Wrong Questions, Right Time.
While today’s House vote on setting a deadline for removing our troops from Iraq is still up in the air, it seems to me the wrong questions, the wrong issues, are being debated at this time.
By virtually all assessments, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. Civil wars require civil settlements – negotiations – to end them. On the one hand, while a “surge� may tamp down some strife today, it isn’t a long-term solution. On the other hand, pulling out on a certain date in the future does not take into account what the situation might be on that future date. Pulling out prematurely may require the U.S. to jump back into the fray later after a regional war has started in the wake of a power vacuum caused by our previous pullout.
The answer is negotiations. Recently retired Gen. John Abizaid has it right :
“Military power solves about 20 percent of your problem in the region,” he said in a speech at Harvard in November. “The rest of it needs to be diplomatic, economic, political.”
Transcript of his speech.
Video of his speech.
One remembers it was only a few months ago that North Korea was threatening its neighbors and the world with its nuclear testing. Today, that threat has dissipated tremendously because the U.S. decided to negotiate rather than to confront. Will those North Korean talks settle all problems instantaneously? No! Will Iraqi negotiations settle generations of hatred overnight? Again, no.
But whatever the obstacles to a successful settlement are, they have to be a whole lot less painful than the alternatives.
�’Moderate’ is not a 4-letter word.�
7 Responses to “Wrong Questions, Right Time.”
1. Im not sure we would have gotten a deal with Nkor, and especially a deal backed up by China, had we not threatened confrontation. Certainly the sanctions on the Bank in Macao seem to have played a role.
2. There seems to me much activity now in Iraq on the political front, from the oil deal, to reform in the ministries, to talks between the govt and Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar.
It is, however, very difficult to pursue such talks, when anyone who cooperates with the govt has to fear being attacked by those who continue the insurgeny, as has happened in Anbar recently.
NOTE: Alas, my last comment did not go through, due to the SPAM filter’s refusal to allow me to link to my blog. Here is a repost–albeit–without the link.
I’ve been a persistent critic of the Iraq War and an advocate of withdrawal. But find myself at odds with the Democratic-sponsored bill that is set to be voted upon today.
For one thing, I think it is important to point out that this is a supplemental war funding bill. It is weakened by the fact that it proposes two objectives that conflict with one another. One one hand, it proposes a withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq (which I am in favor of). On the other hand, it seeks to continue funding of the war, granting president Bush the $100 billion, as well as more than $20 million dollars in pork-barrel spending that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Iraq War.
Republican Represenative Ron Paul and Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich have both stated that they intend to vote AGAINST this bill despite the fact that they oppose the war and favor withdrawal of American troops. I have posted a transcript of their arguments against the supplemental bill as well as some of my own thoughts on this piece of legislation over at The Coming Realignment.
nic- I oppose this war as much as you do, but what chance, realistically do Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have? Both have taken positions that do not represent the views of the majority of their parties. I get that a lot of people have criticized Pelosi’s attempts to curtail this disaster, but I believe it was the best she could do, given the disparate views in Congress- even within her own party.
With Republicans still alligned with Bush, and Bush determined to veto anything that doesn’t aim to give him his victory, there isn’t much choice for Democrats. I honestly wish more of them had had the guts to vote against it. In the overheated environment after 9/11, however, they would have come off as gutless traitors for doing so.
The only good that I see coming out of this bill is that it will keep the administration on its toes.
I agree that setting a date today, when no one knows what the situation will be in 6 months, is foolhardy.
But as a prod, it may work.
Isn’t that why the bill is conditional? It ties our military presence to the situation on the ground.
[...] Yesterday I wrote about my hopes of a third way to extricate ourselves from Iraq. Rather than a “surge� or withdrawal by a certain date, we, instead, would focus on negotiations between the Shias and the Sunnis. [...]
[...] Yesterday I wrote about my hopes of a third way to extricate ourselves from Iraq. Rather than a “surgeâ€? or withdrawal by a certain date, we, instead, would focus on negotiations between the Shias and the Sunnis. Today, I see this in Time: Democrats on Capitol Hill hang on his every word, and Jim Webb doesn’t disappoint. His son was extended in Iraq for the surge, and his resolve to end a war that he opposed from the start is undisputed. He came from 33 points behind to win election in Virginia and tip control of the Senate to the Democrats—largely on the strength of his antiwar, tough-guy military credentials. Democrats owe him, and they trust him to help them find an honorable path out of Iraq. But Webb doesn’t favor a timeline for withdrawal, as the Nancy Pelosi bill passed by the House on Friday proposes, or capping the number of troops in Iraq, as Hillary Clinton suggests. Webb wants a diplomatic solution, and he’s working with Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a fellow Vietnam veteran and a friend for 30 years, to come up with a bipartisan bill that would incorporate some of what he calls “the more workable points” from the House bill without unnecessarily tying the hands of the military. He wouldn’t say much about it—other than it’s a work in progress as the Democrats try to ratchet up pressure on President Bush to wind down the war. [...]