I have an extreme distaste for trial lawyers. It was trial lawyers who robbed me of a very good career in electronics and the retirement benefits that went with it, for something that happened sixty years ago at the bequest of the government, and for which nobody who worked for that company, or administered it at the time I worked there, had any blame or responsibility. Trial lawyers are all about greed, and personal gain, often taking up to 60% of the jury awards for themselves. They have no conscious when it comes to taking jobs away from people and causing them to suffer as much as their clients.
John Edwards is one of these trial lawyers, who made hundreds of millions of dollars off of the victims of his lawsuits. He has made it clear that, if he would become President, he would continue to rob people of his jobs by attacking "Corporate America" with more taxes and regulations. He has made a personal precedent to put corporations out of business, and to help make the middle class as dependent on the Federal government as are many of the poor.
As a Libertarian, I think it is laudable that Ron Paul has exposed the public to Libertarian answers to social and economic issues, and has received an overwhelming positive reaction to such. However as far as foreign policy is concerned, Dr.Paul is either naive or totally ignorant. For one thing, he has said that it is "ridiculous that America would be attacked because we are too rich or too free." I agree with that statement, such a thought isn't only ridiculous, but is outright propaganda promulgated by the extreme left to make their "hate America first" point. What Paul is missing, when he addresses the war on terror this way, is that the fanatics who would attack America are not attacking us because we are too rich or too free, but because the majority of Americans and Europeans worship God on Saturdays and Sundays. These religious fanatics, such as Ayman Al Zawahiri and Osama Bin Ladin, have convinced their followers that in order for the Seventh Imam, the Islamic Messiah, to come to earth, that the earth must be cleansed of infidels, that is those who do not follow Sharia Law the way it is interpreted by the Wahadi school of thought. Ignoring this threat, or pulling out of the Middle East, as Dr. Paul suggests we do, will allow these extremists to gain power, possibly taking control of an entire nation in which they can expand their resources. Isolationism, Ron Paul's foreign policy, will not make them or their jihad go away.
A question I would like to ask Dr. Paul, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barak Obama, is based on the following scenario, which is a legitimate projection considering the situation in the Middle East:
If the United States leaves a weakened government in Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign powers will find it in their interest to support and step up insurgency in that country. Eventually, Iran will invade Iraq with Iraq's oil resources as its goal, and Saudi Arabia will join in battle against Iran. The Straits of Hormuz will undoubtably be closed, and there will be no Middle Eastern oil exported anywhere. To the above mentioned candidates, I ask:
"With practical energy alternatives twenty or thirty years down the road, with restrictions on domestic oil exploration and drilling, how do you propose to get groceries on the shelves of the markets with the severe oil shortage caused by the inevitable world war in the Middle East, and how will you respond to the wrath of the rest of the world putting the blame on America for creating the situation."
I will bet that they would not even be able to answer the question.
Showing posts with label Diplomacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diplomacy. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
The new neocons?
Watching the Democratic Party Iowa debates, the one thing that surprised me was that every candidate agreed that, as far as trade policy goes, the "neocons" are correct. Every single one of the candidates seemed to agree that trade agreements should be tied to human rights issues, as they were during the Reagan Administration. This is how regime change can best be accomplished, as it was the way the old USSR regime fell. Natan Sharanski's book, The Case For Democracy, has been read by George W. Busch, Condileeza Rice, and about everybody on their staffs and is acknowledged to be the "handbook" for foreign economic policy.
Apparently the Democratic Party candidates have read it as well, for some of them quoted directly from the book. Or perhaps quoted somebody they heard quoting from the book. Somebody like, perhaps, Dick Cheney?
They tried to make this sound like a different tack than that being taken by the State Department, but those who have been paying attention to the news know that, for one thing, there are presently ongoing negotiations that are precisely about human rights issues, with China and Pakistan in particular.
Perhaps they hope that we don't pay attention, or, just as likely, they just haven't been paying attention.
Theoretically, they have the foreign economics policy right, but listening to there proposals for the domestic policy, they all want to make the American citizenry more dependent on the government for their jobs and food. You can't have things both ways and say you are for freedom. But, that's politicians for you.
Apparently the Democratic Party candidates have read it as well, for some of them quoted directly from the book. Or perhaps quoted somebody they heard quoting from the book. Somebody like, perhaps, Dick Cheney?
They tried to make this sound like a different tack than that being taken by the State Department, but those who have been paying attention to the news know that, for one thing, there are presently ongoing negotiations that are precisely about human rights issues, with China and Pakistan in particular.
