winterbadger (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterbadger) wrote2007-01-22 04:41 pm
winterbadger) wrote2007-01-22 04:41 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Kissinger on Iraq
Kissinger says that US withdrawal from Iraq is not an option, citing what a cynical observer might suggest he call the 'domino effect', and then says:
Does he even understand the paradox he has stated? The Iraqi government is not strong enough to subdue the warring militias. The United States cannot afford to get involved in the internecine conflict if it wants to avoid being dragged to one side or the other. But unless and until the civil war (even Kissinger admits it is that) is halted, there can be no prospect for stability.
He goes on to say
We've being doing that already, and it does no good. Leaving the Iraqis to handle the cities...they *can't* handle the cities, not now and probably not for years to come.
He discusses international engagement options and asserts that our allies and our current adversaries int eh area must be convicned to join in th struggle, saying
But why will other nations give up their interesst in establishing hegemony or at least influence over Iraq only so that we can do so instead? Does he truly not see the contradiction inherent in going to Iran or Syria and saying "Look, Iraq needs to work the way we think it should, so let's you drop your attempts to win allies and rewards friends in the Iraqi political and militia system and instead we will all concentrate on helping *our* allies restore order."
To me, it seems pretty clear: if we are going to stay (and I agree with Uncle Henry that the consequences of our simply leaving at this point would be dire, though we may have to face them if we can't find another solution), we will have to pick sides. We are hoist by our own petard, and it's pretty much exploded too. We insisted on elections to form a democratic government. We got them. We may not like the government (or specifically some of its bedfellows), but we can either support it or we might as well leave. Simply watching it collapse while we do nothing is the worst option of all--and that's what we're doing right now.
Kissinger says that US withdrawal from Iraq is not an option, citing what a cynical observer might suggest he call the 'domino effect', and then says:
Of the current security threats in Iraq — the intervention of outside countries, the presence of Qaeda fighters, an extraordinarily large criminal element, the sectarian conflict — the United States has a national interest in defeating the first two; it must not involve itself in the sectarian conflict for any extended period, much less let itself be used by one side for its own sectarian goals.
The sectarian conflict confines the Iraqi government's unchallenged writ to the sector of Baghdad defined as the Green Zone protected by American forces. In many areas the militias exceed the strength of the Iraqi national army.
If the influence of the militias can be eliminated — or greatly reduced — the Baghdad government would have a better opportunity to pursue a national policy.
Side by side with disarming the Sunni militias and death squads, the Baghdad government must show comparable willingness to disarm Shia militias and death squads. American policy should not deviate from the goal of a civil state, whose political process is available to all citizens.
Does he even understand the paradox he has stated? The Iraqi government is not strong enough to subdue the warring militias. The United States cannot afford to get involved in the internecine conflict if it wants to avoid being dragged to one side or the other. But unless and until the civil war (even Kissinger admits it is that) is halted, there can be no prospect for stability.
He goes on to say
As the comprehensive strategy evolves, a repositioning of American forces from the cities into enclaves should be undertaken so that they can separate themselves from the civil war and concentrate on the threats described above.
We've being doing that already, and it does no good. Leaving the Iraqis to handle the cities...they *can't* handle the cities, not now and probably not for years to come.
He discusses international engagement options and asserts that our allies and our current adversaries int eh area must be convicned to join in th struggle, saying
At some point, Iraq has to be restored to the international community, and other countries must be prepared to share responsibilities for regional peace.
But why will other nations give up their interesst in establishing hegemony or at least influence over Iraq only so that we can do so instead? Does he truly not see the contradiction inherent in going to Iran or Syria and saying "Look, Iraq needs to work the way we think it should, so let's you drop your attempts to win allies and rewards friends in the Iraqi political and militia system and instead we will all concentrate on helping *our* allies restore order."
To me, it seems pretty clear: if we are going to stay (and I agree with Uncle Henry that the consequences of our simply leaving at this point would be dire, though we may have to face them if we can't find another solution), we will have to pick sides. We are hoist by our own petard, and it's pretty much exploded too. We insisted on elections to form a democratic government. We got them. We may not like the government (or specifically some of its bedfellows), but we can either support it or we might as well leave. Simply watching it collapse while we do nothing is the worst option of all--and that's what we're doing right now.