I have a better idea. Since everything about Bush's Iraq plan has been an abominable failure, and since the repercussions of that failed policy have isolated us from and destroyed our credibility with the international community, considerably weakening our influence in the world and our ability to broker deals -- there is only one thing to do: get rid of the problem.
Here's how. Impeach BushCo for the myriad of high crimes and misdemeanors, so beautifully and often outlined by others, remove the whole gang from office, and, with the installation (or election, if it takes that long) of a new president, make it his first priority to completely disavow "New World Order," neo-con idiologies and lay out a new direction for America: one committed to promoting and nurturing mutual health, prosperity, and peace throughout the world -- by actually making peace, not war.
American credibility in the international sphere would be immediately restored and would be further strengthened by allowing us to actually do what our leaders profess to do, but don't -- that is, become an example to the world by treating other nations with respect and dignity, rather than as an inferior species to be dominated, manipulated, and colonized.
How's that for a plan, America?
Imagine a world where the priority is not profiting from war and the suffering of others, but profiting from peace and the well being of others. As radical as that may sound in today's perverted, politically propagandized world -- it's actually not radical or even partisan. It's just good, moral, common sense.
Time for Plan B
By Thomas L. Friedman
The New York Times
It is now obvious that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are baby-sitting a civil war.
When our top commander in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid, tells a Senate Committee, as he did yesterday, that “the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it,” it means that three years of efforts to democratize Iraq are not working. That means “staying the course” is pointless, and it’s time to start thinking about Plan B — how we might disengage with the least damage possible.
It seemed to me over the last three years that, even with all the Bush team’s missteps, we had to give our Iraqi partners a chance to produce a transitional government, then write a constitution, then hold an election and then, finally, put together their first elected cabinet. But now they have done all of that — and the situation has only worsened.
The Sunni jihadists and Baathists are as dedicated as ever to making this U.S.-Iraqi democracy initiative fail. That, and the runaway sectarian violence resulting from having too few U.S. troops and allowing a militia culture to become embedded, have made Iraq a lawless mess.
Yes, I believe it was and remains hugely important to try to partner with Iraqis to create one good example in the heart of the Arab world of a decent, progressive state, where the politics of fear and tribalism do not reign — the politics that has produced all the pathologies of unemployment, religious intolerance and repression that make the Middle East so dangerous to itself and others.
But the administration now has to admit what anyone — including myself — who believed in the importance of getting Iraq right has to admit: Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, it is not happening, and we can’t throw more good lives after good lives.
Since the Bush team never gave us a Plan A for Iraq, it at least owes us a Plan B. It’s not easy. Here are my first thoughts about a Plan B and some of the implications.
I think we need to try a last-ditch Bosnia-like peace conference that would bring together all of Iraq’s factions and neighbors. Just as Bosnia could be solved only by an international peace force and the Dayton conference — involving Russia, Europe and the U.S., the powers most affected by Bosnia’s implosion — the civil war in Iraq can be quelled only by a coalition of those most affected by Iraq’s implosion: the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan, India, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria and Jordan. As in Bosnia, any solution will have to be some form of federalism, a division of oil wealth and policing by an international force, where needed.
For such a conference to come about, though, the U.S. would probably need to declare its intention to leave. Iraqis, other Arabs, Europeans and Chinese will get serious about helping to salvage Iraq only if they believe we are leaving and it will damage their interests.
What would be the consequences of leaving without such a last-ditch peace effort, or if it just fails? Iraq could erupt into a much wider civil war, drawing in its neighbors. Or, Iraqis might stare into this abyss and actually come to terms with each other on their own. Our presence may be part of the problem. It’s hard to know.
If Iraq opts for all-out civil war, its two million barrels a day will be off the market and oil could go above $100 a barrel. (That would, however, spur more investment in alternative fuels that could one day make us independent of this volatile region.)
Some fear that Iran will be the winner. But will it? Once we are out of Iraq, Iran will have to manage the boiling pot next door. That will be a huge problem for Iran. The historical enmity toward Iran by Iraqi Arabs — enmity temporarily focused on us — will re-emerge. And Iran will also have to compete with its ally Syria for influence in Iraq.
Yes, the best way to contain Iran would have been to produce a real Shiite-led democracy in Iraq, exposing the phony one in Tehran. But second best is leaving Iraq. Because the worst option — the one Iran loves — is for us to stay in Iraq, bleeding, and in easy range to be hit by Iran if we strike its nukes.
Finally, the war in Iraq has so divided us at home and abroad that leaving, while bringing other problems, might also make it easier to build coalitions to deal with post-U.S. Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. All these problems are connected. We need to deal with Iran and Syria, but from a position of strength — and that requires a broad coalition.
The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq, the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the stronger the enemies of freedom will become.
Photo credit: Thomas Friedman. (Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times)
Also See:
- Bush fiddles while Middle East burns
- Cease Fire Now - William Rivers Pitt
- Days of darkness - Haaretz - Israel News
"In war as in war: Israel is sinking into a strident, nationalistic atmosphere and darkness is beginning to cover everything. The brakes we still had are eroding, the insensitivity and blindness that characterized Israeli society in recent years is intensifying," writes Gideon Levy.
Technorati tags: Tom Friedman, New York Times, Iraq, Middle East, Foreign Policy, International Relations, US Military, news, commentary, op ed
3 comments:
My friend.....you miss a very important element of this whole dilemma in your dissertation. You say that we should make peace, not war. Unfortunately, that overlooks a crucial variable in most liberal’s myopic thinking.
