The war against Iraq was not per se wrong-
I have no definitive ideas about how we should have proceeded, but I've given it a little thought. Say you buy the idea that politically the Middle East is "broke". It's "failed states" churn out disaffected youths, that without hope, accept martyrdom. Depending on your proclivities, you could go farther and say that until there’s some sort of reformation (similar to the Christian Reformation), Muslims will have a problem with modernity.
One of the best ways of teaching is by example. So you want to create a successful model. Given Iraq’s geopolitical significance, and it being a continuing “festering sore”, Iraq isn’t a bad place to start. So, what’s different from the neo-con approach? First, no hegemony; second, Iraq shouldn’t be viewed as a MIC (Military Industrial Complex) full employment mission and third, “no rush” to war.
Instead, after careful preparation (Internationally and domestically), and having developed a well thought out plan, with many if-then contingencies covered, proceed slowly. First establish a Shi’ite enclave in the southern no-fly zone, similar to the northern Kurdish enclave. With Saddam still in Baghdad, you have “leverage” on the populace that just doesn’t exist now. Careful use of this leverage in both the Shi’ite and Kurdish enclaves gives hope to be able guide the development of a difficult transition. Considerable communication and cross fertilization of ideas between the two enclaves would be encouraged. You want to build a cooperative political experience between the Shi’ites and the Kurds. Only when you have your “ducks in a row” do you proceed to Baghdad.
‘Course this was never contemplated, because it doesn’t lead to Hegemony. It could lead to safer world., but that’s
JMO
lurqer |
