Iraq & Afghanistan: Warning of A Serious Crisis Ahead
If this is not another moment of crisis in American history then what would be.
Here is the fighting/intelligence arm of the American nation virtually informing the lawmakers of the USA the futility of continuing the war in Iraq. Yet another report from the Associated Press highlights the failure of the U.S.-backed strategy to fight Afghanistan’s massive drug trade.
The Pentagon – the nerve centre of the United States Department of Defense charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government relating directly to national security and the military – has without mincing words informed the Congress of the near futility of the Iraq war. And this is not the first time!!! Tragically, the warnings are falling on deaf ears.
If you read the Pentagon report carefully you would find that while it is pointing at the dangers inherent in staying on in Iraq, the Bush administration seems to have ‘forced’ the Army Commanders to increase the number of troops in Iraq.
For the uninitiated Pentagon includes the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, as well as non-combat agencies such as the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Why is President George Walker Bush continuing to overlook the advice of the Pentagon and the Congress? Will this not demoralise the valiant US and other soldiers paying with their lives? What would be the long-term implications for all with a President at helm refusing to listen to the important powerful Constitutional institutions within his own country? Don’t such conditions lead to a civil war?
Since public memory is notoriously short, let us recall that President Bush and Co had refused to pay heed to the US Intelligence agencies warnings prior to 9/11 that there was a conspiracy going on and foreign pilots were being trained in the USA.
Now President Bush is again refusing to listen to the warnings of the Pentagon and the members of the Congress. This is an extremely dangerous development and a moment of great crisis not only for American citizens but the entire world.
“Sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security problems have become more complex than at any time since the U.S. invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report said Friday.
“In a notably gloomy report to Congress, the Pentagon reported that illegal militias have become more entrenched, especially in Baghdad neighborhoods where they are seen as providers of both security and basic social services.
” ‘Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months,’ the (Pentagon) report said. It is the latest in a series of quarterly reports required by Congress to assess economic, political and security progress.
“A growing number of members of Congress are calling for either a shift in the Bush administration’s Iraq strategy or a timetable for beginning a substantial withdrawal of American forces. Although administration officials say progress is being made in Iraq, U.S. commanders have increased U.S. troop levels by about 13,000 over the past five weeks, to 140,000, mainly due to increased violence in the Baghdad area.
“Peter Rodman, the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, in a separate session with reporters, said that despite progress this summer in reviving the Iraqi economy, raising electricity production and increasing the number of trained Iraqi troops, security conditions have deteriorated.
“When asked if they believe ‘things will be better’ in the future, the percentage of Iraqis responding positively has dropped over the past year — whether they were asked to look ahead six months, one year or five years — according to polling data cited in the report.
” ‘The security situation is currently at its most complex state since the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom,’ the report said, using the U.S. military’s name for the war that was launched in March 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein.”
Now Afghanistan. The Associated Press report says: “The U.S.-backed strategy to fight Afghanistan’s massive drug trade has been unsuccessful in stemming opium cultivation, which is expected to hit record levels this year, a senior U.S. official said Thursday.
“The official spoke to reporters as Western officials in Afghanistan were forecasting a possible 40 percent increase this year in land under opium poppy cultivation, despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent in counternarcotics efforts.
“Afghanistan produces more than 90 percent of the world’s opium and heroin supply, and the drug trade has had a corrosive effect on President Hamid Karzai’s struggling government.”
According to The New York Times: “Iraqi casualties soared by more than 50 percent in recent months, the product of spiraling sectarian clashes and a Sunni-based insurgency that remains “potent and viable,â€? the Pentagon said in its latest comprehensive assessment of security in Iraq.
“This time, the (Pentagon) study is the focus of special interest because of increasing fears that Iraq is sliding into civil war and because it is being published at a time when President Bush and members of his cabinet have been trying to present a strong case in support of the war, in the face of vehement criticism from Democrats.”
President Bush and his colleagues must listen to the sane advice of those who really matter before it is too late. A good leader is always ready to change the nation’s policy if it is for the good of the public at large and helps towards peace in his country and the world.
28 Responses to “Iraq & Afghanistan: Warning of A Serious Crisis Ahead”
Um, what policy is it that you think the government should adopt? I’m guessing that you support withdrawal, either immediate or at a fixed date. How does that help the Iraqis? And, aside from the short-term gain of American soldiers lives (admittedly, not an inconsequential consideration), how does this help America?
