Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Yet more on the Iraq Debate
Some excerpts:
Reporting on the Friday debate between Peter Pham and Chuck Pena by Marisa Morrison is now available at National Interest online.
"Realism", as J. Peter Pham stated Friday at an event hosted by The National Interest, "is not monolithic." The debate between Charles Peña, a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, and Pham, director of the Nelson Institute at James Madison University, underscored this point. Though Peña and Pham agreed that the invasion of Iraq was a serious error, they differed on the best course of action now.
Sean Singer reports on yesterday's Iraq symposium, which featured Stephen Biddle, Daniel Pipes and Dov Zakheim:
As James Baker makes his rounds inside the Beltway, strategic alternatives for Iraq are also circulating throughout Washington.
Before the Iraq Study Group releases its proposed changes for American strategy, The National Interest assembled a panel to expound on policy recommendations expressed in the November/December 2006 symposium, "Is this victory" (available here). Dov Zakheim, Daniel Pipes—both members of The National Interest Advisory Council—and Stephen Biddle evaluated potential steps towards a redefined victory.
All three panelists recognized the dire situation in Iraq and the need to embrace reality. Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, emphasized the initial misdiagnosis of the insurgency as an ideological counter-insurgency, as opposed to a burgeoning civil war. American strategy exacerbated the situation through methods aimed at squelching an ideological resistance—such as building up the national military—which fanned the flames of civil strife.
Zakheim, former undersecretary of defense, admonished America's leadership for not recognizing the ongoing civil war. "There is some kind of determination not to face reality", he said. "To base a policy on something that isn't but actually is already tells you that there's a problem."
Terminating this civil war, or at least mollifying it, requires an emphasis on security and stability, not democracy building. In reference to the coalition's expectations of Iraqi democracy, Pipes, director of The Middle East Forum, said: "[Democratization] was just done too quickly, too ambitiously. The short-term requires stability and security, not democracy."
Reporting on the Friday debate between Peter Pham and Chuck Pena by Marisa Morrison is now available at National Interest online.
"Realism", as J. Peter Pham stated Friday at an event hosted by The National Interest, "is not monolithic." The debate between Charles Peña, a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, and Pham, director of the Nelson Institute at James Madison University, underscored this point. Though Peña and Pham agreed that the invasion of Iraq was a serious error, they differed on the best course of action now.
Sean Singer reports on yesterday's Iraq symposium, which featured Stephen Biddle, Daniel Pipes and Dov Zakheim:
As James Baker makes his rounds inside the Beltway, strategic alternatives for Iraq are also circulating throughout Washington.
Before the Iraq Study Group releases its proposed changes for American strategy, The National Interest assembled a panel to expound on policy recommendations expressed in the November/December 2006 symposium, "Is this victory" (available here). Dov Zakheim, Daniel Pipes—both members of The National Interest Advisory Council—and Stephen Biddle evaluated potential steps towards a redefined victory.
All three panelists recognized the dire situation in Iraq and the need to embrace reality. Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, emphasized the initial misdiagnosis of the insurgency as an ideological counter-insurgency, as opposed to a burgeoning civil war. American strategy exacerbated the situation through methods aimed at squelching an ideological resistance—such as building up the national military—which fanned the flames of civil strife.
Zakheim, former undersecretary of defense, admonished America's leadership for not recognizing the ongoing civil war. "There is some kind of determination not to face reality", he said. "To base a policy on something that isn't but actually is already tells you that there's a problem."
Terminating this civil war, or at least mollifying it, requires an emphasis on security and stability, not democracy building. In reference to the coalition's expectations of Iraqi democracy, Pipes, director of The Middle East Forum, said: "[Democratization] was just done too quickly, too ambitiously. The short-term requires stability and security, not democracy."
Comments:
<< Home
How can US emphssis security in Iraq when inside her own borders large urban tracts (Detroit, Camden, St. Antonio, Oakland, DC, Houston, etc.) are no-man lands of insecurity an violence?
Physician, heal thyself!
