at Basra (pop.1.3 million),Karbala (pop. 549,000 ) and Amarah ( pop. 340,000). The Sunnis would occupy the central sector as most do now, anchored by Baghdad (pop.5.6 million), Hilla (pop. 524,000) and Samarra (pop.200,000).

Of Iraq’s total population of 27 million, some would be voluntarily relocated to unify them with their ethnic countrymen. There would be myriad sacrifices, but far smaller ones than the certain casualties of continued strife. Consider that the partition of India in 1947 precipitated a massive transfer of Hindus to India and Muslims to Pakistan –but with positive long term blessings, as did the transfer of populations in Post World War II Poland, Czechoslovakia and Germany, for improved quality of life.

HOW TO SELL IT?

Confronting the idea would be three major hurdles, each surmountable.

The key to the entire plan is to feed the underdog. This means a willingness by the Shiites and Kurds to hand the Sunnis more than they deserve in economic benefits, namely a 25% share of the nation’s oil and gas net revenues. With 80% of the producing oil output in the south and virtually the balance in Kurdistan, and the most gas coming from Kirkuk, Bai Hassan and other fields in the north, and the Zubair field in the south, the Shiites and Kurds have a monopoly that needs equalization. By taking slightly less than their rightful share, and providing a permanent guarantee to the Sunni, they hopefully would be buying a lasting peace.

In selling this idea to Shiite and Kurd leadership, we’re halfway home. Top Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has already gone on public record as supporting the concept of autonomy for the three regions. While some independent clerics like Moktada al-Sadr and Ayatollah Muhammad Yacoubi have opposed the concept, some of the most politically powerful Shiites in Iraq, like Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a key mover in the influential Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, are ardent supporters.

The Kurds meanwhile have already achieved semi-autonomy and leaders like Massoud Barzani would likely be the first in line to concede oil revenues in exchange for peaceful independence and guaranteed protection on the borders of Trukey and Syria –two nations never enamored with the prospect of a free Kurdistan. And although Saddam’s “Arabization” programs forced an influx of Sunni who would now be relocated –mainly from the province of Nineveh—this once again may be a trade-off well worth the disruption.

The second hurdle will be selling the idea to Europe. Sending a NATO peacekeeping force to Iraq is no small order. But today, with the massive immigration of Muslims into Central Europe (new total: over 20 million, and in France alone representing 11% of the nation’s population) and with the London subway bombings as a clear warning, Europe may see that it has far more to lose from a sustained conflagration in Iraq. It may well have a new perspective of the return-on-investment in stepping off the sidelines and playing a key role to bring lasting peace (including the reduction of risk of oil shortages and further price inflation).

Far fetched? Bear in mind that NATO has a stellar history of successes in peacekeeping –in contrast to the U.N.’s deer-in-the-headlights paralysis that cost a half-million lives in Rwanda. NATO has acted decisively in bringing peace to Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and now has trained,airlifted and directed 1,300 African Union peacekeepers that are bringing the Darfur genocide to an end. Also bear in mind that NATO is already actively fighting terrorism in Central Asia, where four provisional reconstruction teams are in West Afghanistan, providing security, rehab and extending the government authority beyond Kabul. Its International Security Assistance Force is now heading south to secure that area as well. Lastly, bear in mind that NATO is already in Iraq, quietly and with meager publicity. Its Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said last month that “we recognize a continuing commitment to the democratic process in Iraq,” as exemplified by NATO’s current training of Iraqi troops at Ar Rustimiyah.

The third hurdle of course would be to gain consent from the U.S. government. A year ago, the idea would have been dismissed categorically as one offering less than the president’s vision of “mission accomplished.” But today’s altered circumstances present a far more compelling incentive to consider this compromise solution as a welcome gift. In the wake of wholly unanticipated Katrina, the president’s overall approval rating has sunk to a record low of 40%, according to the latest Wall St Journal/NBC News poll, and it says 55% favor bringing our soldiers home. Meanwhile, the latest NY Times/CBS News poll shows only 35% with confidence about his ability to handle Iraq. It reported 52% of Americans call for immediate withdrawal “even if it means abandoning the president’s goal of restoring stability to that country.” An increasing number of experts are predicting that our chances of ultimately surmounting the rising, resilient, ubiquitous insurgency are no better than they were in Viet Nam, or the French experience in Algeria and Indo-China, or the Israeli experience in Lebanon. With the U.S. Army spread thin, with the National Guard unable to keep a serviceman on active duty longer than 24 months, with no chance for a draft as a congressional election year looms, The White House has few options. And on the flip side, what greater political bonanza could the GOP find in 06 than a rapid,decisive shift of our responsibilities to NATO, winning credit for implementing a peaceful solution, and bringing the boys home?