At the risk of repeating these talking points for the umpteenth time, an American withdrawal virtually assures Iraq’s descent into civil war, and gives the impression abroad that America is unreliable, that we won’t hold firm once a few soldiers get killed. That kind of reputation invites terrorist attacks.
So, again, just what do you propose, and why do you think it will help. It’s all well and good to sit back and throw stones — now try something constructive.
No single nation should consider itself as a Messiah to solve any other nation’s problems.
It is like a good intentioned fellow wanting to settle the problems of a perpetually squabbling husband and wife a couple of thousand miles away by forcing himself to live in that couple’s house.
The chap who does this must be a certified innocent/naive character or worse.For heaven’s sake who asked the USA to enter Iraq in the first place?
What should be done if a marriage does not work at all? Either the problem is solved through mututal agreement, diplomatic intervention or arbitration. The court in this case is the United Nations where all countries are represented. And it is only the UN, or a consensus among all countries, that can decide in its wisdom what should be done.
Every nation knows has native wisdom to resolve its most intractable problems. Forced American therapy is unlikely to work everywhere. Iraq had been a great civilisation once (when the most of the West was considered wild and barbaric).
And this is not the first time, or the last, that Iraq is going to face a crisis. Left to itself, the country would sort out its problems. As it is the bloodbath is going on every single day there.
So please don’t impress me with the argument about the ‘humanitarian’ reason why the USA is in Iraq and the former’s ‘ardent’ desire to prevent a bloodbath resulting from a civil war!!! We are witnessing a type of civil war in Iraq, notwithstanding the presence of US, and other, troops for more that three years there.
No, no, no, Swaraaj, no bait and switch argument here. This is not a discussion about whether the US should have invaded Iraq. That’s not the post you wrote. You wrote,
I asked you specific questions:
- What is the new policy you propose?
- If it is withdrawal, why do you think it will help the Iraqis?
- And why do you think it will help the Americans?
You write:
Do you honestly believe that if every American soldier pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, the Sunnis and Shia would sit down and work out their differences peacefully? Because I think the current bloodbath would be much, much worse if the Americans weren’t there.
It’s funny how Bush has created this mess, and now you have people calling him on it. What’s his (or his followers) response to their criticism? “Oh, well then how would YOU handle it?!” Perhaps they wouldn’t have fumbled everything so badly in the first place. It’s a sign of a real winner who screws everything up and then blames others for not being able to fix his self-created mess.
Thanks Allen McPheeters for considering me of some worth to answer the tough questions you have posed. In all humility may I state in the beginning that I am no expert. But let me try:
Answer No. One: As I said in my earlier comment
That means hand over the charge to the United Nations. Once that happens the US troops stationed in Iraq can be withdrawn in a period of, say, six months. Gradually replaced by the UN peace forces.
Answer No. Two: Iraq too wants peace and ordinary people wish to see the return of normal routine life. Invite all shades of Iraqis on the table – including Saddam Hussain – and you would be surprised by the response. All of them are dog tired and would see the light at the end of the tunnel and behave themselves. The raison d’etre of current insurgency would vanish. Well, inspite of all this if they wish to kill each other, let them go ahead. No power on earth can stop them.
Answer No. Three: The USA as a sole super power stands to gain a great deal if the US administraion with due humility apologises for the aggression. A powerful nation is respcted not by flexing its muscles all the time, but by its humane and generous behaviour. One can commit mistake, but it is important to apologise to gain in stature.
As it is, says The Christian Science Monitor, “almost two-thirds of Americans in each of three major polls say that they oppose the war, the highest totals since pollsters starting asking Americans the question three years ago.”
And the greatest gain for America would be that its rulers can prove that they are truly democratic leaders and honor the verdict of their own people, and are not tinpot dictators.
Swaraaj,
With all due respect, I truly think you are sincere in your responses but I think you are terribly wrong.
First, on the UN. Where will these peacekeeping forces come from? Europe still has only come up with less than half of the forces they need in Lebanon (and I’m not taking a shot at Europe for that, just saying that they feel they’re doing what they can and this is the best they can do.) What will the UN force’s rules of engagement be? The theroretical concept of a benign, impartial world governing body to keep peace in the world is very, very nice. I truly hope one day that humankind evolves to the point of being able to create such an organization. Until then, there will always be conflict in the world, and if we don’t have the fortitude to fight oppression, if we instead question our own ideals and claim that there is a moral equivalency between Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait to conquer and Bush invading Iraq to liberate, if we allow those ideas to deter us from our support of those who are trying to stabilize a free Iraq, then we are doomed.