Physician, heal thyself!
# posted by 
: 8:01 PM
: 8:01 PM
There are no good options in Iraq. There are no good options because the costly, bloody, noendinsight horrorshow in Iraq is far more than "a serious error", or "the greatest strategic blunder in American history", or the results of the Bush governments many failures and incompetence in pursuit of socalled noble ambitions or a worthy cause woefully mismanaged and poorly executed. There are no good options in Iraq because the entire ghoulish nightmare is a CRIME!
The Bush governments nefarious deceptions, catastrophic failures, obscene abuses; - the systemic dismembering and perverting of the core principles and the rule of law that formally defined America; - the radical institutional erosion of the peoples rights, freedoms, and protections; - the governments bruting and pimping of patently false fictions, myths, partisan hagiography, and naked lies - the book cooking, woeful lack of accounting and other acts of skullduggery, - the prosecution of an information warfare campaign (perception management, propaganda, disinformation, and information domination operations) against the American people, - and the wild and wanton profiteering of fascist cabals in the Bush government constitute CRIMES!
Until realists and the majority of American recognize the factbasedreality, that the Bush government is a criminal regime, responsible, accountable, and culpable for a long and festering list of deceptions abuses, and CRIMES against humanity and the American people - our nation can never make any progress in Iraq.
We as a nation must recognize and admit to these crimes, prepare for reparations and the resulting turmoil that will certainly ensue because of these crimes, - and begin working in concert NOW to right the terrible wrongs of the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government in Iraq, here in the land of Oz, and beyond.
We must redeploy our forces out of Iraq. Our military can respond with rapid response forces or air power, and the ninja's can continue hunting, capturing, or killing every jihadist mass murderer and all those who aid and abet them on the planet.
We must assist Iraq financially, but accept that our actions there consitute grievous crimes, and we must now leave Iraq to the Iraqi's.
The Bush governments nefarious deceptions, catastrophic failures, obscene abuses; - the systemic dismembering and perverting of the core principles and the rule of law that formally defined America; - the radical institutional erosion of the peoples rights, freedoms, and protections; - the governments bruting and pimping of patently false fictions, myths, partisan hagiography, and naked lies - the book cooking, woeful lack of accounting and other acts of skullduggery, - the prosecution of an information warfare campaign (perception management, propaganda, disinformation, and information domination operations) against the American people, - and the wild and wanton profiteering of fascist cabals in the Bush government constitute CRIMES!
Until realists and the majority of American recognize the factbasedreality, that the Bush government is a criminal regime, responsible, accountable, and culpable for a long and festering list of deceptions abuses, and CRIMES against humanity and the American people - our nation can never make any progress in Iraq.
We as a nation must recognize and admit to these crimes, prepare for reparations and the resulting turmoil that will certainly ensue because of these crimes, - and begin working in concert NOW to right the terrible wrongs of the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government in Iraq, here in the land of Oz, and beyond.
We must redeploy our forces out of Iraq. Our military can respond with rapid response forces or air power, and the ninja's can continue hunting, capturing, or killing every jihadist mass murderer and all those who aid and abet them on the planet.
We must assist Iraq financially, but accept that our actions there consitute grievous crimes, and we must now leave Iraq to the Iraqi's.
1. Our perceptions concerning the administration's status as a "criminal regime" has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq's fate and the recognition of this president's failures, be they criminal or not, would not further the cause for Iraqi stability one bit.
2. Any thoughts on having American troops patrol agreed-upon cease-fire or demilitarized zones should Iraqis agree to a partition?
2. Any thoughts on having American troops patrol agreed-upon cease-fire or demilitarized zones should Iraqis agree to a partition?
# posted by : 1:11 AM
: 1:11 AM
No to patrols. This is the work of Iraqi's. If the are circumstances, security or humanitarian that demand our assistance, -then we can buzz in, provide whatever support is possible or necessary, and return to our bases.
The occupation is feeding the insurgency.
Post a Comment
The occupation is feeding the insurgency.
<< Home
