It will not be possible to achieve these objectives in a single, dramatic move. The military outcome in Iraq will ultimately have to be reflected in some international recognition and some international enforcement of its provisions. The international conference of Iraq's neighbors, including the permanent members of the Security Council, has established a possible forum for this. A UN role in fostering such a political outcome could be helpful. Such a strategy is the best road to reduce America's military presence in the long run. None of these objectives can be realized, however, unless two conditions are met: The United States needs to maintain a presence in the region on which its supporters can count and which its adversaries have to take seriously. And above all, the country must recognize that bipartisanship has become a necessity, not a tactic.
|
Of course he doesn't mention the elephant in the room (hint: it also starts with an "I") by name so this can't be considered a seminal article. But he does end with the obvious point about the home front.
Which reminds me about something I had been meaning to illuminate for a long time. Who the hell is the American Congress to be lecturing the Iraqis on how to run a democracy??? Virtually all the Democrats (now that Lieberman isn't official any more) and most of the Republicans are at least venal if not outright corrupt porkmeisters.
Congress has virtually become a velvet prison colony to keep these jokers out of productive businesses where they could do even more damage than what we have today.
Even if I have to ruefully admit that compared to the rest of the world we're doing well, it only reflects what sad shape the rest of the world is in. As I noted recently, when France headed toward a war footing, serious trouble is brewing.
And those soft, nagging cries of agony you can't get a fix on are from our founders graves as they review the state of our government's readiness to deal with it...
Posts