Yes, it would be nice if there could be an impartial body to oversee conflicts and resolve them peacefully…but since there is absolutely no such thing in the real world today, the US has to do its part to fight tyrants. And yes, I know that critics will say it also props up dictators in other countries and I agree that is wrong…but THAT is where the US is wrong, not when it attempts to liberate a country from a tyrant.
Did US have some self interest in ousting Saddam? Of course. That doesn’t negate the good that will come if the end result is a stable and free Iraq. Once upon a time when France had a backbone, it helped the Americans fight for freedom from England. Were the French invaders? Or were they helping people fight for their freedom? Did the French have a self interest in that fight? Of course they did…but that doesn’t mean that they also didn’t agree with the cause for freedom.
Of course the situations are different because in today’s Iraq there are a group who want freedom, there was the old oppressive regime that is gone, but there are also other parties who still wish to exert their power and create an Islamist regime. So the fight continues…are we now to abandon those whom we promised aid, because it is now too damn hard?
On question number two, you lost me when you said to put Saddam Hussein at the table. I guess that is consistent with your position on the UN (which also loses all credibility by putting dictators at the same table with elected leaders.)
C Stanley- I agree with you on two points: One that Saddam Hussein should not be allowed to come to the negotiating table, and two that the U.N., while well-meaning has been ineffective in its peace-keeping missions. Many of the “peace-keepers” have had (as in Lebanon) no authority to do anything except observe-which in today’s atmosphere is virtually useless. They become targets, which is why there is so much trouble rounding up a force for Lebanon.
While I believe that international organizations definitely have their role to play in foreign conflicts, there are many tyrants that are U.N. members-which lessens the body’s moral authority.
It might make more sense to use Nato forces . As I have stated before regional powers in the Mideast should help maintain the balance of power there, especially since the Sunni nations hardly want Iraq to become another Iran.
You are correct that we have supported tyrants and still do when it was in our best interest to do so. Saddam was removed largely because we found it in our best interest to do so-because supporting tyranny in the past had led to 9/11. But do you support our relationship with the Saudi royal family —who has close ties to the Bush family? They run one of the most repressive regimes in the world, and the majority of the 9/11 terrorist were Saudi-as is OBL. Their schools teach extreme Islamic fundamentalism, and their mosques are virtual fundraisers for terrorism. I can’t prove it, but my theory as to why Bin Laden is still at large is our close ties to the Saudi royals. How else to explain Tora Bora? Or other missed opportunities to kill him?
My point is that we act in our own self-interest. When Saddam was a useful ally, we sold arms to him. When we felt threatened by Saddam, we enforced sanctions. When we felt the sanctions were ineffective, we removed him. There are many tyrants all over the world that we have no interest in removing. Why? Their countries don’t have resources that we have a vital interest in , and they are not a threat to us.
Let’s be clear. Do we wish to solve a complex problem or allow ourselves to be wrapped in sanctimonious humbug? We can go on counting 10,000 excuses for American troops to stay in Iraq, and another 10,000 reasons as to why they should be out of Iraq.
There is no sincere and credible effort to solve the problem. Only convoluted arguments….for over three years now. No effort to seek a consensus in the comity of nations.
The attitude of “we know the best” holds the sway among the chatterati. The voice of the common earthy Americans, who constitute nearly 80 per cent of the population and know better, has been silenced.
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
—Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 – 1969)
America has never been an empire. We may be the only great power in history that had the chance, and refused – preferring greatness to power and justice to glory.
—George W. Bush (1946 – ), speech.
What’s right about America is that although we have a mess of problems, we have great capacity – intellect and resources – to do some thing about them.
—Henry Ford II (1917 – 1987)
In every American there is an air of incorrigible innocence, which seems to conceal a diabolical cunning.
—A. E. Housman (1859 – 1936)
How much longer are we going to think it necessary to be ”American” before (or in contradistinction to) being cultivated, being enlightened, being humane, and having the same intellectual discipline as other civilized countries?
