A super solution for Iraq (hear that, Congress?)
January 26th, 2007 by Wil Robinson
America has long claimed to be a “shining city on a hill,” a righteous nation that has been called to spread freedom throughout the world. Critics claim that this ideology can create an agenda that is impossible to live up to, and that such ideologies belong in the minds of superheroes in comic books.
High ideals are possible, but they cannot be implemented in the current atmosphere of lies, misinformation and distortions surrounding the Iraq War. However, that doesn’t mean that withdrawing troops is the only alternative. Below are not only reasons why the US should continue in Iraq, but viable solutions as well:
Withdrawal is not an answer - at least not now - and here’s why:
The excuse that “this isn’t the war we thought we’d be in” or “isn’t the war we voted for,” as made by both American voters and some members of Congress, is unacceptable. War is chaos. War is unpredictable. And above all, war is costly.
Anyone who thought otherwise has ignored the lessons of history. Americans, largely united in their feverish quest for revenge, effectively approved of an invasion and any ensuing scenarios. Claims of being misled by manipulations and lies cannot substitute for a free pass out of the hell that Iraq has become.
The chance to question the reasons for invasion has long passed, and most Americans spent that time buying what the corporate media was selling them. In addition, an overwhelming majority in Congress, failing in their constitutional duties to maintain a check on the other branches of government, surrendered their power when they gave President Bush authority to invade.
Bush and his cabal of Neo-cons may not have to face the true cost of their actions, but the American public is smarter and more mature than that. America knows - even if Bush does not - that taking ownership of your actions and consequences is part of life.
Withdrawal would mean hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - largely innocent civilians - will be murdered. Thousands more so-called terrorists will seek to avenge their plight that has been directly caused by an ill-advised American occupation.
A precipitous withdrawal would show the world something, but not that “America is weak” as the Neo-cons claim. A withdrawal would simply add more evidence to the assumption that America cares little for life that isn’t Caucasian, Christian/Jew, and rich.
Brown, Muslim or poor need not apply. (See Rwanda, 1994…)
This has nothing to do with America “losing.”
I don’t feel the need to maintain a macho image like the Neo-con hawks and could care less about a predefined term like “victory.” This is about the value of human life and reaping what you sow.
But rather than follow blindly along with the same president who lied to America, a real solution needs several key actions to succeed:
Bush and anyone in the administration whose fingerprints are on the invasion are impeached or removed from office.
Bush has lost all credibility with the American people. The backlash against the troop “surge” is largely a protest against trusting the same liars again. Any forward movement in Iraq requires new leadership, and with it, new credibility.
Establish an interim multi-partisan (not just Republican and Democrat) executive branch of government to assume power until 2008.
Using the current line of ascension, this would mean Nancy Pelosi as president, but allowing her to appoint her own cabinet - even with Congressional approval - would simply allow more of the partisan politics that have ruined American democracy over the last six years.
Instead, all cabinet members and high level positions are directly appointed by a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate.
This would prevent any one person from trying to push through advisors or cabinet members with a predetermined agenda, and allow for a more representative government as various positions would be held by liberal, conservative, etc.
Congress and the new interim executive branch immediately issue a public statement to the world through the United Nations assuming full responsibility for the invasion of Iraq and resolve to find a solution that is in the best interests of Iraq.
A regional conference on the future of Iraq would have to be organized, and Iraqis themselves should be well-represented. This means bringing in those people that average Iraqis support - even those that have previously been deemed the enemy by Coalition Forces. (i.e., Moqtadr al-Sadr, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, former Baath party members, etc. It would include neighboring countries such as Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
Virtually in parallel to a regional conference, there is a new push for a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
If America is really going to push for democracy in the Middle East, then it must accept what that democracy might look like. Hamas, as well as any other democratically elected government, must be recognized and treated as such, regardless of any prior allegations of “terrorism.” A renewed effort in this conflict would further demonstrate America’s new resolve to truly heal the wounds of decades of interference.
The US immediately and dramatically increases its troop presence in Iraq to provide security for average Iraqis.
This does not mean a “door to door” rooting out of insurgents that do little to win hearts and minds, but simply more boots on the ground patrolling neighborhoods as an effective police force, assuring the rule of law is followed.
Simultaneously with the regional conference, the US undertakes a massive diplomatic mission to other countries looking for additional troops. Regional neighbors would serve best, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and others.
Will this mean more US soldiers sacrificing their lives, a higher cost to US taxpayers, and a longer presence in Iraq?
Yes. But that is the cost of war.
In the long term, the US pledges to demilitarize the Gulf Region, and in its place leaves a regional security alliance similar to NATO.
The regional conference could act as a first step towards organizing such a coalition. Removing the US presence in the Gulf would also remove an obstacle to peace and one of the major reasons so-called terrorists perpetrate acts of violence against America. Foreign occupation and interference in sovereign countries - which includes supporting authoritarian regimes whose leaders are deemed “moderate” by the West - create conditions for violent resistance.
These steps would not happen fast, and no doubt the US would be looking at a continued presence in Iraq for a minimum of five more years. But when you go along with power-hungry demagogues on their imperial quest for a plutocratic world empire, this is what you get.
Which leads me to my last point.
The American public wakes up. Political education - not propaganda - becomes a part of every Americans’ public schooling.
A democracy in a country as powerful as America requires an informed public. If the people are truly going to hold power, as well as the ability to wield it in such ways that include control over the deadliest military mankind has ever known, the public must see beyond shopping malls and TV commercials.
If you live in a small country with little global reach, democracy doesn’t require as much, because you don’t hold the fate of the world in your hands. Americans do have such power, and they need to know how, when and where to use it in the best interests of all of humanity.
Without such a change, we may find ourselves in another situation similar to Iraq in the near future…(perhaps in Iran?)
A quest to be the “shining city on the hill,” one that can hold the candle of liberty and democracy for the world to follow, may seem like the dream of comic books heroes.
“In this world, with great power there must also come - great responsibility.”
Tags: War of Misinformation, War of Misinformation, impeachment, Bush, terrorism
Very interesting. So this is a way of getting Nancy in ahead of the Lizard Queen as America’s first woman Pres. Like the idea. I followed your line of thinking on Bush and it’s a possibility to go this way.
As to your question, Will, I am going to answer in a little detail at the end of this week, if you’ll give me some more time.
By the way, you’re the mystery blogger tomorrow in the Blogfocus. I’m here gathering data now.
interesting, but constitutionally complex, and I don’t think the populace or their reps would agree to the costs. We might as well adopt all the Iraqi people; it would be cheaper. Sometimes mistakes are just big mistakes, ugly, and they don’t get any better, only worse, now matter how much we would like or try otherwise. The only solution/road back is to start practicing and preaching peace.
Wally–
“Constitutionally complex?” What part of the Patriot Act isn’t “constitutionally complex?” What part of the NSA spying program isn’t complex? What has any politician done in the last six years that is anything but complex? Why not change the constitution for the better rather than tear it down?
As for the “costs…” I believe Bush today asked for another $250 billion dollars for Iraq & Afghanistan, for a total of $750 billion. Doesn’t seem like we’re saving money now, anyway.