Perhaps they hope that we don't pay attention, or, just as likely, they just haven't been paying attention.
Theoretically, they have the foreign economics policy right, but listening to there proposals for the domestic policy, they all want to make the American citizenry more dependent on the government for their jobs and food. You can't have things both ways and say you are for freedom. But, that's politicians for you.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
More fallout from Pelosi's "Mission of Diplomacy"
Yes, I know that this subject is now weeks old, but we still see comments on the subject that tell us that many people are missing the point. It doesn't matter if the congressperson is Republican or Democratic, when he or she takes it into his or her hands to try to create new foreign relations, that person is undermining the duties and policies of the State Department, and crossing the boundaries of Constitutional separation of powers.
For those who think no harm is done, please read this article from the Reform Party of Syria. Nancy's posturing to try to prove a point harmed more than just US diplomatic relations.
For those who are unfamiliar with the RPS, this is the statement from the "About" page on their site:
The RPS mission statement may be found here
For those who think no harm is done, please read this article from the Reform Party of Syria. Nancy's posturing to try to prove a point harmed more than just US diplomatic relations.
For those who are unfamiliar with the RPS, this is the statement from the "About" page on their site:
Reform Party of Syria (RPS) is a US-based Syrian opposition party to the Assad regime that has emerged as a result of September 11.
The party is governed by secular, peace committed American-Syrians, Euro-Syrians, and native Syrians who are determined to see that a "New Syria" is reborn that embraces real democratic and economic reforms.
RPS believes that political despotism, economic deprivation, and social stagnation in the Middle East have contributed significantly to the increase in domestic and international terrorism and to an Arab public policy that dilutes the goodwill the US harbors for democratic values in the Middle East.
RPS embraces accountability and transparency, human rights and freedom of expression, full diploamtic rlations with democratic Lebanon, and peaceful co-existence with ALL of our neighbors.
RPS leadership is consistent with the rich social mosaic of Syria, which includes Kurds, Alawites, Christians, Druze in addition to women who will play an important part in the future of Syria.
The RPS mission statement may be found here
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
How to talk to Iran
Photo copyright Associated Press
"I don't see why the most powerful nation in the world can't talk to the leaders of Iran (and) put some pressure on (them)...When I was in Europe, I talked to (Yugoslavian President) Slavodan Milosovich and told him that if he didn't get in line he would be bombed"
Thus spake General Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO, former Democratic Party Presidential candidate, and political pundit. He was criticizing the State of The Union Address and the current administration's refusal to talk to the leadership of Iran to find a solution to the dual wars in Iraq. Of course, we know that NATO went to war with Yugoslavia, and Milosovich's country was bombed incessantly after Clark's talks with the wayword President. Clark's talks didn't amount to much.
It sounds to me as if Clark, who has expressed fear that the United States may engage in armed conflict Iran, is advocating war. This wasn't the only comment in which General Clark seemed to be contradictary. "We don't have to talk to (Iranian President Ahmadinejad), there are other elements in Iran we can talk to."
But none of these "other elements" are in a position to make or influence national and international policy in Iran. Certainly, as did the Iraq Study Group, individual "moderate" ayatollahs on the Supreme Islamic Council, can be spoken to, but not in the element of official policy. The Supreme Islamic Council, as the ruling body of Iran, cannot, by their perception of their religion, speak to representatives of the United States in any official capacity, because such representatives are "dhimmis" and not of the correct standing to speak to in such capacity.
Nor can the dissident or shadow government of Iran be a viable party in such talks. Those who are not in prison or in exile may be allowed to speak to representatives of the United States, but they dare not go contrary to the government's policy for fear of imprisonment or death. Besides, what purpose would that serve?
There is a glimmer of hope for future relations with Iran in that there has been some talk about impeaching, or at least reigning in President Ahmadinejad. This may mean a more moderate stance on the part of Iran, and, if it does, then it could be possible to have meaningful talks with that government. However, the Supreme Islamic Council will most likely not change its stripes, and the US will still be "The Great Satan," and untouchable in the minds of the ayatollahs.
That does not mean that Iraq can't establish relations or agreements with Iran. It should be up to that government to establish relationships with its neighbors. The Iraqi government first needs to be secure, though, before it can do so, otherwise it has no leverage.
We don't have to fear war with Iran. It is very possible that within forty minutes of the moment that Iran announces that it has a nuclear weapon, it will be green-glassed by Israel. Israel is the target of threats by Iran, and Israel, with a reported two-hundred warhead nuclear arsenal, will not hesitate to strike preemptorily to prevent its own annihilation. Hopefully, the ayatollahs realize that, and, eventually, will give in to the rest of the world and accept the light water nuclear technology which has been offered them.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Who Wins Or Loses?