BUT COULD WE PULL IT OFF?

Follow the money. Look at the fundamental math. Iraq and the U.S.—besides offering ethnic separation and security—can virtually buy themselves a lasting peace. Consider that Iraq is sitting on 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves –the third largest known deposit in the world—and 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet its current production of only 2.2 million barrels of oil per day helps boost its gross domestic product to only $54 billion. Only 10% of the nation has been geologically explored and only 17 of 80 discovered oil fields have even been developed. Of Iraq’s 1,500 operating wells, about 1,000 are in the Shiite south (mainly the Rumaila field) with its high quality “sweet crude” that contains far lower percent of hydrogen sulfide and burns much cleaner. Moreover, most Iraqi oil in both north and south is some of the world’s least costly to extract because it lies close to the surface, with an average cost of less than $2 per barrel to produce.

But even with its present export limitations, Iraq’s 2.2 million daily barrels now enjoy record price levels of over $65 (before tanker costs), translating into projected annual gross revenues of $52 billion, not to mention natural gas and other exports. If the Sunni Federal Republic of Babylonia were handed a guaranteed 25% share or perhaps $13 billion (i.e., $2.6 million per capita), gross before transport, it would be receiving over a $2.5 billion premium per year above its proportional share. Obviously, if peace can at last permit expanded exploration and production activity, the numbers would soar.

At the same time, to fund a NATO administration of the regional separation, relocation and confederation government, would it not be a bargain for the U.S., after withdrawal, to subsidize NATO with the full $5 billion per month we now spend fighting a futile conflict? After two years of that subsidy, the cost requirement may well drop to the $1 billion monthly level, eminently affordable by our treasury.

HOW TO INITIATE?

We should launch the idea with a bold-stroke proposal placed upon the world stage by Sec. of State Condi Rice, delivered through our Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to Iraq President Jalal Talabani and the National Assembly. It would call for a petition, signed by leaders of all three ethnic factions plus the National Assembly and President Bush, to be presented to NATO’s Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, formally requesting a NATO partnership with the Iraq legislature to create the Confederation and partition the country. The proposal would include an expeditious U.S. withdrawal and guarantee of a full 24 months subsidy followed by the reduced level of funding.The Rice manifesto would be communicated on a basis not to appear that we’re “dumping” Iraq on a NATO fall-guy, but with full recognition (and humility) that the U.S. has outlived its usefulness as chief rebuilder of that nation. It would candidly acknowledge that, mindful of the lightning rod of anti-Western resentment that we’ve become, the most constructive alternative is to shift the security and administration role to a respected neutral organization, while we continue to provide the bulk of financial support for security, humanitarian aid, and rebuilding.

Rather than earning Arab and worldwide derision and condemnation as a cut-and-run coward, we’d earn respect as an imaginative facilitator who was able to break a deadly, mindless,hopeless logjam. We’d be seen as an enlightened benefactor that truly learned lessons from history, finally realizing that if President Clinton had acted as decisively in Bosnia or Rwanda, over a million lives would have been saved. The fact is that we need this turnabout in world opinion as much as we need to stabilize Iraq and shed its burden. Harvard’s Kennedy School Professor Joe Nye, a colleague of mine on the board of Business for Diplomatic Action, said last month that the U.S. image has sunk so low that in key countries like Jordan and Pakistan, more people say they have confidence in Osama bin Laden than in George W. Bush. And even in traditionally allied nations like Sweden,Netherlands and Germany, a very recent survey showed “the arrogance of the American people,exacerbated by our current visa policies, were the key drivers of anti-American sentiment,” which is still on the rise, according to our BDA Chairman, DDB’s Keith Reinhard. Our record $700 billion foreign trade deficit this year is another painful symptom of our popularity level.

What we need most is a new mindset. We must awaken to the realities of the Iraq enigma, not spitefully throw the Sunni Babylonians out with the Baath water, and recognize that next month’s referendum will not be a triumph of freedom but only another incendiary bomb. Rethinking our hapless Mideast aspirations, we must be willing to end up with three stable, workable little democracies rather than blindly insisting on a single, flawed, fantasy democracy doomed to disintegration. In the real world of cold, corporate calculation, companies that consolidated unwisely in the 80’s and 90’s are busy spinning off and separating the misfitting parts into more sensible entities. The same logic should set a pattern for geopolitics. Blood is forever thicker than mandates.

Will the proposal fly? Maybe not. But considering the morass engulfing us, exactly what do we have to lose in asking ?