There are tens of thousands, no millions, of Islamic extremists who want to kill us. They don't want peace. They wanted to kill us when Bill Clinton was president, they wanted to kill us when G Bush senior was President, they wanted us dead when Ronald Reagan was President, and most certainly when Jimmy Carter was president. This we know. So what makes you think that we can roll over and play nice and not all end up dead?
Liberals either want us to practice isolationism or to go out and sip wine with the French and make nice with everyone. None of this addresses the fact that there is a large part of the world’s population, who through indoctrination from childhood, are trained to kill Americans, and anyone else who loves democracy. It doesn't matter if you have some left wing president in the White House. It's not going to stop them in their tracks.
You can respond about how I'm wrong for a myriad of reasons, but none of them will address the reality of the world today. George Bush understands that reality. He also understands that democracies don't make war with each other, and the only time that there will be total peace in the Middle East is when there are democratic nations living in harmony with their fellow democracies. Sorry, but this is the only true solution.
If you think that means the U.S. forcing their worldview on others, then so be it. If you want to see an end to the perpetual violence in the Middle East and northern Africa, then this is the only viable solution.
http://www.livebreatheanddie.com
The writer above is correct. In order to have a "Bosnia-like" peace conference, you would need all parties in the conference to be (at least mostly) sane. You could have Sunni's, Shiite's and Kurd's at the table, but they would be the rational members of those sects. The jihadists do not want peace. They want to purge the "infidels" by killing all of them. These are people that will kill a fellow Muslim for wearing shorts in public.
This same dilemma can be seen at the moment with Israel. Hezbollah and Hamas will not lay down their arms no matter what Israel "offers" in return. You cannot have a truce when you have this type of situation. When your enemy hides behind their women and children while targeting your women and children, you are dealing with a mindset that cannot be reasoned with. To eliminate this type of cancer, you must remove it. And try your best to remove all of it, because cancer cells never convert back to normal, healthy cells. They only know how to attack, kill and destroy.
The last time we were attacked at home was nearly five years ago. That was a horrendous day and it needs to be remembered by us all. Our enemy was filled with joy on that day and danced in the streets. Remember also that President Bush had not "made war" with anyone prior to that. Playing nice doesn't work against this element.
It is essential that the coalition forces remain in Iraq in order to keep this cancer under control. Since we surgically removed that large "Al Quada" tumor (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), there has been much less carnage caused by that group. As soon as Iraqi forces are strong enough to take over this role, we should leave, but not a day before.
Unfortunately, what is obvious from the comments of both "anonymous'" is that they have bought into the prevailing Bush spin and misinformation--hook, line and sinker.
The issue is this: Liberals are not isolationists. They believe that you cannot solve problems by forcefully imposing their selfish will on unwilling nations. History, in fact, has shown that military solutions, when fought for reasons other than national security -- fail in the long run.
Regarding Islamic extremists: Have you ever asked why they hate us? It is not that they hate freedom or democracy, as Bush wants you to believe. It is because they are well aware that the US has been engaging in colonialism which has desperately hurt the people and economies of the countries they have encroached upon.
Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins if you want to understand the devastation the US is bringing to the world.
Secondly, you cannot fight and expel extremists who use guerrilla tactics against our weapons of war. Witness Israel's current conflict with Hezbollah, or better, our current fiasco in Iraq. Unless you want to blow whole nations off the face of the earth in an effort to expunge the "terrorists" who happen to be hiding there, you cannot succeed. The more you kill civilians in your efforts, the more moderates will convert to their side.
The only way to deal with world problems -- including exremists -- is with the cooperation of other nations. Bush has succeeded in making the US completely ineffectual by acting unilaterally and disrespecting our once strong allies and non-allies alike. At the time, I said this was a recipe for disaster--and the facts have proven that indeed it was.
You state: "You can respond about how I'm wrong for a myriad of reasons, but none of them will address the reality of the world today. George Bush understands that reality. He also understands that democracies don't make war with each other, and the only time that there will be total peace in the Middle East is when there are democratic nations living in harmony with their fellow democracies. Sorry, but this is the only true solution." Forgive me, but what you call "reality" is well documented to be anything but. And if "democracies don't make war with each other" -- what the hell do you call what we did in Iraq? And what Israel is doing right now? Do you take us for idiots??! The US has been responsible for stirring up wars all over the globe, my friend -- always with the goal being profit, money, lots and lots of money. Wake up. Try reading something and stop watching the idiot spin on Fox and CNN and MSNBC. Mainstream media is owned and controlled by those who support the president's agenda -- it is spin, not news.
As for who has the myopic thinking here, there is no question that it is YOU who are "stuck" in a world view that war is the only solution. THAT is what is myopic, not to mention, irrational.
Finally, you say: "Remember also that President Bush had not "made war" with anyone prior to that. [9-11] " The Project for a New American Century used 9/11 for an excuse to execute their neo-con, world empire-building plan--they openly stated in writing that what they needed was a "Pearl Harbor" type event in order to justify their going to war. So it is no wonder, that when those in the intelligence community warned the administration PRIOR TO 9/11 that an attack against the twin towers using airplanes was perhaps impending--they chose to ignore those warnings. They NEEDED 9/11 in order to carry out their agenda and fool the American people into believing that we were acting in self defense.
I could go on, but when people choose to buy into the spin and live in that fantasy world, they also tend to ignore the facts which prove them wrong.
I appreciate you comments, but, honestly, I find it hard to believe--after all that has been written, after all of the lies, broken laws, etc. than ANYONE out there can still believe as you do and defend the crooks in Washington. I find it very, very sad.
Post a Comment