—Edith Wharton (1862 – 1937)
The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.
—Henry David Thoreau (1817 – 1862)
Sorry, Swaraaj, but I don’t understand your point. If it is that America is too arrogant, OK, I’ll admit to that. But the truth is, I don’t want us to have to solve the worlds problems but I don’t see anyone else stepping up to the plate. I don’t want America to be an Empire, even a benign one. Inasmuch as we might have a role in helping peoples in other countries to determine their own fate though, I don’t think we are “aggressors” when we try to do so.
I told you in the beginning Stanley that I am no expert. I am just an ordinary pen pusher (or to sound more contemporary a computer key pusher). My comments are just off-the-cuff remarks. That’s all. I apologise if raise expectations.
Swaraaj,
It’s fine…I think we just have different perspectives and I felt the need to share my computer key pusher remarks which differ from yours. Hopefully in discussions we will find common ground as well as better understanding why our opinions diverge on some points. You are right in that you are not a policy maker and of course, I am not either and neither of us will solve the worlds problems. Your humility is refreshing…thanks!
Also, your perspectives on India have been very helpful to me. I am quite ignorant on the culture and current situations there and am glad to receive the education.
Stanley- Is pushing a country into civil war helping people determine their fate? And if thats what we’re really doing why not help the oppressed in Saudi Arabia?
Kim,
I already mentioned in a previous post that I do not support the US having alliances with other authoritarian regimes either. Does that mean we need to address all of them simultaneously? Not in my opinion. Part of the reason that I agreed with the strategy to help create a free democracy in Iraq is that it will in fact eventually bring pressure on other nations in the region.
Here’s where the discussion started:
Alan M Um, what policy is it that you think the government should adopt?
I think a fair return would be, do you advocate anything other than “stay the course?”
If not, you’re coming ever closer to the insane man’s predicament of trying the same thing repeatedly and each time expecting a different result.
According to the Defence Department, Iraqi-against-Iraqi violence is surging. (Washington Post link HERE.)
This is a war the Bush administration chose to fight. They have done a terrible job. And I for one don’t see them doing any better. I mean, if they could do better, wouldn’t they have started doing better by now?
Well folks, in my humble opinion I would say that preemptively striking Iraq was a bad idea. However, to pull troops out without an effective strategy would send Iraq into extremist, milita-led chaos. I have friends who are serving in Iraq and it troubles me to hear of the daily occurrences of violence in this country in which we hoped to liberate (the road to hell is paved w/ good ntentions) but to pull U.S. troops out at this time would be dangerous and probably more costly in the long run. Even getting the support of NATO and/or the U.N. would be a long shot, and besides, putting peacekeeping troops w/ limited rules of engagement and little or no experience in Iraq would be an even bigger mistake. With all of this said, invading Iraq was a naive and irresponsible undertaking-not to arrogant of the Bush administration. Now the U.S. invasion has created a monster in Iraq-the likes of whch make Saddam’s regime seem petty-this monster has many heads and will not be easy to tame. Perhaps it will never be tamed and Iraq will descend further and further into chaos. But the U.S. is responsible and they must take accountability, as well as an aggressive stance toward correcting the problem.
Just on a small note, I know it was directed to CS, but still: yes, I’m calling for a different strategy since the one currently adhered to simply hasn’t worked. One has to be blind to not see that.
As Rick Moran said, quit or commit.
The US should start an incredible diplomatic effor to get other nations, especially Europe, to be willing to help Iraq financially. What I am calling for is a new Marshall plan (which also has to be brought into other Arab nations).
We have to work locally with people, we have to work politically with them, we must secure countries area for area (not all at one time, it simply doesn’t work) and we must help Iraq, both locally and centrally, develop economically.
Money and troops are required for this.
For those who say that Europe will not help since it’s such a mess I say “how do you know, it has never really been tried”. nations act in their own self-interest, thus what the US must do is to make it in other countries’ interests to help out.
This can be done by different trade ‘strategies’ (can’t come on right word so quickly) thus economical means / improvements, by political means, etc., etc.