The war in Iraq should not be a political issue in the United States. It is not a matter of President Bush being right or wrong, nor is it an issue of those who oppose the war being right or wrong. It is only the result of our actions in Iraq that is the issue, and if the politicians who oppose the mission continue to involve themselves in the war, it is they who would lose.
They would lose, because if they succeed in causing the US to withdraw from Iraq prematurely, they would be seen as being responsible for the inevitable slaughter of the minority population in that country. That would not bode well for their chances for reelection in 2008. If the Iraqi forces succeed in taking control of the country's security operations by November, which is the current goal, those who involve themselves in opposing the war politically will be seen as losers. If the government in Iraq falls into anarchy, and Iraq becomes the battleground involving more nations in the region--and likely world-wide involvement in a much larger and much more costly conflict--those who politically oppose the current mission in Iraq would be seen as losers.
It is interesting to note that while Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, many of those who opposed the policy, including John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, were blaming the failure on not having enough troops in Iraq, but now that Rumsfeld is gone, they are actually quoting his statement that "more troops without a military objective would just create more targets," in posing their objection to the "way forward."
Granted, military involvement alone cannot solve the problem of Iraq, diplomacy is sorely needed. But we have to be careful on how we conduct this diplomacy, and at what level. Diplomacy is necessary for the US mission to be seen as one of peacekeeping, rather than one of aggression or occupation. If the politicians really want to bring our troops home, they should begin referring to our involvement in Iraq as a peacekeeping mission. This would help change the perception of many of the people in Iraq who oppose the US mission in that country. It is already being done in the Anbar province, where marines working with the local governments and within the Iraqi security forces have succeeded in establishing a viable police force, and has helped to create much needed jobs in that region. Creating jobs is very important, because much of the unrest has been caused by unemployment. This strategy of the marines in Ramadi, by the way, is one of the suggestions in the Iraq Study Groups report that has been implemented, and in fact was being implemented weeks before the report was released.
Diplomacy, as well as the deployment of military forces, is defined by the separation of powers implicit in the Constitution is the responsibility of the Executive, not the Legislative branch of government. It is within the rights of members of Congress to voice their opposition to policy, but unless they can come up with a better plan to create stability in the region, their opposition will be duly noted and nothing more. It is undiplomatic for the members of Congress to refer to the mission as an escalation, because that increases the perception in Iraq of the American forces there as being aggressors or occupiers, which is counter productive to the mission.
Much of the diplomatic function belongs to the Iraqi government. It is that government which needs to talk to Iran and Syria to try go get them to stop their involvement in the insurgency. The five Iranians who were arrested in northern Iraq, recently, were not part of a diplomatic mission, but were agents of Iranian special forces sent there to recruit and train insurgents. The Iraqi government needs to establish some sort of deal with Iran, to tell them to stop this practice.
Saudi Arabia has stated that they would support the Sunni insurgency, if the US were to begin withdrawal from Iraq prematurely. This would begin a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which would eventually involve the entire world. Russia and France would support Iran, while China, Egypt, Turkey, the US, and much of the EU would have to come out in support of Saudi Arabia.
The President has called on the Saudis to become more involved in establishing stability in Iraq, and diplomacy on the part of the United States could really work here. We do not want the Saudis to support the insurgency, we want them to support, or at least recognize, the Iraqi government. As Natan Saransky stated in his book The Case For Democracy we could do without Saudi oil better than the Saudis could do without oil revenue. Our support of the Saudi Arabian economy could be used as a bargaining chip in getting them to contribute to the stability of Iraq.
Seventy-five percent of the Iranian population is pro American and opposes their own government, by all reports. If we were to establish diplomatic relations with that government, the attitude in
Iran would be "the friend of my enemy is my enemy," and recruitment by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would increase. The opposition movement in Iran would die, because the rogue government in Iran would be legitimated, and use that legitimacy to support the murder and imprisonment of the opposition in Iran.
This could change, though. As I write this, there are some in the Iranian Supreme Islamic Council who are calling for the impeachment of President Ahmadinejad. If this were to come about, this may mean a more moderate stance by Iran in relations with the rest of the world. In that case, we may be able to have a diplomatic relation with that country, and we may be able to enlist their support for security in Iraq.
