JDG wrote: > Its my understanding that Bush has actually rather aggressively > supported research into alternative energy.
Well, my impression is pretty much the opposite. > "Month and a half ago" being the operative words. You accused me of > proposing an already-abandoned policy... and I'm sure you recognize > the partisan overtones to that. Partisan, shmartisan; with all due respect, what you've laid out below is pretty much a stay the course approach, call it what you will. > I won't pretend that I have the answers to Iraq - if I did, I suppose > that I probably wouldn't be here. I wouldn't count on it. Competence doesn't seem to be of much importance in the present administration. > > In general, though, I see two broad policy options in regards to Iraq. > On one hand, there is a set proposals of the variety that if we were to > just leave Iraq, the ensuing vacuum would just simply force the Iraqis > to sort out their problems, because America (et al.) wouldn't be around > to bail them out any more. On the other hand, there is a set of > proposals of the variety that Coalition forces can play a positive role > in controlling sectarian violence. > > In general, while I find the first set of proposals tempting, I find > them to also be ultimately unconvincing. I just don't think that > there is much support for the notion that a security vacuum would force > Iraqis to sort things out. I also look at what happened in "vacuum" > situations in places like Somalia, Congo, etc. and think that > disintegration could be a very real possibility. There is also the > specter of the substantial evidence that Osama bin Laden was greatly > emboldened by our loss of will and withdrawal from Somalia, and that > similarly withdrawing in disagrace from a disintegrating Iraq would have > an even greater effect. He's also immensely satisfied with the opportunity to bleed us slowly, as Ritu suggested. You have to know that the American public won't continue to tolerate failure and by most accounts that I've read the situation in Iraq is worsening. > > I also think that there is substantial evidence that Coalition forces > can play a positive role. There have been many reports that the > deployment of Coalition forces to an area reduces sectarian violence in > that area. The overwhelming problem seems to be that nearly four years > later, we're still trying to do this thing on the cheap, and we just > don't have enough troops. We had half a million troops in Viet Nam and couldn't keep the peace there. It just won't work. > So, what sort of policy options does that lend us to? > > In the short term, there may perhaps be some beneficial changes in > tactics that could be effected - such as perhaps greater integration of > Coalition and Iraq forces. Did you read that article by George Will that I linked to? That should give you an idea of the difficulty in integrating forces. > In the medium term, I think that we should be increasing the pay of our > soldiers substantially in order to boost recruitment, certainly I think > that soldiers' pay should be growing at a faster rate than pay for other > federal employees not in danger zones. I'm defiantly not against raising compensation for the military. I doubt the compensation is much better than it was when I was in, maybe worse considering expenses, and the benefits probably aren't as good. But there's no way your going to raise pay and benefits enough to make a substantial difference. People don't want to get shot at for a cause they don't believe in. > I also would consider looking > at perhaps seeing what forces could perhaps be raised by substantially > underwriting some kind of UN, African Union, or League of Arab States > peacekeeping force. Well good luck with that. We can't even motivate Iraqi troops to protect their own people. Considering that most of the rest of the world didn't want us to invade in the first place as well as our lack of success thus far, how many governments do you expect to embrace this force and do you think they would be able to come up with the tens or even hundreds of thousands of troops necessary to make a difference? > Lastly, I would also be reminding, at every > opportunity, that while not all of our Allies may have wanted to get > into Iraq, they do all stand to lose almost as much as we do if the > Iraqi enterprise were to fail.... > > I can't say that these are answers to our problems, but I think that > they are starts.... I know where you're coming from, John. Leaving Iraq would signal abysmal failure and humiliation and create a power vacuum that would immediately be filled by those we now consider our enemies. Our strategic position in the region will be severely compromised and Israel will be further isolated. But IMO all these things will happen anyway. It's time to cut the gangrenous leg off; it's not recoverable and it's going to poison the rest of the body. -- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
