Reply #143: I think I do. [View All]

[Sparkly]

You ask good questions.

You wrote: "Which certainly seems to imply that the troops would not be redeployed except as a result of some unspecified promises by 'the factions'."

As I just posted above, it doesn't preclude other reasons for redeployment but it DOES put it on the table as strategic leverage toward peace. If there's a territorial battle going on and both sides agree to disarm on the condition that the US leaves, then troops are pulled from that area, and redeployed. If there's another battle going on, say between sects or rival families or economic foes or whatever, and the side with the lesser arsenal or money refuses to compromise unless their families' safety is assured, then we promise to *deploy* there to enforce the agreement.

(And at this point, it's VERY complicated -- I don't think our troops know who's fighting who or why much of the time, they're basically just left to try to quell violence with more violence.)

You wrote: "And what if those promises are not forthcoming? What then? Do our troops just stay indefinitely? Clark doesn't say, at least not in this op-ed."

Here's another question: Will this "end" as a result of dialogue, so that the most vulnerable people in Iraq are protected?

Will this "end" as a result of violence, so that whichever sects, factions, warlords have the deadliest weapons prevail?

Will this even "end" at all, in Iraq, or will it spread to other countries, with Turkey 'cleansing' Kurds, Iran fighting Sunnis, Syria getting more involved, and yet more countries jumping in? (And there is no comparison with Vietnam in this regard.)

Will the "end" come as a result of dialogue, or violence? Do we as a nation have ANY responsibility for the answer to that question???

If "promises are not forthcoming," keep negotiating. Give all sides an ear, some stake, something to take and something to give. Use one consensus to build others; persuade by 'carrots and sticks' that agreement is better than disagreement; TALK and LISTEN and LISTEN and TALK.

YES, our military is a "stick." And basically, that's all it is -- it's not a diplomatic entity, a political force, an economic power, a legal agency, etc. Used well, it's the "big stick" that goes with "walk softly;" it can hold ground, temporarily, while political deals are worked out; and, it can pave paths for humanitarian aid, enable arrests, and beat back genocidal forces. That's NOT, however, what's going on in Iraq right now.

The real question at the moment is what BushCo will/won't, can/can't do; and related to that is the question of what our new Democratic majority will/won't, can/can't do. BushCo is not only incompetent, they've also squandered every ounce of US credibility worldwide. So the options are few, and the outlook is poor. Someone like General Clark has the ability to carry forward diplomacy, dialogue, and peace-keeping that utilizes our military in the RIGHT ways.

Have to run, will check back later.