All in all, it isn't a matter of anyone winning or losing politically. If we can meet our goal of creating a successful Iraqi security force by November, we can begin withdrawing forces from Iraq. There are those in Congress who want to see this fail, because they see any successful policy of the President as being an attack against them. They should stay out of it--they will only lose no matter what happens in Iraq.
A successful Iraqi government does not mean the President has won anything, merely that his policy has been successful. What it does mean, however, is that we will see a more stable environment in that region, and the whole world wins.
They would lose, because if they succeed in causing the US to withdraw from Iraq prematurely, they would be seen as being responsible for the inevitable slaughter of the minority population in that country. That would not bode well for their chances for reelection in 2008. If the Iraqi forces succeed in taking control of the country's security operations by November, which is the current goal, those who involve themselves in opposing the war politically will be seen as losers. If the government in Iraq falls into anarchy, and Iraq becomes the battleground involving more nations in the region--and likely world-wide involvement in a much larger and much more costly conflict--those who politically oppose the current mission in Iraq would be seen as losers.
It is interesting to note that while Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, many of those who opposed the policy, including John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, were blaming the failure on not having enough troops in Iraq, but now that Rumsfeld is gone, they are actually quoting his statement that "more troops without a military objective would just create more targets," in posing their objection to the "way forward."
Granted, military involvement alone cannot solve the problem of Iraq, diplomacy is sorely needed. But we have to be careful on how we conduct this diplomacy, and at what level. Diplomacy is necessary for the US mission to be seen as one of peacekeeping, rather than one of aggression or occupation. If the politicians really want to bring our troops home, they should begin referring to our involvement in Iraq as a peacekeeping mission. This would help change the perception of many of the people in Iraq who oppose the US mission in that country. It is already being done in the Anbar province, where marines working with the local governments and within the Iraqi security forces have succeeded in establishing a viable police force, and has helped to create much needed jobs in that region. Creating jobs is very important, because much of the unrest has been caused by unemployment. This strategy of the marines in Ramadi, by the way, is one of the suggestions in the Iraq Study Groups report that has been implemented, and in fact was being implemented weeks before the report was released.
Diplomacy, as well as the deployment of military forces, is defined by the separation of powers implicit in the Constitution is the responsibility of the Executive, not the Legislative branch of government. It is within the rights of members of Congress to voice their opposition to policy, but unless they can come up with a better plan to create stability in the region, their opposition will be duly noted and nothing more. It is undiplomatic for the members of Congress to refer to the mission as an escalation, because that increases the perception in Iraq of the American forces there as being aggressors or occupiers, which is counter productive to the mission.
Much of the diplomatic function belongs to the Iraqi government. It is that government which needs to talk to Iran and Syria to try go get them to stop their involvement in the insurgency. The five Iranians who were arrested in northern Iraq, recently, were not part of a diplomatic mission, but were agents of Iranian special forces sent there to recruit and train insurgents. The Iraqi government needs to establish some sort of deal with Iran, to tell them to stop this practice.
Saudi Arabia has stated that they would support the Sunni insurgency, if the US were to begin withdrawal from Iraq prematurely. This would begin a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which would eventually involve the entire world. Russia and France would support Iran, while China, Egypt, Turkey, the US, and much of the EU would have to come out in support of Saudi Arabia.
The President has called on the Saudis to become more involved in establishing stability in Iraq, and diplomacy on the part of the United States could really work here. We do not want the Saudis to support the insurgency, we want them to support, or at least recognize, the Iraqi government. As Natan Saransky stated in his book The Case For Democracy we could do without Saudi oil better than the Saudis could do without oil revenue. Our support of the Saudi Arabian economy could be used as a bargaining chip in getting them to contribute to the stability of Iraq.
Seventy-five percent of the Iranian population is pro American and opposes their own government, by all reports. If we were to establish diplomatic relations with that government, the attitude in
Iran would be "the friend of my enemy is my enemy," and recruitment by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would increase. The opposition movement in Iran would die, because the rogue government in Iran would be legitimated, and use that legitimacy to support the murder and imprisonment of the opposition in Iran.
This could change, though. As I write this, there are some in the Iranian Supreme Islamic Council who are calling for the impeachment of President Ahmadinejad. If this were to come about, this may mean a more moderate stance by Iran in relations with the rest of the world. In that case, we may be able to have a diplomatic relation with that country, and we may be able to enlist their support for security in Iraq.
All in all, it isn't a matter of anyone winning or losing politically. If we can meet our goal of creating a successful Iraqi security force by November, we can begin withdrawing forces from Iraq. There are those in Congress who want to see this fail, because they see any successful policy of the President as being an attack against them. They should stay out of it--they will only lose no matter what happens in Iraq.