Swaraarj I would have to agree with CS and Kim, the UN has a very limited ability to keep the peace, getting member nations to put troops in the middle of a conflict for extended periods of time is a daunting problem. It is now quite evident that the US even with all of it’s resources and military power has overextended itself. How we get out of this mess is debatable, but I just don’t see the UN as part of the solution. I do also want to say that your comments are always something to think seriously about, I enjoy your posts. Mcpowell, we are obligated up to a point to salvage the situation in Iraq, but the people involved must take responsibility for their actions as well. If they are bound and determined to fight a civil war we are no longer under any obligation to keep them from each other.
Swaraaj:
Looks like C Stanley has made most of the key points I would have made.
The UN has been as much a part of the problem as part of the solution. There are various reasons why I, personally, cannot take the UN serious as an arbiter of international problems. In this particular instance, I think the UN’s Oil for Food program, however well intentioned it may have been at the start, ended up being a corrupt cover for Saddam to enrich himself. Had the US not invaded Iraq in 2003, I believe that the Oil for Food program’s loopholes would have been a conduit for Saddam to begin to reactivate his WMD programs.
Remember, Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians and against his own citizens. While it now appears that his WMD programs had largely been neutralized, I think it would be naive to assume that he would not attempt to reacquire them at the earliest opportunity.
C Stanley also made this point: Where will the UN troops would come from? Kim Ritter suggests NATO as an alternate source of troops, but really, both organizations draw from the same well. The key countries providing troops for the Lebanon force (France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Greece) are all NATO members.
Briefly: on inviting Saddam Hussein to be part of the solution, I think an American President who invaded Iraq to liberate it from Saddam’s rule, and then turned around and invited Saddam to be part of a governing coalition would (rightly) be impeached. It would effectively say that the President had thrown away the lives of 2000+ soldiers.
You said:
This strikes me as naive. First: what Iraqi group was excluded from participating in the elections? The Wikipedia article Elections in Iraq says:
The raison d’etre for the current violence in Iraq is not the US presence; it is Shia vs. Sunni violence that stems from religious disagreements, and from the suppression of Shiites under Saddam’s regime.
You also said:
That’s as may be, but I believe that it’s worth a try.
Perhaps because it would be wrong to leave Iraq without fixing it?
I will be open minded here. I want to know how to know when the time is right to disengage from IRAQ? Can anyone help me make a wise informed decision? If this (Iraq) is as important a consideration for American and world security as the president suggests, then we better start drafting the best of the best right? I mean if we lose and there were additional resources we could have brought to bear what would that say? I also have a bad feeling about the largest embassy in the world being built in a country that we have to sneek dignitaries into. That’s uttery bizzare.
Wish I could render a positive slant on this one but I call them as I see them.
Ok I’ve come to the conclusion that the whole enterprise was Bush’s Folly, and it is now an albatross around our country’s neck. If we leave, we do bear responsibility for the chaos we have wrought, if we stay we bear the shame and stigma of a desintegrating enterprise.
Maybe, just maybe, the problem could be dealt with by new leadership. The military has given Rumsfeld a no-confidence vote, and seem incapable of bringing this to a successful conclusion as long as he is at the helm- Bush should be pressured relentlessly to replace him. The Dems are planning such a resolution, and if the Republicans can be honest about his performance and not partisan clods , maybe there is still some hope.
Interestingly all the comments made here have an element of truth. So which truth should ultimately triumph?
Holly in Cincinnati again highlights the central point of this post:
One can argue ad infinitum about the merits in supporting President Bush’s policy in Iraq. But now, with the Pentagon and the Congress openly opposing the said policy, there comes into play the question of democratic functioning.
If we overlook this importanmt dimension, the line dividing the functioning of President Bush and former President Saddam Hussain would stand blurred in the near future.
Why? Because both never honoured the majority point of view within their governments, and didn’t much care about the public opinion in their respective countries and the world.
All the more reason that they should be forced to sit down together and sort out the bloody mess they have created!!!
For humanitarian reasons some office space can be provided to Bush and Saddam within the Green Zone in Baghdad and they should not be allowed to leave the zone until they agree on an acceptable and reasonable solution to this festering Iraq problem.
I think a fair return would be, do you advocate anything other than “stay the course?”
MichaelThe US should start an incredible diplomatic effor to get other nations, especially Europe, to be willing to help Iraq financially. What I am calling for is a new Marshall plan (which also has to be brought into other Arab nations).
We have to work locally with people, we have to work politically with them, we must secure countries area for area (not all at one time, it simply doesn’t work) and we must help Iraq, both locally and centrally, develop economically.
