Step one is recognize the depth and breadth of the mistake.
So, if I'm not mistaken, your "plan" (and probably Kerry's as well) is to recommend a study, possibly a congressional commission, and why not get the UN involved, so as to debate the issue..
More debates.. more discussions.. more talk... maybe even years and thousands of man-hours dedicated to trying to figure out what to do with the current situation..
You haven't even provided any recommendations for an alternative plan of action in Iraq, outside of setting up debating societies..
Why not just come out and admit that you don't have a plan, GST?
Step four is to decide where our interests lie in terms of civil war. We can take sides or choose not to take sides.
Who the hell do you think you are? We're now going to "play politics" with the lives of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of potential victims who would lose their lives in such a civil war? Playing God must feel good, eh??
The US interest (as well as that of the World, not to forget, your average Iraqi) is to prevent a civil war and establish a government where all the parties believe their interests are fairly represented WITHOUT RESORTING TO VIOLENCE..
And should civil war break out in Iraq, it had better be in the US interest to use coercive force against ALL parties who opt to resort to violence to advance their agendas.
If we take sides we might be able to stop civil war before it really gets going,
If there's ANY lesson we should have drawn from our involvement in Lebanon, it was that the minute the US is credibly perceived as "taking sides", except as an advocate for an inclusive and representative government, we're in deep trouble..
We should be there as a referee, through coercive means when necessary, with the only aim being assisting the Iraqis in sorting out their differences and arriving at compromise.
Hawk |