A successful Iraqi government does not mean the President has won anything, merely that his policy has been successful. What it does mean, however, is that we will see a more stable environment in that region, and the whole world wins.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Who are you calling a Warmonger?
Should a person be considered a "warmonger," if he or she is only thinking of the future? Does not being "anti-war" mean being "pro-war?" I submit that, when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East, nobody who is not a Islamist militant or Baathist insurgant is "pro-war." Every proposal, every suggestion put forth by everyone, from the ISG, to the military leaders in Iraq, to the President himself, is a plan to put an end to the violence in the region.
Certainly, many of these proposals are flawed. We know that we need to use diplomacy along with military force in order to meet the goals set forth by the President and the ISG--diplomacy is needed to ensure stability in the region, and the military is needed to protect stability in the region.
But, how far should diplomacy go? How far can it go? The President has been talking one-on-one with Sunni and Shiite leaders in Iraq, and, for the last five weeks, the Marines in Ramadi, a hotbed for insurgancy, have been working with both the Sunni dominated police force, and the Shiite dominated Iraqi military to bring stability to that city. They have imbedded advisers in those two organizations to train and plan with the Iraqi forces. They have contracted with the local citizenry, to hire Iraqis to build and repair homes and facilities. Although Ramadi cannot be considered safe, the Marines are gaining the trust and support of the general populace, and solidifying the resolve of the Iraqi civilians in that city to oppose the insurgancy. Though these methods were among the ISG proposals, they were in effect prior to the release of the ISG report. The activities of both the President, and the Marines in Ramadi will, I feel, prove to be very productive in the long run.
James Baker, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) has admitted that Iran is not likely to be of any help in bringing peace to the region, but suggests that the US enter unilateral talks with that nation, if only to show the world where Iran stands. The fact is that the US has already set the conditions under which negotiations with Iran could be held, and Iran has rejected those conditions. Unconditional unilateral talks with the leadership of Iran would be extremely unwise. By the rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and members of Iran's Supreme Islamic Council, we know that such talks would be seen by Iran as surrender terms, and a victory for Iran. To officially recognize the government of Iran would be to sign a death sentence for the seventy-five percent of the Iranian population that is anti-government, because it would be a step toward abandonment of the cause for freedom, and would legitimize that governments methods against its own people. Iran does not want to see a stable, democratic and independent Iraq, a goal which has been stated by both the President and the ISG. Iran wants to control Iraq, and a stable, independent government in Iraq would be countrary to Iran's goals.
The United States has nothing to offer to or take away from Iran in unilateral talks. We cannot trade nuclear weapons for freedom in Iraq, because that freedom would not be a lasting freedom. Iran's only points would be that the US and its allies leave the region, that Israel be dissolved, and that Iran be allowed to control Iraq. We already know that the latter condition would result in a much more widespread war between several countries in the region. Saudi Arabia has already warned that if the US were to precipitously leave the region that it would have to back the Sunnis in Iraq to fight against the Iraqi Shiites and Iran. Unilateral talks with Iran over Iraq is definately a non-starter.
Fred Barnes, of The Weekly Standard has suggested that James Baker be appointed as a special envoy to Syria, so that he could attempt his plan to "flip Syria." Barnes, like any pragmatist, does not believe that Syria would suddenly stop supporting insurgants in Iraq, and stop trying to control Lebanon, all in exchange for Israel returning control of the Golan Heights to Syria. Common sense says that that would never happen, but if Baker could pull that off, he would be God.
It is up to the Iraqi government to establish diplomatic relations with its neighbors, not the United States. If there are to be talks between the US and Iran and Syria, they should be in the context of multilateral talks including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Russia, China, and the EU, as well as the United States. All these countries have a vested interest in the future of Iraq, and this is the only way negotiations concerning the region should be conducted.
Another way to peace in Iraq would be to encourage industry in that country. As President Bush has suggested, support should be given to establish a strong agricultural economy in Iraq, as well as an agreement to fairly distrubute oil wealth. Jobs need to be created, and would largely take power over people away from the insurgant organizations and militias and give it back to the population. Iraqis wanting jobs would leave the insurgancy to get jobs. This is a very important condition in bringing peace to that country.
A little more than half of Iraq exists under peaceful conditions. Free market industries and retailers should be encouraged to establish business in these regions, drawing more people away from the militias for the sake of productive jobs.