Money and troops are required for this.
My comment was directed at whoever wanted to answer, and I appreciate your doing so.
Two questions:
What’s the first step?
How do you address the current security concerns related to low-grade civil war or whatever you want to call the status quo.
I really wish something like you suggest could work. You are more idealistic than I realized.
It simply boils down to good management practice. There is something called delegation of power – whether in running a corporate house or managing a country. Bad managers/leaders consolidate power in their own hands. They have no trust in their colleagues or their juniors.
President Bush is repeatedly brainwashing the people that “Après moi le deluge.” After me come the floods…
Let me narrate to you the story how this word “Après moi le deluge“ came into being. “The leader of the most powerful country on earth, with an unquestioned faith in his divine right to rule and the absolute power of the centralized state, was the namesake for Louisiana.
“When he died in 1715, Louis XIV had built France into the dominant power in Europe, but he bankrupted the nation, forcing him to levy high taxes on the peasantry while the nobility paid none at all. Most people lived in poverty while the King built an empire.
“During the empire’s demise his great great grandson Louis XV ruled France and its possessions, which included the colonial city of New Orleans. He lived for indulgence and luxury as his people descended further into despair. It is said near his end he uttered the words ‘Après moi le deluge.’ After me come the floods.”
But as we have all seen the world goes on. So JJC despite all the concern raised by the brainwashing skills of the powers that be the world or Iraq would go on without President Bush and the US troops.
I repeat: Do not underestimate the native wisdom of a nation and its leaders in solving its most intractable problems. Have faith. Let Iraqis do their own thing, as Americans do their own thing.
America has destroyed a beehive. It cannot rebuild the beehive again. Only the bees can do this job. So let’s leave it to the unfortunate Iraqis to do what they want.
If you mean that “security concerns” only relate to availability of cheap oil for the USA I am afriad this is being unfair. What about the hundreds of lives being lost every month in Iraq for past three years.
Or for that matter that of hundreds of innocent American and other soldiers? Is this not a matter of “security concern”?
Talking of delegation of power, President Bush &Co have almost usurped the powers of the Pentagon and the Congress.
The first step is simple: use a certain period of time – a few months – to negotiate with foreign government -> especially European ones, Canada and Australia.
At the same time, continue putting the Iraqi government’s plan into action. Which, quite simply means securing area for area, starting local safe zones and helping the local economy. That is financially not that difficult to do -> for the larger projects and to secure and economize the rest of Iraq, the US needs more help.
This is the first step, from there we go further.
The second question: I addressed that a bit in the ‘first step’-answer. Trying to stop the violence at once doesn’t work. One has to secure areas, area for area, even street for street. The center of violence, of course, is Baghdad. This means that the US with the Iraqi forces must secure area for area even street for street. Make a street a ‘place of peace’, before moving to the other street. This will make the Iraqi forces more experienced and they will gain credibility. Besides that it might be neccessary to ask other countries to help out (the real problem is today that Bush did not have such a plan when the US invaded -> back then there were quite some countries supporting the US and even sending troops to Iraq… it be should be done then, but okay, better late than never).
The real problem is not whether a plan like this will work. It’s not even whether or not other countries will help out Iraq and the US (they will as long as they get something in return). The real problem is whether the American people are willing to stay in Iraq for quite some years more and whether they are willing to invest financially in it. O, I didn’t mention this perhaps, but after securing an area the local economy must be rebuild / get an injection. This must be done with locals. The idea ‘we’ll bring American companies to there and give Iraqis the joy of consuming’ won’t work -> the locals must be able to start businesses / revive their businesses.
What they need, quite simply, is security, money and specialized knowledge (this one to a degree – they have a lot of knowledge themselves, that knowledge must be used: this will give Iraqis a sense that they are in charge of their country). They have the manpower and quite some knowledge (as explained before) themselves.
I am an idealist, but I am also practical. Idealism is great, but if it does not produce results, it has no value whatsoever.
Allen–Thank you for voicing the Administration perspective in the first comment. They don’t consider how to modify strategy given new facts–they appear unable, not only unwilling–and the ONLY response when presented with overwhelming evidence that our current strategy is deeply flawed is to ask “Well, what do YOU think we should do?”
Why is “something ELSE” such an inappropriate answer? “Staying the course” is NOT a strategy!!