The US military presence is still needed in Iraq, until the Iraqi security force can stand on its own. The Ramadi model by the Marines should be successful, and it should be implemented throughout the country. This is all toward bringing peace, and to preventing a much larger war in the future. It will take time, but it will work. My opinion is not "pro-war," or "anti-war"--it is pro peace. So please stop calling me and those who agree with my point of view "Warmongers."
Certainly, many of these proposals are flawed. We know that we need to use diplomacy along with military force in order to meet the goals set forth by the President and the ISG--diplomacy is needed to ensure stability in the region, and the military is needed to protect stability in the region.
But, how far should diplomacy go? How far can it go? The President has been talking one-on-one with Sunni and Shiite leaders in Iraq, and, for the last five weeks, the Marines in Ramadi, a hotbed for insurgancy, have been working with both the Sunni dominated police force, and the Shiite dominated Iraqi military to bring stability to that city. They have imbedded advisers in those two organizations to train and plan with the Iraqi forces. They have contracted with the local citizenry, to hire Iraqis to build and repair homes and facilities. Although Ramadi cannot be considered safe, the Marines are gaining the trust and support of the general populace, and solidifying the resolve of the Iraqi civilians in that city to oppose the insurgancy. Though these methods were among the ISG proposals, they were in effect prior to the release of the ISG report. The activities of both the President, and the Marines in Ramadi will, I feel, prove to be very productive in the long run.
James Baker, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) has admitted that Iran is not likely to be of any help in bringing peace to the region, but suggests that the US enter unilateral talks with that nation, if only to show the world where Iran stands. The fact is that the US has already set the conditions under which negotiations with Iran could be held, and Iran has rejected those conditions. Unconditional unilateral talks with the leadership of Iran would be extremely unwise. By the rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and members of Iran's Supreme Islamic Council, we know that such talks would be seen by Iran as surrender terms, and a victory for Iran. To officially recognize the government of Iran would be to sign a death sentence for the seventy-five percent of the Iranian population that is anti-government, because it would be a step toward abandonment of the cause for freedom, and would legitimize that governments methods against its own people. Iran does not want to see a stable, democratic and independent Iraq, a goal which has been stated by both the President and the ISG. Iran wants to control Iraq, and a stable, independent government in Iraq would be countrary to Iran's goals.
The United States has nothing to offer to or take away from Iran in unilateral talks. We cannot trade nuclear weapons for freedom in Iraq, because that freedom would not be a lasting freedom. Iran's only points would be that the US and its allies leave the region, that Israel be dissolved, and that Iran be allowed to control Iraq. We already know that the latter condition would result in a much more widespread war between several countries in the region. Saudi Arabia has already warned that if the US were to precipitously leave the region that it would have to back the Sunnis in Iraq to fight against the Iraqi Shiites and Iran. Unilateral talks with Iran over Iraq is definately a non-starter.
Fred Barnes, of The Weekly Standard has suggested that James Baker be appointed as a special envoy to Syria, so that he could attempt his plan to "flip Syria." Barnes, like any pragmatist, does not believe that Syria would suddenly stop supporting insurgants in Iraq, and stop trying to control Lebanon, all in exchange for Israel returning control of the Golan Heights to Syria. Common sense says that that would never happen, but if Baker could pull that off, he would be God.
It is up to the Iraqi government to establish diplomatic relations with its neighbors, not the United States. If there are to be talks between the US and Iran and Syria, they should be in the context of multilateral talks including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Russia, China, and the EU, as well as the United States. All these countries have a vested interest in the future of Iraq, and this is the only way negotiations concerning the region should be conducted.
Another way to peace in Iraq would be to encourage industry in that country. As President Bush has suggested, support should be given to establish a strong agricultural economy in Iraq, as well as an agreement to fairly distrubute oil wealth. Jobs need to be created, and would largely take power over people away from the insurgant organizations and militias and give it back to the population. Iraqis wanting jobs would leave the insurgancy to get jobs. This is a very important condition in bringing peace to that country.
A little more than half of Iraq exists under peaceful conditions. Free market industries and retailers should be encouraged to establish business in these regions, drawing more people away from the militias for the sake of productive jobs.
The US military presence is still needed in Iraq, until the Iraqi security force can stand on its own. The Ramadi model by the Marines should be successful, and it should be implemented throughout the country. This is all toward bringing peace, and to preventing a much larger war in the future. It will take time, but it will work. My opinion is not "pro-war," or "anti-war"--it is pro peace. So please stop calling me and those who agree with my point of view "Warmongers."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
